hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
United States (United States) 1,628 0 Browse Search
Centreville (Virginia, United States) 530 0 Browse Search
Doc 458 0 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 427 7 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 406 0 Browse Search
Bull Run, Va. (Virginia, United States) 347 1 Browse Search
Irwin McDowell 314 2 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 272 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 258 0 Browse Search
Daniel Tyler 252 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 2. (ed. Frank Moore). Search the whole document.

Found 167 total hits in 47 results.

1 2 3 4 5
Bingham (Mich.) (Michigan, United States) (search for this): chapter 103
ood in the way it must be abolished. Mr. Dixon had the secretary read what he did say on the subject, as published. Mr. Breckinridge said it appeared to him that the most violent Republicans had possession of the Government, and referred to the bill introduced by Mr. Pomeroy to suppress the slave-holder rebellion, and which also contained a provision for the abolition of slavery. He contended that the very title was enough to show that the Constitution was to be put aside. Mr. Bingham (Mich.) asked if he contended this was not a slaveholders' rebellion. Mr. Breckinridge--I do, sir; I do. He then referred to the refusal of last session to make any compromise, though the Southern leaders said they would be satisfied with the Crittenden Compromise. But all efforts were refused, and now any offers of peace are ruled out of order in one House, and it is vain and idle to argue for it. He wanted to let the country know that Congress deliberately refused the last effort to avert
St. Louis (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 103
and as of course. We are rushing, sir, and with rapid strides, from a Constitutional Government into a military despotism. The Constitution says the freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged, yet, three days ago, in the city of St. Louis, a military officer with four hundred soldiers — that was his warrant — went into a newspaper office in that city, removed the types, and declared that the paper should be no longer published, and gave, among other reasons, that it was fabricatss the freedom of the press? And we are told by the same despatch that the proprietors of the paper submitted, and intended to make an appeal. To whom? To the judicial authorities? No, sir, but to Major-General Fremont, when he should reach St. Louis. The civil authorities of the country are paralyzed, and practical martial law is being established all over the land. The like never happened in this country before, and it would not be tolerated in any country in Europe which pretends to th
Niagara County (New York, United States) (search for this): chapter 103
the United States, and I have always revered that instrument as one of the wisest of human works, but now it is put aside by the Executive of the United States, and those acts are about to be approved by the Senate, and I see proceedings inaugurated which, in my opinion, will lead to the utter subversion of the Constitution and public liberty. It is vain to oppose it. I am aware that, in the present temper of Congress, one might as well oppose his uplifted hand to the descending waters of Niagara as to risk an appeal against these contemplated proceedings. The few of us left can only look with sadness on the melancholy drama being enacted before us. We can only hope that this flash of frenzy may not assume the form of chronic madness, but that Divine Providence may preserve for us and for posterity, out of the wreck of a broken Union, the priceless principles of constitutional liberty and self-government. Mr. Lane (Ind.) said he wanted to know if the President had not saved the
Baltimore, Md. (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 103
the worst signs of the times is the manner in which that opinion has been received. A subordinate military officer in Baltimore arrests a private citizen and confines him in a fortress. His friends get a writ of habeas corpus, but it cannot be exIndividuals are seized without legal warrant, and imprisoned. The other day, since Congress met, a military officer in Baltimore was appointed a marshal of that city. Will any man defend the act? Does it not override all other law? Is it not submilitary commander for the laws of the land? What more authority has this officer to appoint a marshal for the city of Baltimore than he had to appoint a pastor for one of their congregations, or a president for one of their banks? The Constitutio treason from old Virginia. The President had suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and he only regretted the corpus of Baltimore treason had not been suspended at the same time. Suppose the Senator from Kentucky had been elected President, would h
Vicksburg (Mississippi, United States) (search for this): chapter 103
for raising the largest army ever assembled on the American continent, and for collecting the largest fleet ever collected in an American harbor? Congress may deem it was necessary in contemplation of a protracted struggle for the preservation of the Constitution and the Union. What I mean to say is, that there was none of that overruling necessity for present preservation which may apply to usurpations of the Constitution. In the case of the man in Maryland who was confined so long in Fort McHenry, was there any necessity of confining him, instead of turning him over to the civil authorities? The chief charge was, that weeks before he had been concerned in treasonable acts. Was not the judicial authority there to take charge of him, and, if convicted, to punish him? If there was a necessity in the present state of affairs, and Congress in session here, then what a long necessity we have before us and impending over us. Let Congress approve and ratify these acts, and there may oc
Connecticut (Connecticut, United States) (search for this): chapter 103
be governed as territories. He did say so then, and believed so now, and thought the events of the next six months would show that it would be better if the senator believed it too. Mr. Breckinridge said the answer of the senator proved what he said, and contended that it was evident that the Constitution was to be put aside. It was utterly subversive of the Constitution and of public liberty to clothe any one with dictatorial powers. He then referred to the speech of Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, who said, in substance, that if African slavery stood in the way it must be abolished. Mr. Dixon had the secretary read what he did say on the subject, as published. Mr. Breckinridge said it appeared to him that the most violent Republicans had possession of the Government, and referred to the bill introduced by Mr. Pomeroy to suppress the slave-holder rebellion, and which also contained a provision for the abolition of slavery. He contended that the very title was enough to show
Breckenridge (Kentucky, United States) (search for this): chapter 103
Doc. 94.-speech of J. C. Breckinridge, in the United States Senate, July 16, 1861. Mr. Breckinridge (Ky.) proceeded to speak at length in opposition to the resolution. He said, under ordinary circumstances he might content himself simply with a vote, but now he thought it required to give expression to his views. It was proposed, by resolution, to declare the acts of the President approved. The resolution, on its face, seems to admit that the acts of the President were not performed in accordance with the Constitution and laws. If that were the case, then he would be glad to have some reason assigned, showing the power of Congress to indemnify the President for a breach of the Constitution. He denied that one branch of the Government can indemnify public officers in another branch for violation of the Constitution and laws. The powers conferred on the Government by the people of the States are the measures of its authority. These powers are confided in different departme
Africa (search for this): chapter 103
then, and believed so now, and thought the events of the next six months would show that it would be better if the senator believed it too. Mr. Breckinridge said the answer of the senator proved what he said, and contended that it was evident that the Constitution was to be put aside. It was utterly subversive of the Constitution and of public liberty to clothe any one with dictatorial powers. He then referred to the speech of Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, who said, in substance, that if African slavery stood in the way it must be abolished. Mr. Dixon had the secretary read what he did say on the subject, as published. Mr. Breckinridge said it appeared to him that the most violent Republicans had possession of the Government, and referred to the bill introduced by Mr. Pomeroy to suppress the slave-holder rebellion, and which also contained a provision for the abolition of slavery. He contended that the very title was enough to show that the Constitution was to be put aside.
Illinois (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 103
Congress refused to confer authority, and by what authority did the President do it after they refused? The Constitution declares that Congress alone has power to declare war, yet the President has made war. In the last session the Senator from Illinois (Douglas) delivered a speech, on the 15th of March, which he would read. He then read an extract of Mr. Douglas's speech, declaring that the President had no right to make a blockade at New Orleans or Charleston more than at Chicago. He also rulations, and the Senator declared that, unless the people of these States were willing to obey the Federal Government, they must be reduced to the condition of territories, and, he added, he would govern them by governors from Massachusetts and Illinois. This was said seriously, and afterwards repeated. Mr. Baker (Or.) explained. He said he was delivering a speech against giving too much power to the President, and was keeping his usual constitutional, guarded position against an increase
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 103
nt of judicial authority. Has not the President of the United States, by one broad, sweeping act, laid his hands upon the prasons, that it was fabricating reports injurious to the United States soldiers in Missouri. Is there a Senator here, a citizhe Revolution without martial law. The President of the United States could not conduct the Government three months without roctrine of necessity. I deny that the President of the United States may violate the Constitution upon the ground of necessi man for a written Constitution. The Government of the United States, which draws its life from the Constitution, does not r will, it will be an invitation to the President of the United States, in the absence of all legislation, to do the acts when so far as we can, in the hands of the President of the United States, the power of a dictator. With such a beginning as thi works, but now it is put aside by the Executive of the United States, and those acts are about to be approved by the Senate,
1 2 3 4 5