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 153 total hits in 30 results.

1 2 3
Rhode Island (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): chapter 62
is that of Luther and Borden, in 7 Howard, 1. In 1842 a controversy arose in Rhode Island between the existing charter Government and one alleged by its supporters tornment, and it would be the duty of Congress to overthrow it. But the law of Rhode Island evidently contemplated no such government. It was intended merely for the cdetermine what degree of force the crisis demands. And if the government of Rhode Island deemed the armed opposition so formidable, and so ramified throughout the Strom the one before us. An effort was there made to destroy the government of Rhode Island by means of an armed rebellion. It was deemed by the State to be so formidaand is as necessary to the States of this Union as to any other Government. Rhode Island was then in a state of war, and the established government resorted to the rat in that instance martial law was declared by the legislative authority of Rhode Island and not by its Executive. The reason for this was that such declaration was
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 62
o maintain the rebellion. The laws of the United States were forcibly resisted; their officers, ei same end the land and naval forces of the United States. Of his duty to see to the execution of tbeen called into the actual service of the United States, and, by the very words of the Constitutioill take to cause the civil process of the United States to be respected and enforced. In this opiut such authority no court or judge of the United States could issue it; and because of this, Congrprince, or foreign State. Officers of the United States are a part of the Executive department, aneither of such cases over the whole of the United States would be useless, and to the extent that iexecute the laws, the interposition of the United States must be prompt, or it is of little value. ower shall be vested in a President of the United States. The enumeration ought, therefore, to be , then, is that the executive power of the United States is vested in the President; subject only t[18 more...]
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 62
cognized by that of the United States. In this treasonable effort it was believed that there were misguided citizens in Maryland and elsewhere, whose States were yet loyal, who participated in the treason, aided it secretly, and designed to involve lion, that are expressly or impliedly delegated to the President by Congress. Believing that instances might occur in Maryland or elsewhere where the purpose might be endangered if the civil proceeding by habeas corpus was suffered uninterruptedly be stated in a notice. Under this authority, delegated to Gen. Cadwalader, a case occurred — that of John Merryman, of Maryland--in which that officer refused to obey such a writ issued by the Chief-Justice of the United States. That high officer r defeat the success of the war? May it not be used to further, in case of rebellion, the triumph of the rebellion? In Maryland, for instance, where it is believed disaffection to the Government to a certain extent prevails, and sympathy for the re
John Merryman (search for this): chapter 62
tion of the writ was deemed necessary, but merely in certain cases of which the officer in command was, in the first instance, necessarily to judge, no notice was given that the writ would be suspended. Such a notice would have been out of place where the design was to suspend it in particular cases only, whose special circumstances could not in advance be known, and of course could not be stated in a notice. Under this authority, delegated to Gen. Cadwalader, a case occurred — that of John Merryman, of Maryland--in which that officer refused to obey such a writ issued by the Chief-Justice of the United States. That high officer has since filed his opinion, and has, it is said, caused a copy of the same, with all the proceedings, to be transmitted to the President, with whom, to use the words of the Chief-Justice, it will remain, in fulfilment of his constitutional obligations, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to determine what means he will take to cause the civi
Alexander Hamilton (search for this): chapter 62
t by force of the terms, the executive power shall be vested in a President. This rule was long since laid down by Alexander Hamilton, one of the chief founders of the Constitution, and one of the ablest of its defenders whilst it was under the consd by General Washington in April, 1793, was bitterly assailed at the time as being beyond his constitutional authority. Hamilton, in a series of letters under the signature of Pacificus, defended it, and in the first of the series laid down the rules of others under the signature of Helvidius; and although he contested almost every other constitutional proposition of Hamilton, he nowhere called into doubt the correctness of his rule of construction. His silence under the circumstances must, thn its nature an executive one. That it is, has been, it is believed, satisfactorily shown; and under the rule stated by Hamilton, impliedly sanctioned by Madison, and expressly adopted by Jackson, it is in the President by force of the general deleg
Wheat (search for this): chapter 62
he United States. Of his duty to see to the execution of the laws he could have had no doubt, as that is in words imposed by the Constitution itself. Nor could he have had any doubt of his authority and obligation to resort for that purpose to the powers conferred on him by the laws referred to. The meaning of these laws is free from all question, and the constitutionality of the first was long since sanctioned by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Martin and Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, whilst the validity of the last was never drawn into doubt. In that case it was also decided that the President was the sole judge of the facts which would authorize his use of the means provided by these laws, and that his decision was conclusive not only upon the citizens, but upon every branch of the Government, whether Federal or State. In the language of the Court, the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision
Madison (search for this): chapter 62
neral doctrine of our Constitution, then, is that the executive power of the United States is vested in the President; subject only to the exceptions and qualifications which are expressed in the instrument. These letters were replied to by Mr. Madison, with the ability which ever characterized him, in a series of others under the signature of Helvidius; and although he contested almost every other constitutional proposition of Hamilton, he nowhere called into doubt the correctness of his ru the only question in the case is, whether the power which the President is exercising is in its nature an executive one. That it is, has been, it is believed, satisfactorily shown; and under the rule stated by Hamilton, impliedly sanctioned by Madison, and expressly adopted by Jackson, it is in the President by force of the general delegation to him of the Executive power. Upon the whole, then, the President, it is thought, has had no doubt, and is believed not now to entertain any, as to
Helvidius (search for this): chapter 62
e general grant of that power, interpreted in conformity with other parts of the Constitution, and with the principles of free government. The general doctrine of our Constitution, then, is that the executive power of the United States is vested in the President; subject only to the exceptions and qualifications which are expressed in the instrument. These letters were replied to by Mr. Madison, with the ability which ever characterized him, in a series of others under the signature of Helvidius; and although he contested almost every other constitutional proposition of Hamilton, he nowhere called into doubt the correctness of his rule of construction. His silence under the circumstances must, therefore, be assumed as his assent to the rule; and the rule, therefore, stands on the highest authority we can have — that of the two ablest and purest statesmen the country has ever possessed, and who were especially conspicuous in giving us the Constitution which, uniting us as one peop
Borden (search for this): chapter 62
to secure a personal right, whilst the other guarantees embrace not only that right, but nearly all others of person and property. But the doctrine acted upon by the President does not rest alone on general reasoning. It has been fully recognized in a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which it was directly presented, and in the very clearest terms maintained by the present Chief Justice himself, who pronounced the opinion. The case referred to is that of Luther and Borden, in 7 Howard, 1. In 1842 a controversy arose in Rhode Island between the existing charter Government and one alleged by its supporters to have been legally substituted in its place. This last, through its professed Governor, Thomas W. Dorr, prepared to support itself by force of arms, and many citizens assembled in arms for the purpose. The charter Government thereupon passed an act declaring the State under martial law, and at the same time proceeded to call out the militia to repel the t
Charles Howard (search for this): chapter 62
y the present Chief Justice himself, who pronounced the opinion. The case referred to is that of Luther and Borden, in 7 Howard, 1. In 1842 a controversy arose in Rhode Island between the existing charter Government and one alleged by its supporterssposed of as that authority shall determine. It is evident that no such idea was entertained by the Court in the case in Howard. What was done by the defendants there as officers under the military authority of the State, was not submitted at all tbused, is not more true of this than of any other power. That was urged as an objection against the power in the case in Howard, and met in the patriotic spirit which illustrates the whole of the Court's opinion. The following is their language in ecially when, as in this instance, he seems to have departed from or forgotten the doctrines he maintained in the case in Howard. If with the opinion the President now is supposed to hold, to use in part the words of President Jackson, in the. pro
1 2 3