hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

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

You are currently sorting in descending order. Sort in ascending 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) 1,668 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 440 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 256 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 239 3 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 172 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 168 0 Browse Search
J. E. Johnston 166 0 Browse Search
P. G. T. Beauregard 158 6 Browse Search
Robert Anderson 136 6 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 124 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Search the whole document.

Found 84 total hits in 24 results.

1 2 3
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.17
ecessary only to cite a few examples. The following language of Gerry of Massachusetts in the convention of 1787, has already been referred to: If nine out of thi, and should not have been unknown to Webster, for they are the language of Massachusetts, the state which he represented in the Senate, and of New Hampshire, the state of his nativity. The ratification of Massachusetts is expressed in the following terms: Commonwealth of Massachusetts The Convention, having impartially Commonwealth of Massachusetts The Convention, having impartially discussed and fully considered a Constitution for the United States of America, reported to Congress by the convention of delegates from the United States of America their posterity—do, in the name and in behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, assent to and ratify the said Constitution for the United States oes with each other—which Webster, a son of New Hampshire and a Senator from Massachusetts, declared it was not; not only so, but he repudiated the very vocabulary fr
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.17
ton—who was not only the first President under the new Constitution, but who had presided over the convention that drew it up—in letters written soon after the adjournment of that body to friends in various states, referred to the Constitution as a compact or treaty, and repeatedly uses the terms accede and accession, and once the term secession. He asks what the opponents of the Constitution in Virginia would do, if nine other States should accede to the Constitution. Luther Martin of Maryland informs us that, in a committee of the general convention of 1787, protesting against the proposed violation of the principles of the perpetual union already formed under the Articles of Confederation, he made use of such language as this: Will you tell us we ought to trust you because you now enter into a solemn compact with us? This you have done before, and now treat with the utmost contempt. Will you now make an appeal to the Supreme Being, and call on Him to guarantee your observ
Providence, R. I. (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.17
achusetts The Convention, having impartially discussed and fully considered a Constitution for the United States of America, reported to Congress by the convention of delegates from the United States of America, and submitted to us by a resolution of the General Court of the said Commonwealth, passed the 25th day of October last past, and acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the universe, in affording the people of the United States, in the course of his Providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud or surprise, of entering into an explicit and solemn compact with each other, by assenting to and ratifying a new Constitution, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity—do, in the name and in behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, assent
New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.17
been conclusive, and should not have been unknown to Webster, for they are the language of Massachusetts, the state which he represented in the Senate, and of New Hampshire, the state of his nativity. The ratification of Massachusetts is expressed in the following terms: Commonwealth of Massachusetts The Convention, havingbehalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, assent to and ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America. The ratification of New Hampshire is expressed in precisely the same words, save only the difference of date of the resolution of the legislature (or General Court) referred to, and also the use of the word state instead of commonwealth. Both distinctly accept it as a compact of the states with each other—which Webster, a son of New Hampshire and a Senator from Massachusetts, declared it was not; not only so, but he repudiated the very vocabulary from which the words expressing the doctrine were taken. It would not n
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 2.17
bear the test of examination and application to the case of the United States. It has been fully shown, in previous chapters, that the termsCongress; and the contracting or constituent parties are termed United States in the one just as in the other. Webster is particularly unfs departing from such league or confederacy. The people of the United States have used no such form of expression in establishing the presenally discussed and fully considered a Constitution for the United States of America, reported to Congress by the convention of delegates from the United States of America, and submitted to us by a resolution of the General Court of the said Commonwealth, passed the 25th day of Octobee Supreme Ruler of the universe, in affording the people of the United States, in the course of his Providence, an opportunity, deliberately usetts, assent to and ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America. The ratification of New Hampshire is expressed in pre
Luther Martin (search for this): chapter 2.17
titution as a compact or treaty, and repeatedly uses the terms accede and accession, and once the term secession. He asks what the opponents of the Constitution in Virginia would do, if nine other States should accede to the Constitution. Luther Martin of Maryland informs us that, in a committee of the general convention of 1787, protesting against the proposed violation of the principles of the perpetual union already formed under the Articles of Confederation, he made use of such languagemake an appeal to the Supreme Being, and call on Him to guarantee your observance of this compact? The same you have formerly done for your observance of the Articles of Confederation, which you are now violating in the most wanton manner. Luther Martin's Genuine information, in Wilbur Curtiss's Secret proceedings and Debates of the Convention, p. 29. It is needless to multiply the proofs that abound in the writings of the fathers to show that Webster's new vocabulary was the very langua
Americans (search for this): chapter 2.17
ted such an array of evidence in this behalf that it is necessary only to cite a few examples. The following language of Gerry of Massachusetts in the convention of 1787, has already been referred to: If nine out of thirteen States can dissolve the compact, six out of nine will be just as able to dissolve the new one hereafter. Gouverneur Morris, one of the most pronounced advocates of a strong central government in the convention, said: He came here to form a compact for the good of Americans. He was ready to do so with all the States. He hoped and believed they all would enter into such a compact. If they would not, he would be ready to join with any States that would. But, as the compact was to be voluntary, it is in vain for the Eastern States to insist on what the Southern States will never agree to. Madison Papers, pp. 1081, 1082. Madison, while inclining to a strong government, said: In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact h
John C. Calhoun (search for this): chapter 2.17
s States, were parties to it. We had no other General Government. But that was found insufficient and inadequate to the public exigencies. The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. They undertook to form a General Government, which should stand on a new basis—not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between States, but a Constitution. Gales and Seaton's Register of Congressional Debates, Vol. VI, Part I, p. 93. Again, in his discussion with Calhoun, three years afterward, he vehemently reiterates the same denial. Of the Constitution he says: Does it call itself a compact? Certainly not. It uses the word compact but once, and that when it declares that the States shall enter into no compact. The words with another State or with a foreign power should have been added to make this statement accurate. Does it call itself a league, a confederacy, a subsisting treaty between the States? Certainly not. There is not a particle of such l
Elbridge Gerry (search for this): chapter 2.17
be deducible. Now it happens that these very terms—compact, confederacy, accede, and the like—were the terms in familiar use by the authors of the Constitution and their associates with reference to that instrument and its ratification. Other writers, who have examined the subject since the late war gave it an interest which it had never commanded before, have collected such an array of evidence in this behalf that it is necessary only to cite a few examples. The following language of Gerry of Massachusetts in the convention of 1787, has already been referred to: If nine out of thirteen States can dissolve the compact, six out of nine will be just as able to dissolve the new one hereafter. Gouverneur Morris, one of the most pronounced advocates of a strong central government in the convention, said: He came here to form a compact for the good of Americans. He was ready to do so with all the States. He hoped and believed they all would enter into such a compact. If they wou
John Lothrop Motley (search for this): chapter 2.17
preparation and ratification would suffice. The language of the final article would have been quite enough: The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. This is not the language of a superior imposing a mandate upon subordinates. The consent of the contracting parties is necessary to its validity, and then it becomes not the acceptance and recognition of an authority over them—as Motley represents—but of a compact between them. The simple word between is incompatible with any other idea than that of a compact by independent parties. If it were possible that any doubt could still exist, there is one provision in the Constitution which stamps its character as a compact too plainly for cavil or question. The Constitution, which had already provided for the representation of the states in both houses of Congress, thereby bringing the matter of representation within the pow
1 2 3