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
Robert E. Lee 523 9 Browse Search
United States (United States) 340 0 Browse Search
Joe Hooker 254 0 Browse Search
Fitzhugh Lee 216 2 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 195 7 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 182 0 Browse Search
George B. McClellan 170 0 Browse Search
Sedgwick 168 2 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 160 0 Browse Search
J. A. Early 149 5 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 14. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 288 total hits in 68 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Canada (Canada) (search for this): chapter 14
to New Orleans and the commerce of the Mississippi, important elements of national power for the solution of the Oregon and other questions. It may well be doubted whether the Oregon dispute could have been so easily settled if Captain Elliott, the man in the white hat, had been successful in the objects of his mission to Texas; that is to say, in securing Texas as a commercial dependency of Great Britain, in abolishing slavery in Texas, and in building up on our Southwestern border another Canada. (See speech of Senator Houston, Congres- sional Globe, second session Twenty-ninth Congress, p. 459; also, remarks of Lords Brougham and Aberdeen in House of Lords, in London Morning Chronicle, August 19, 1843.) But the Union haters of 1840-‘60, whose glasses Dr. von Holst now wears, could only see from one side of the shield, and, in their impatience to abolish slavery, desired to see established on our Southwestern border an asylum for runaway negroes and hostile Indians. Dr. von Hols
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 14
oun's dispatch to Pakenham, quoted by von Holst. The United States have heretofore declined to meet her (Texas') wishes; bhas undertaken to write a constitutional history of the United States, does not know the difference between the United StatesUnited States, on the one hand, and Calhoun, Preston, Thompson, Tyler, Upshur, the Legislatures of Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee, and the whole South on the other? They were not the United States, neither individually nor collectively. Calhoun was not speay had done or proposed. Every schoolboy knows that the United States for years declined to meet Texas' wish for annexation, semblies, representing the united sovereignty of the Confederate States, and having power and authority to correct every erry. Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, in his history of the United States, page 347, quotes this passage from the Proclamation, aectionalism. Of the fifty millions now living in the United States few know what was meant by nullification, or have any i
Mississippi (United States) (search for this): chapter 14
as' wish for annexation, though backed by all these potent influences, and the very facts stated by von Holst, to prove that Calhoun lied, proved that he stated the case with the utmost exactness of truth. Calhoun rested his defence of his government for proposing then to annex Texas, after having so long declined, on the state of things. The very paragraph selected for quotation by von Holst shows that. What was that state of things? The proximity of Texas to the mouths of the Mississippi river rendered its possession by so weak a power as Mexico a constant menace to the trade of the whole Mississippi valley. Mexico was too weak to prevent a strong power like Great Britain seizing Texas as a point d'appui, from which to attack New Orleans and annihilate the commerce of that great emporium of the Southern and Western States, in case of another war. For this reason the acquisition of Texas had long been deemed desirable by many American statesmen, including at one time even J.
Worcester (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
Calhoun—Nullification explained. by Colonel Benjamin E. Green, of Dalton, Ga. During Mr. Buchanan's administration, before the slave-holding States proposed to withdraw peaceably, rather than wait to be expelled from the confederation, a State Disunion Convention met at Worcester, Massachusetts. It was composed of men who subsequently became the controlling element of the party which elected Mr. Lincoln President and abolished slavery by force of arms. They adopted the following platform: Resolved, That the meeting of a State Disunion Convention, attended by men of various parties and affinities, gives occasion for a new statement of principles and a new platform of action. Resolved, That the cardinal American principle is now, as always, liberty, while the prominent fact is now, as always, slavery. Resolved, That the conflict between this principle of liberty and this fact of slavery has been the whole history of the nation for fifty years, while the only result of thi
Dalton, Ga. (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
Calhoun—Nullification explained. by Colonel Benjamin E. Green, of Dalton, Ga. During Mr. Buchanan's administration, before the slave-holding States proposed to withdraw peaceably, rather than wait to be expelled from the confederation, a State Disunion Convention met at Worcester, Massachusetts. It was composed of men who subsequently became the controlling element of the party which elected Mr. Lincoln President and abolished slavery by force of arms. They adopted the following platform: Resolved, That the meeting of a State Disunion Convention, attended by men of various parties and affinities, gives occasion for a new statement of principles and a new platform of action. Resolved, That the cardinal American principle is now, as always, liberty, while the prominent fact is now, as always, slavery. Resolved, That the conflict between this principle of liberty and this fact of slavery has been the whole history of the nation for fifty years, while the only result of th
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 14
fense, the obligation of adopting the measures they have. They remained passive so long as the policy on the part of Great Britain, which has led to its adoption, had no immediate bearing on their peace and safety. Dr. von Holst's comment on thio a constant menace to the trade of the whole Mississippi valley. Mexico was too weak to prevent a strong power like Great Britain seizing Texas as a point d'appui, from which to attack New Orleans and annihilate the commerce of that great emporiumeemed desirable by many American statesmen, including at one time even J. Q. Adams himself. In 1843 another war with Great Britain had become not improbable, in view of the Oregon and other complications. Therefore, to our citizens in distant Oregen successful in the objects of his mission to Texas; that is to say, in securing Texas as a commercial dependency of Great Britain, in abolishing slavery in Texas, and in building up on our Southwestern border another Canada. (See speech of Senato
Jefferson City (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
mitting that next after combatting the secession programme, its chief object was delay—to allow time for further consideration and reflection. On page 82, von Holst himself seems to have been aware of this, for he there quotes these very words of Calhoun. The truth is, that Calhoun was fighting the secession programme in the only way in which it could then be fought successfully. Two years before, 13th April, 1830, Jackson had given his celebrated volunteer toast at the celebration of Jefferson's birthday: Our Federal Union; it must be preserved. But it was well understood then that this was aimed at nullification, not at secession. If Jackson ever denied the right of secession, his denunciation fell far short of the more emphatic language of Calhoun. In his celebrated proclamation against the South Carolina Nullification Ordinance, he admitted that the right of resisting unconstitutional acts was an infeasible right, but denied that a State could, consistently with the Consti
Europe (search for this): chapter 14
r war is a secondary consideration in view of our present perils. Slavery must be conquered, peacefully, if we can, forcibly, if we must. Since that Convention met a quarter of a century has elapsed; since Calhoun's death a third of a century. A book has just been published in Boston entitled John C. Calhoun, by Dr. H. von Holst. Every well-informed Southerner will rise from its perusal impressed with the ideas: 1. That its author has not been long enough in America to overcome his European predilection for autocratic rule and centralized despotism. 2. That coming here to better his condition, and finding the Union haters of 1856-‘60 a controlling element of the party in power, he thought the shortest cut to better fortunes would be to secure their patronage by this post mortem attack on their great opponent, Calhoun. 3. That next after demolishing Calhoun's great reputation for statesmanship, the chief object of this book is to justify and glorify the men of the Worcest
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
later, his colleague, Mr. Preston, had moved in the Senate, and Mr. Thompson, of South Carolina, had also moved in the House of Representatives, to declare annexation expedient. Several State Legislatures, as those of Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee, had agitated the question with hot zeal, unreservedly avowing that they did so upon grounds somewhat local in their complexion, but of an import infinitely grave and interesting to the people who inhabit the southern portion of the Confederacylst, who has undertaken to write a constitutional history of the United States, does not know the difference between the United States, on the one hand, and Calhoun, Preston, Thompson, Tyler, Upshur, the Legislatures of Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee, and the whole South on the other? They were not the United States, neither individually nor collectively. Calhoun was not speaking of or for them, nor of what they had done or proposed. Every schoolboy knows that the United States for years
Oregon (Oregon, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
ike Great Britain seizing Texas as a point d'appui, from which to attack New Orleans and annihilate the commerce of that great emporium of the Southern and Western States, in case of another war. For this reason the acquisition of Texas had long been deemed desirable by many American statesmen, including at one time even J. Q. Adams himself. In 1843 another war with Great Britain had become not improbable, in view of the Oregon and other complications. Therefore, to our citizens in distant Oregon, as well as to those in the Mississippi valley, the annexation of Texas had become desirable, because of its relation to New Orleans and the commerce of the Mississippi, important elements of national power for the solution of the Oregon and other questions. It may well be doubted whether the Oregon dispute could have been so easily settled if Captain Elliott, the man in the white hat, had been successful in the objects of his mission to Texas; that is to say, in securing Texas as a commerc
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...