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) 150 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 92 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 44 0 Browse Search
France (France) 30 0 Browse Search
Louisiana (Louisiana, United States) 26 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 25 3 Browse Search
Europe 22 0 Browse Search
America (Netherlands) 22 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 22 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 22 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Rebellion Record: Introduction., Volume 1. (ed. Frank Moore). Search the whole document.

Found 50 total hits in 19 results.

1 2
Baltimore, Md. (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 2
now to have the question come before it, whether the laws of the United States are still binding upon their citizens, I think they would have to put their denial upon the naked doctrine of revolution; and that they could not hold that, as matter of law and regular political action, their ratification deed of May 23d, 1788, is repealed by their late ordinance. Most truly and respectfully yours, Geo. T. Cubtis. Mr. Everett. Appendix B, p. 22. Hon. Reverdy Johnson to Mr. Everett. Baltimore, 24th June, 1861. my dear Mr. Everett . I have your note of the 18th, and cheerfully authorize you to use my name, as you suggest. The letter I read in the speech which I made in Frederick, should be conclusive evidence that, at its date, Mr. Calhoun denied the right of secession, as a constitutional right, either express or implied. But, in addition to this, I had frequent opportunities of knowing that this was his opinion. It was my good fortune to be a member of the Senate of
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 2
people have been very much accustomed to treat political grants, made by the sovereign power without reservation, as irrevocable conveyances and executed contracts; and although they hold to the right of revolution, they have not yet found out how a deed, absolute on its face, is to be treated in point of law, as a repealable instrument, because it deals with political rights and duties. If any court in South Carolina were now to have the question come before it, whether the laws of the United States are still binding upon their citizens, I think they would have to put their denial upon the naked doctrine of revolution; and that they could not hold that, as matter of law and regular political action, their ratification deed of May 23d, 1788, is repealed by their late ordinance. Most truly and respectfully yours, Geo. T. Cubtis. Mr. Everett. Appendix B, p. 22. Hon. Reverdy Johnson to Mr. Everett. Baltimore, 24th June, 1861. my dear Mr. Everett . I have your note of the
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 2
ssibility, at the present day, of repealing the instrument by which in 1788 South Carolina gave her consent and ratification to the Constitution of the United States,me home, I have looked carefully at the ratification of the Constitution by South Carolina. The formal instrument, sent to Congress, seems to be much more in the natr duly authorized representatives. The question submitted to the People of South Carolina, by the Congress, was, Whether they would cede the powers of government embse Powers. When, therefore, the duly authorized Delegates of the People of South Carolina executed an instrument under seal, declaring that they, in the name and behtrument entitled, An Act [or Ordinance] for the government of the People of South Carolina, and had gone on, in the body of the instrument, to declare that the Powersrument, because it deals with political rights and duties. If any court in South Carolina were now to have the question come before it, whether the laws of the Unite
Jamaica Plain (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 2
arks in the foregoing address, p. 9, were written, touching the impossibility, at the present day, of repealing the instrument by which in 1788 South Carolina gave her consent and ratification to the Constitution of the United States, I sought the opinion on that point of Mr. George Ticknor Curtis, the learned and accurate historian of the Constitution. It afforded me great pleasure to find, from the following letter, that my view of the subject is sustained by his high authority: Jamaica Plains, Saturday Evening, June 8, 1861. my dear Sir: Since I came home, I have looked carefully at the ratification of the Constitution by South Carolina. The formal instrument, sent to Congress, seems to be much more in the nature of a Deed or Grant, than of an Ordinance. An ordinance would seem to be an instrument adopted by a public body, for the regulation of a subject that in its nature remains under the regulation of that body;--to operate until otherwise ordered. A Deed, or Grant, o
Frederick, Md. (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 2
tion; and that they could not hold that, as matter of law and regular political action, their ratification deed of May 23d, 1788, is repealed by their late ordinance. Most truly and respectfully yours, Geo. T. Cubtis. Mr. Everett. Appendix B, p. 22. Hon. Reverdy Johnson to Mr. Everett. Baltimore, 24th June, 1861. my dear Mr. Everett . I have your note of the 18th, and cheerfully authorize you to use my name, as you suggest. The letter I read in the speech which I made in Frederick, should be conclusive evidence that, at its date, Mr. Calhoun denied the right of secession, as a constitutional right, either express or implied. But, in addition to this, I had frequent opportunities of knowing that this was his opinion. It was my good fortune to be a member of the Senate of the United States, whilst he was one of its greatest ornaments, for four years, from 1845, until I became a member of Gen. Taylor's administration, and during two sessions (I think 1846 and 1847)
Calhoun (search for this): chapter 2
24th June, 1861. my dear Mr. Everett . I have your note of the 18th, and cheerfully authorize you to use my name, as you suggest. The letter I read in the speech which I made in Frederick, should be conclusive evidence that, at its date, Mr. Calhoun denied the right of secession, as a constitutional right, either express or implied. But, in addition to this, I had frequent opportunities of knowing that this was his opinion. It was my good fortune to be a member of the Senate of the Unduced, seemingly without knowing it, in his later life, to surrender to section what was intended for the whole, his great powers of analysis and his extraordinary talent for public service. If such a heresy, therefore, as constitutional secession could rest on any individual name, if any mere human authority could support such an absurd and destructive folly, it cannot be said to rest on that of Mr. Calhoun. With sincere regard, your friend, Reverdy Johnson. Hon. Edward Everett, Boston.
George T. Cubtis (search for this): chapter 2
ment, because it deals with political rights and duties. If any court in South Carolina were now to have the question come before it, whether the laws of the United States are still binding upon their citizens, I think they would have to put their denial upon the naked doctrine of revolution; and that they could not hold that, as matter of law and regular political action, their ratification deed of May 23d, 1788, is repealed by their late ordinance. Most truly and respectfully yours, Geo. T. Cubtis. Mr. Everett. Appendix B, p. 22. Hon. Reverdy Johnson to Mr. Everett. Baltimore, 24th June, 1861. my dear Mr. Everett . I have your note of the 18th, and cheerfully authorize you to use my name, as you suggest. The letter I read in the speech which I made in Frederick, should be conclusive evidence that, at its date, Mr. Calhoun denied the right of secession, as a constitutional right, either express or implied. But, in addition to this, I had frequent opportunities
Bayard Taylor (search for this): chapter 2
as you suggest. The letter I read in the speech which I made in Frederick, should be conclusive evidence that, at its date, Mr. Calhoun denied the right of secession, as a constitutional right, either express or implied. But, in addition to this, I had frequent opportunities of knowing that this was his opinion. It was my good fortune to be a member of the Senate of the United States, whilst he was one of its greatest ornaments, for four years, from 1845, until I became a member of Gen. Taylor's administration, and during two sessions (I think 1846 and 1847) I lived in the same house with him. He did me the honor to give me much of his confidence, and frequently his nullification doctrine was the subject of conversation. Time and time again have I heard him, and with ever increased surprise at his wonderful acuteness, defend it on Constitutional grounds, and distinguish it, in that respect, from the doctrine of Secession. This last he never, with me, placed on any other groun
Reverdy Johnson (search for this): chapter 2
y could not hold that, as matter of law and regular political action, their ratification deed of May 23d, 1788, is repealed by their late ordinance. Most truly and respectfully yours, Geo. T. Cubtis. Mr. Everett. Appendix B, p. 22. Hon. Reverdy Johnson to Mr. Everett. Baltimore, 24th June, 1861. my dear Mr. Everett . I have your note of the 18th, and cheerfully authorize you to use my name, as you suggest. The letter I read in the speech which I made in Frederick, should be conduced, seemingly without knowing it, in his later life, to surrender to section what was intended for the whole, his great powers of analysis and his extraordinary talent for public service. If such a heresy, therefore, as constitutional secession could rest on any individual name, if any mere human authority could support such an absurd and destructive folly, it cannot be said to rest on that of Mr. Calhoun. With sincere regard, your friend, Reverdy Johnson. Hon. Edward Everett, Boston.
Edward Everett (search for this): chapter 2
ation deed of May 23d, 1788, is repealed by their late ordinance. Most truly and respectfully yours, Geo. T. Cubtis. Mr. Everett. Appendix B, p. 22. Hon. Reverdy Johnson to Mr. Everett. Baltimore, 24th June, 1861. my dear Mr. Everett . Mr. Everett. Baltimore, 24th June, 1861. my dear Mr. Everett . I have your note of the 18th, and cheerfully authorize you to use my name, as you suggest. The letter I read in the speech which I made in Frederick, should be conclusive evidence that, at its date, Mr. Calhoun denied the right of secession, aMr. Everett . I have your note of the 18th, and cheerfully authorize you to use my name, as you suggest. The letter I read in the speech which I made in Frederick, should be conclusive evidence that, at its date, Mr. Calhoun denied the right of secession, as a constitutional right, either express or implied. But, in addition to this, I had frequent opportunities of knowing that this was his opinion. It was my good fortune to be a member of the Senate of the United States, whilst he was one of its ould rest on any individual name, if any mere human authority could support such an absurd and destructive folly, it cannot be said to rest on that of Mr. Calhoun. With sincere regard, your friend, Reverdy Johnson. Hon. Edward Everett, Boston.
1 2