hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing) 207 5 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 10 90 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 56 0 Browse Search
Cambridge History of American Literature: volume 1, Colonial and Revolutionary Literature: Early National Literature: Part I (ed. Trent, William Peterfield, 1862-1939., Erskine, John, 1879-1951., Sherman, Stuart Pratt, 1881-1926., Van Doren, Carl, 1885-1950.) 34 2 Browse Search
Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume I. 32 0 Browse Search
Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States 28 0 Browse Search
C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874. 24 0 Browse Search
George Ticknor, Life, letters and journals of George Ticknor (ed. George Hillard) 22 0 Browse Search
Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume II. 21 1 Browse Search
Wendell Phillips, Theodore C. Pease, Speeches, Lectures and Letters of Wendell Phillips: Volume 1 20 0 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. You can also browse the collection for Alexander Hamilton or search for Alexander Hamilton in all documents.

Your search returned 28 results in 12 document sections:

1 2
considered in the proper place. New York, the eleventh state to signify her assent, did so on July 26, 1788, after an arduous and protracted discussion, and then by a majority of but three votes—30 to 27. Even this small majority was secured only by the recommendation of certain material amendments, the adoption of which by the other states it was at first proposed to make a condition precedent to the validity of the ratification. This idea was abandoned after a correspondence between Hamilton and Madison, and, instead of conditional ratification, New York provided for the resumption of her grants; the amendments were put forth with a circular letter to the other states, in which it was declared that nothing but the fullest confidence of obtaining a revision of the objectionable features of the Constitution, and an invincible reluctance to separating from our sister States, could have prevailed upon a sufficient number to ratify it without stipulating for previous amendments.
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
ple, who were to establish the Constitution, were the people of thirteen sovereignties. Elliott's Debates, Vol. III, p. 114, edition of 1836. In the Federalist he repeatedly employs the term—as, for example, when he says: Do they [the fundamental principles of the Confederation] require that, in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed. Federalist, No. Xl. Alexander Hamilton—another contemporary authority, no less illustrious—says, in the Federalist: It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty, not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Ibid., No. Lxxxi. In the same paragraph he uses these terms, sovereign and sovereignty, repeatedly—alw
marily with reference to these that the provision was inserted, and not in the expectation of future conflicts or discrepancies. It is in this light alone that Madison considers it in explaining and vindicating it in the Federalist. Federalist, No. Xliv. 2. Again, it is to be observed that the supremacy accorded to the general laws of the United States is expressly limited to those enacted in conformity with the Constitution, or, to use the exact language, made in pursuance thereof. Hamilton, in another chapter of the Federalist, calls particular attention to this, saying (and the italics are all his own) that the laws of the Confederacy, as to the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction, will become the supreme law of the land, and that the state functionaries will cooperate in their observance and enforcement with the general government, as far as its just and constitutional authority extends. Federalist, No. Xxvii. 3. In the third place, it is not the go
ntion of 1787, and their fate further testimony Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Marshall, etc. later theorias it did, such admitted friends of centralism as Hamilton, King, Wilson, Randolph, Pinckney, and others—therrters of the principles which had prevailed. Thus Hamilton, who had favored the plan of a President and Senat description of a confederate republic, a term he (Hamilton) repeatedly employs. In the eighty-first number extract is very significant, clearly showing that Hamilton assumed as undisputed propositions, in the first porced and unwarrantable. In a subsequent number Hamilton, replying to the objection that the Constitution ication of the principles laid down in this work? Hamilton declares, in effect, that the grants to the federa it was desirable to organize, similar to those of Hamilton, though more moderate in extent. He too, however, additional citation from them. The evidence of Hamilton and Madison—two of the most eminent of the authors
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:
by the states, a system the strict construction of which was so eminently adapted to indefinite expansion of the confederacy as to embrace every variety of production and consequent diversity of pursuit. Carried out in the spirit in which it was devised, there was in this system no element of disintegration, but every facility for an enlargement of the circle of the family of states (or nations), so that it scarcely seemed unreasonable to look forward to a fulfillment of the aspiration of Hamilton, that it might extend over North America, perhaps over the whole continent. Not at all incompatible with these views and purposes was the recognition of the right of the states to reassume, if occasion should require it, the powers which they had delegated. On the contrary, the maintenance of this right was the surest guarantee of the perpetuity of the Union, and the denial of it sounded the first serious note of its dissolution. The conservative efficiency of state interposition for m
e in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets. New York Tribune of November 9, 1860, quoted in The American Conflict, Vol. I, Chapt. XXIII, p. 359. The only liberty taken with this extract has been that of presenting certain parts of it in italics. Nothing that has ever been said by the author of this work, in the foregoing chapters, on the floor of the Senate, or elsewhere, more distinctly asserted the right of secession. Nothing that has been quoted from Hamilton, or Madison, or Marshall, or John Quincy Adams, more emphatically repudiates the claim of right to restrain or coerce a state in the exercise of its free choice. Nothing that has been said since the war which followed could furnish a more striking condemnation of its origin, prosecution, purposes, and results. A comparison of the sentiments above quoted, with the subsequent career of the party, of which that journal was and long had been the recognized organ, would exhibit a striking inco
ed the people of this country. As far back as the time of the Confederation, when no narrow, miserable prejudice between Northern and Southern men governed those who ruled the States, a committee of three, two of whom were Northern men, reporting upon what they considered the bad faith of Spain in Florida, in relation to fugitive slaves, proposed that negotiations should be instituted to require Spain to surrender, as the States did then surrender, all fugitives escaped into their limits. Hamilton and Sedgwick from the North, and Madison from the South, made that report—men, the loftiness of whose purpose and genius might put to shame the puny efforts now made to disturb that which lies at the very foundation of the Government under which we live. A man not knowing into what presence he was introduced, coming into this Chamber, might, for a large part of this session, have supposed that here stood the representatives of belligerent States, and that, instead of men assembled here
haracter of the United States to be known and respected wherever there is wealth enough to woo commerce, and intelligence to honor merit? So long as we preserve and appreciate the achievements of Jefferson and Adams, of Franklin and Madison, of Hamilton, of Hancock, and of Rutledge, men who labored for the whole country, and lived for mankind, we can not sink to the petty strife which would sap the foundations and destroy the political fabric our fathers erected and bequeathed as an inheritance legislate so as to secure the rendition of fugitives; and in 1778 it was a matter of complaint that the Spanish colony of Florida did not restore fugitive negroes from the United States who escaped into that colony, and a committee, composed of Hamilton, of New York, Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, and Mason, of Virginia, reported resolutions in the Congress, instructing the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to address the charge d'affaires at Madrid to apply to his Majesty of Spain to issue orders to
1 2