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) 1,668 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 22 total hits in 12 results.

1 2
Connecticut (Connecticut, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.21
the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress. Ibid., p. 822. Every proposition looking in any way to the same or a similar object was promptly rejected by the convention. George Mason of Virginia said of such a proposition: Will not the citizens of the invaded State assist one another, until they rise as one man and shake off the Union altogether? Ibid., p. 914. Oliver Ellsworth, in the ratifying convention of Connecticut, said: This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, States, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies but that of an armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent State, it would involve the good and bad, the innocent and guilty, in the same calamity. Elliott's Debates, Vol. II, p. 199. Hamilton, in the convention of New York, said: To coerce the States is one of th
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 2.21
red by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was adopted nem. con., and the proposition was never again revived. Madison Papers, pp. 732, 761. Again on a subsequent occasion, speaking of an appeal to force, Madison said: Was such a remedy eligible? Was it practicable? . . . Any government for the United States, formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress. Ibid., p. 822. Every proposition looking in any way to the same or a similar object was promptly rejected by the convention. George Mason of Virginia said of such a proposition: Will not the citizens of the invaded State assist one another, until they rise as one man and shake off the Union altogether? Ibid
Oliver Ellsworth (search for this): chapter 2.21
supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress. Ibid., p. 822. Every proposition looking in any way to the same or a similar object was promptly rejected by the convention. George Mason of Virginia said of such a proposition: Will not the citizens of the invaded State assist one another, until they rise as one man and shake off the Union altogether? Ibid., p. 914. Oliver Ellsworth, in the ratifying convention of Connecticut, said: This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, States, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies but that of an armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent State, it would involve the good and bad, the innocent and guilty, in the same calamity. Elliott's Debates, Vol. II, p. 199. Hamilton, in the convention of New
Daniel Webster (search for this): chapter 2.21
Chapter 12: Coercion the alternative to secession repudiation of it by the Constitution and the fathers of the Constitutional era difference between Webster and Hamilton. The alternative to secession is coercion. That is to say, if no such right as that of secession exists—if it is forbidden or precluded by the Constitution—then it is a wrong; by a well settled principle of public law, for every wrong there must be a remedy, which in this case must be the application of forcon of military coercion was uniformly treated, as in the above extracts, with still more abhorrence. No principle was more fully and finally settled on the highest authority than that, under our system, there could be no coercion of a state. Webster, in his elaborate speech of February 16, 1833, arguing throughout against the sovereignty of the states, and in the course of his argument sadly confounding the ideas of the federal Constitution and the federal government, as he confounds the so
Elliott (search for this): chapter 2.21
licable to such bodies but that of an armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent State, it would involve the good and bad, the innocent and guilty, in the same calamity. Elliott's Debates, Vol. II, p. 199. Hamilton, in the convention of New York, said: To coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. . . . What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying State at war with a noy expedient that is to preserve liberty? Will it not destroy it? If an army be once introduced to force us, if once marched into Virginia, figure to yourselves what the dreadful consequence will be: the most lamentable civil war must ensue. Elliott's Debates, Vol. III, p. 117. We have seen already how vehemently the idea of even judicial coercion was repudiated by Hamilton, Marshall, and others. The suggestion of military coercion was uniformly treated, as in the above extracts, with
James Madison (search for this): chapter 2.21
formed the Constitution, it was proposed to confer upon Congress the power to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof. When this proposition came to be considered, Madison observed that a union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be consr this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was adopted nem. con., and the proposition was never again revived. Madison Papers, pp. 732, 761. Again on a subsequent occasion, speaking of an appeal to force, Madison said: Was such a remedy eligible? Was it practicable? . . . Any government for the United States, formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and fallacio
George Mason (search for this): chapter 2.21
, pp. 732, 761. Again on a subsequent occasion, speaking of an appeal to force, Madison said: Was such a remedy eligible? Was it practicable? . . . Any government for the United States, formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress. Ibid., p. 822. Every proposition looking in any way to the same or a similar object was promptly rejected by the convention. George Mason of Virginia said of such a proposition: Will not the citizens of the invaded State assist one another, until they rise as one man and shake off the Union altogether? Ibid., p. 914. Oliver Ellsworth, in the ratifying convention of Connecticut, said: This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, States, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies but that of an armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an
Alexander Hamilton (search for this): chapter 2.21
ession repudiation of it by the Constitution and the fathers of the Constitutional era difference between Webster and Hamilton. The alternative to secession is coercion. That is to say, if no such right as that of secession exists—if it is forld involve the good and bad, the innocent and guilty, in the same calamity. Elliott's Debates, Vol. II, p. 199. Hamilton, in the convention of New York, said: To coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. . . . WDebates, Vol. III, p. 117. We have seen already how vehemently the idea of even judicial coercion was repudiated by Hamilton, Marshall, and others. The suggestion of military coercion was uniformly treated, as in the above extracts, with still fore the invention in 1877 of an electoral commission to relieve Congress of its constitutional duty to count the vote. Hamilton, on the contrary, fresh from the work of forming the Constitution, and familiar with its principles and purposes, said:
John Marshall (search for this): chapter 2.21
most bitter enemies, set the father against the son, and make the brother slay the brother? Is this the happy expedient that is to preserve liberty? Will it not destroy it? If an army be once introduced to force us, if once marched into Virginia, figure to yourselves what the dreadful consequence will be: the most lamentable civil war must ensue. Elliott's Debates, Vol. III, p. 117. We have seen already how vehemently the idea of even judicial coercion was repudiated by Hamilton, Marshall, and others. The suggestion of military coercion was uniformly treated, as in the above extracts, with still more abhorrence. No principle was more fully and finally settled on the highest authority than that, under our system, there could be no coercion of a state. Webster, in his elaborate speech of February 16, 1833, arguing throughout against the sovereignty of the states, and in the course of his argument sadly confounding the ideas of the federal Constitution and the federal gove
Edmund Randolph (search for this): chapter 2.21
f coercion? The thing is a dream—it is impossible. Ibid., pp. 232, 233. Unhappily, our generation has seen that, in the decay of the principles and feelings which animated the hearts of all patriots in that day, this thing, like many others then regarded as impossible dreams, has been only too feasible, and that states have permitted themselves to be used as instruments, not merely for the coercion, but for the destruction of the freedom and independence of their sister states. Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia, although the mover of the original proposition to authorize the employment of the forces of the Union against a delinquent member, which had been so signally defeated in the federal convention, afterward, in the Virginia convention, made an eloquent protest against the idea of the employment of force against a state. What species of military coercion, said he, could the General Government adopt for the enforcement of obedience to its demands? Either an army sent
1 2