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 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) 1,668 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
George Washington (search for this): chapter 2.17
stern 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 has always been understood, etc. Ibid., p. 1184. Hamilton, in the Federalist, repeatedly speaks of the new government as a confederate republic and a confederacy, and calls the Constitution a compact. See especially Nos. IX and LXXXV. General Washington—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 o
Alexander Hamilton (search for this): chapter 2.17
ped 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 has always been understood, etc. Ibid., p. 1184. Hamilton, in the Federalist, repeatedly speaks of the new government as a confederate republic and a confederacy, and calls the Constitution a compact. See especially Nos. IX and LXXXV. General Washington—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 ter
James Madison (search for this): chapter 2.17
ost 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 has always been understood, etc. Ibid., p. 1184. Hamilton, in the Federalist, repeatedly speaks of the new government as a confederate republic and a confederacy, and calls the Constitution a compact. See especially Nos. IX and LXXXV. General Washington—who was not only the first President under the new Constitution, but who had presided over the convent
Wilbur Curtiss (search for this): chapter 2.17
e 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 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 language they familiarly used. Let two more examples suffice, from authority higher than that of any individual speaker or writer, however eminent—from authority second only, if at all inferior, to that of the text of the Constitution itself—that is, from the acts or ordinances of ratification b
Daniel Webster (search for this): chapter 2.17
the Articles of Confederation was a compact. Webster, in his rejoinder to Hayne on January 27, 183n against any such cavil as that preferred by Webster and his followers, that the Constitution is nhey are not epic poems. In an examination of Webster's remarks, I do not find that he announces tresent Constitution. The former Union was—as Webster expressly admits—as nobody denies—a compact bed States in the one just as in the other. Webster is particularly unfortunate in his criticismserms which he attacks to an ulterior purpose, Webster says: This is the reason, sir, which make 557, 558. In these and similar passages, Webster virtually concedes that, if the Constitution d in the writings of the fathers to show that Webster's new vocabulary was the very language they fnclusive, and should not have been unknown to Webster, for they are the language of Massachusetts, a compact of the states with each other—which Webster, a son of New Hampshire and a Senator from M
Gouverneur Morris (search for this): chapter 2.17
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 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, p
Seaton (search for this): chapter 2.17
that old state of things then existing. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the States, as 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
Isaac W. Hayne (search for this): chapter 2.17
acceded to it evidence of the Constitution itself and of contemporary records. I have habitually spoken of the federal Constitution as a compact, and of the parties to it as sovereign states. These terms should not, and in earlier times would not, have required explanation or vindication. But they have been called in question by the modern school of consolidation. These gentlemen admit that the government under the Articles of Confederation was a compact. Webster, in his rejoinder to Hayne on January 27, 1830, said: When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the States, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the States, as 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
1787 AD (search for this): chapter 2.17
he 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 governmen, 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 s
1789 AD (search for this): chapter 2.17
not, and in earlier times would not, have required explanation or vindication. But they have been called in question by the modern school of consolidation. These gentlemen admit that the government under the Articles of Confederation was a compact. Webster, in his rejoinder to Hayne on January 27, 1830, said: When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the States, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the States, as 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 Constit
1 2 3