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 84 total hits in 23 results.

1 2 3
Pawnee City (Nebraska, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.37
ate mobs in times of general excitement, but will be impotent in impartial history to relieve the federal government from the responsibility of the assault made by sending a hostile fleet against the harbor of Charleston, to cooperate with the menacing garrison of Fort Sumter. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary. Such clearly was the idea of the commander of the Pawnee, when he declined, as Captain Fox informs us, without orders from a superior, to make any effort to enter the harbor, there to inaugurate civil war. The straightforward simplicity of the sailor had not been perverted by the shams of political sophistry. Even Horace Greeley, with all his extreme partisan feeling, is obliged to admit that whether the bombardment and reduction of Fort Sumter shall or shall not be justified by posterity, it is clear that the Confederacy had no alternative but
Fort Pickens (Florida, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.37
olina. No other state or combination of states could have any distinct interest or concern in the maintenance of a fortress at that point, unless as a means of aggression against South Carolina herself. The practical view of the case was correctly stated by Douglas, when he said: I take it for granted that whoever permanently holds Charleston and South Carolina is entitled to the possession of Fort Sumter. Whoever permanently holds Pensacola and Florida is entitled to the possession of Fort Pickens. Whoever holds the States in whose limits those forts are placed is entitled to the forts themselves, unless there is something peculiar in the location of some particular fort that makes it important for us to hold it for the general defense of the whole country, its commerce and interests, instead of being useful only for the defense of a particular city or locality. No such necessity could be alleged with regard to Fort Sumter. The claim to hold it as public property of the Unite
Columbia (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.37
e claim to hold it as public property of the United States was utterly untenable and unmeaning, apart from a claim of coercive control over the state. If South Carolina was a mere province, in a state of open rebellion, the government of the United States had a right to retain its hold of any fortified place within her limits which happened to be in its possession, and it would have had an equal right to acquire possession of any other. It would have had the same right to send an army to Columbia to batter down the walls of the state Capitol. The subject may at once be stripped of the sophistry which would make a distinction between the two cases. The one was as really an act of war as the other would have been. The right or the wrong of either depended entirely upon the question of the rightful power of the federal government to coerce a state into submission—a power which, as we have seen, was unanimously rejected in the formation of the federal Constitution, and which was still
Texas (Texas, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.37
iber of the guns, and the amount of damage done to inanimate material on both sides, especially to Fort Sumter, nobody was injured on either side by the bombardment. The only casualty attendant upon the affair was the death of one man and the wounding of several others by the explosion of a gun in the firing of a salute to their flag by the garrison on evacuating the fort the day after the surrender. A striking incident marked the close of the bombardment. Ex-Senator Louis T. Wigfall of Texas—a man as generous as he was recklessly Brave—when he saw the fort on fire, supposing the garrison to be hopelessly struggling for the honor of its flag, voluntarily and without authority, went under fire in an open boat to the fort, and climbing through one of its embrasures asked for Major Anderson, and insisted that he should surrender a fort which it was palpably impossible that he could hold. Major Anderson agreed to surrender on the same terms and conditions that had been offered him b
Florida (Florida, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.37
within the limits of the state of South Carolina. No other state or combination of states could have any distinct interest or concern in the maintenance of a fortress at that point, unless as a means of aggression against South Carolina herself. The practical view of the case was correctly stated by Douglas, when he said: I take it for granted that whoever permanently holds Charleston and South Carolina is entitled to the possession of Fort Sumter. Whoever permanently holds Pensacola and Florida is entitled to the possession of Fort Pickens. Whoever holds the States in whose limits those forts are placed is entitled to the forts themselves, unless there is something peculiar in the location of some particular fort that makes it important for us to hold it for the general defense of the whole country, its commerce and interests, instead of being useful only for the defense of a particular city or locality. No such necessity could be alleged with regard to Fort Sumter. The clai
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 3.37
which Fort Sumter was built was ceded by South Carolina to the United States in trust for the defense of her own soil and her own chief harbo Fort Sumter. The claim to hold it as public property of the United States was utterly untenable and unmeaning, apart from a claim of coere province, in a state of open rebellion, the government of the United States had a right to retain its hold of any fortified place within hede with two successive administrations of the government of the United States—at first by the state of South Carolina, and by the government of the Confederate States after its formation. These efforts had been met, not by an open avowal of coercive purposes, but by evasion, prevare surrender and evacuation of the fort. The President of the United States, in his message of July 4, 1861, to the federal Congress convenance could be placed in any assurances of the government of the United States after the experience of the attempted ruse of the Star of the W
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.37
ate and immediate causes of conflict. The fact that South Carolina was a state—whatever her relations may have been to ththe ground on which Fort Sumter was built was ceded by South Carolina to the United States in trust for the defense of her oce to mouth, lie entirely within the limits of the state of South Carolina. No other state or combination of states could haat that point, unless as a means of aggression against South Carolina herself. The practical view of the case was correctly granted that whoever permanently holds Charleston and South Carolina is entitled to the possession of Fort Sumter. Whoevert from a claim of coercive control over the state. If South Carolina was a mere province, in a state of open rebellion, the its throat. This grip had been held on the throat of South Carolina for almost four months from the period of her secessiohe government of the United States—at first by the state of South Carolina, and by the government of the Confederate States a
Louis T. Wigfall (search for this): chapter 3.37
try exposed and shams torn away forbearance of the Confederate Government who was the Aggressor? Major Anderson's view, and that of a naval officer Horace Greeley on the Fort Sumter case the bombardment and surrender gallant action of ex-senator Wigfall Lincoln's statement of the case. Here, in the brief hour immediately before the outburst of the long-gathering storm, although it can hardly be necessary for the reader who has carefully considered what has already been written, we may e man and the wounding of several others by the explosion of a gun in the firing of a salute to their flag by the garrison on evacuating the fort the day after the surrender. A striking incident marked the close of the bombardment. Ex-Senator Louis T. Wigfall of Texas—a man as generous as he was recklessly Brave—when he saw the fort on fire, supposing the garrison to be hopelessly struggling for the honor of its flag, voluntarily and without authority, went under fire in an open boat to the
William H. Seward (search for this): chapter 3.37
onfederate commissioners in Washington? He says we were expressly notified that nothing more would on that occasion be attempted—the words in italics themselves constituting a very significant though unobtrusive and innocent-looking limitation. But we had been just as expressly notified, long before, that the garrison would be withdrawn. It would be as easy to violate the one pledge as it had been to break the other. Moreover, the so-called notification was a mere memorandum, without date, signature, or authentication of any kind, sent to Governor Pickens, not by an accredited agent, but by a subordinate employee of the State Department. Like the oral and written pledges of Seward, given through Judge Campbell, it seemed to be carefully and purposedly divested of every attribute that could make it binding and valid, in case its authors should see fit to repudiate it. It was as empty and worthless as the complaint against the Confederate government based upon it is disingenuous
McGowan (search for this): chapter 3.37
been met, not by an open avowal of coercive purposes, but by evasion, prevarication, and perfidy. The agreement of one administration to maintain the status quo at the time when the question arose, was violated in December by the removal of the garrison from its original position to the occupancy of a stronger. Another attempt was made to violate it, in January, by the introduction of troops concealed below the deck of the steamer Star of the West, See the report of her commander, Captain McGowan, who says he took on board, in the harbor of New York, four officers and two hundred soldiers. Arriving off Charleston, he says The soldiers were now all put below, and no one allowed on deck except our own crew. but this was thwarted by the vigilance of the state service. The protracted course of fraud and prevarication practiced by Lincoln's administration in the months of March and April has been fully exhibited. It was evident that no confidence whatever could be reposed in any p
1 2 3