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) 216 0 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 170 2 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 162 8 Browse Search
John B. Gordon 156 2 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 146 6 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 144 0 Browse Search
J. Cabell Early 122 0 Browse Search
Jackson (Mississippi, United States) 103 1 Browse Search
W. R. Grant 100 0 Browse Search
H. B. McClellan 90 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 32. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 458 total hits in 89 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Vermont (Vermont, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.9
nion, while the troops of New York refused to leave the State and follow their generals to the invasion of the enemy's country, Canada. Governor Chittenden, of Vermont, issued his proclamation recalling the Vermont militia from serving against the British. In the Massachusetts Senate resolutions were introduced expressing the readiness of Massachusetts to aid with her whole power the Governor of Vermont, who deservedly was threatened with prosecution for having held back the troops which his country needed in time of war. The Legislature of Massachusetts forbade the use of the jails to confine British prisoners of war and ordered the jailors to relthe Union as a State, the people thereof will be entitled to decide that question exclusively for themselves. Passed the Senate—yeas 35, nays 9—Massachusetts, Vermont and Rhode Island voting in the negative. Calhoun's bill of Wrongs. Mr. Calhoun, in his speech in the Senate, March 4, 1850, sets forth the long course of in
Russia (Russia) (search for this): chapter 1.9
ted by the North on the South in their attempt to abridge the constitutional rights of the South in regard to slavery, and shows how the citizens of the South were excluded from far the larger portion of the territory controlled by the United States, and how the industry of the South was sapped by the protective tariff for the benefit of the North. Mr. Calhoun says: What was once a constitutional Federal Republic is now converted into one in reality as absolute as that of the Autocrat of Russia, and as despotic in its tendency as any absolute government that ever existed. The cry of Union, Union, the glorious Union, can no more prevent disunion than the cry of health, health, glorious health, can save a patient dangerously ill. Nor can the Union be saved by invoking the name of the illustrious southerner whose mortal remains repose on the western bank of the Potomac. He was one of us—a slaveholder and a planter. And it was the great and crowning glory of Washington's lif
Louisiana (Louisiana, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.9
submit. Yielding to such threats of secession the embargo was repealed in 1809. Followed close by the embargo was the ground of controversy—the purchase of Louisiana. This measure was clearly expedient, and tending to promote the power and wealth of the United States, yet was attacked by the New England members of Congress, w England, will not enter into; sooner would our inhabitants separate from the Union. In 1804 the Legislature of Massachusetts enacted, That the annexation of Louisiana to the Union transcends the constitutional power of the government of the United States. It formed a new confederacy to which the States, united by the former compact, are not bound to adhere. Speaking of the admission of Louisiana, Josiah Quincy, of Massachusetts, said in Congress: If this bill passes it will be the duty of some definitely to prepare for a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must. And he continued, saying that it was obvious to reason that in any part
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.9
qual to what I feel from this source. Maine and Missouri both applied at about the same time for admission dmitted; but the Northern members refused to admit Missouri, on the ground that Missouri allowed slavery; thouMissouri allowed slavery; though, as all the original States formerly permitted slavery, and as Missouri was entitled to admission on the saMissouri was entitled to admission on the same footing as the original States, what the slavery question had to do with the right of Missouri to admissionMissouri to admission it is hard to discover. But the reason for which the Northern members wanted to exclude Missouri as a slaveMissouri as a slave State is very patent. Slavery having been found to be an industrial failure at the North had been abandoned o strongly felt in the dispute of the admission of Missouri, and which raged afterwards with ever-increasing fthern votes in Congress, on the understanding that Missouri was to be admitted likewise by the Northern votes,udulently refused to carry out their agreement and Missouri still remained excluded from her rights. Finall
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 1.9
Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, ratified in March, 1781. In January, 1783, Great Britain acknowledged the revolted colonies, each separately and by name, as thirteen independent Sta New England's Treason in 1809. The inclination of New England to reunite herself with Great Britain has now been almost forgotten, having been studiously kept in the background for the better acceptance of these terms, New England was to secede, as usual, and make her own peace with Great Britain and desert to the enemy in time of war. Commissioners were actually appointed to report to P to the United States of America in Congress assembled. Timothy Dwight writes: A war with Great Britain we, at least in New England, will not enter into; sooner would our inhabitants separate from. And it was the great and crowning glory of Washington's life that he severed a union with Great Britain which had ceased to be mutually beneficial. Said James K. Polk in his inaugural address:
Connecticut (Connecticut, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.9
fered widely from the interpretation that their successors chose to adopt. Dr. Johnson, of Connecticut, said in the Federal Convention: The fact is the States do exist as so many political societiDr. Johnson further says: This excludes the idea of an armed force. And Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, endorses this statement: The Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies-Statesas also a duty to perform. The State is still sovereign and independent. Mr. Hilhouse, of Connecticut, said in the United States Senate: I consider this to be an act which directs a mortal blow af the North in general, and of New England in particular, as to their right to secede. The Connecticut Courant says We have now already approached the era when they (the different States) must be strates the political status of the times and the temper of New England. Massachusetts and Connecticut refused to furnish troops to fight the battles of the Union, while the troops of New York ref
Alabama (Alabama, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.9
outhwest and exhibited a flash of that high military genius which has since so immortally distinguished the South and her sons. While the New England States were haggling with the general government about the pay and the maintenance of militia, who did little but demonstrate their own inefficiency, when at last put into the field, Andrew Jackson, destitute of troops and munitions of war, could only call upon the citizens of the then frontier, comprising the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi. At once the hardy frontiersmen responded to the call without the hope of pay or reward. The gage of battle had been thrown down, and Southern men have never, even unto this day, been slow in accepting such a challenge. We hear of no Legislature in the South splitting hairs as to the legality of sending their citizens out of the State to fight the battles of their country. The bold men of the southwest hastened to New Orleans without waiting for any legislature to auth
The Common (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.9
yport, Mass., memorialized their Legislature as follows: We call upon our State Legislature to protect us in the enjoyment of those privileges, to assert which our fathers died, to defend which we profess ourselves ready to resist unto blood. No more violent sentiments can be expressed by the most hotheaded secession convention. We will not pay our continental taxes, or aid, inform or assist any officer in their collection. This resolution, passed by a mass meeting at Reading, Mass., is less violent than the resolutions immediately above, but it shows a more determined, though less noisy, spirit. Said Cyrus King, of Massachusetts, in a speech in Congress: Yes, sir; I consider this administration as alien to us, so much so that New England would be justified in declaring them, like all foreign nations, enemies in war, in peace, friends. The Federal Republican has it: On or before July 4 next, if James Madison is not out of office a new form of government
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 1.9
osition exactly analogous to that of the Confederate States in 1861. Finally, in 1790, the last o as an unholy war. When the armies of the United States were invading Canada, in the churches of Nat New Orleans the English indeed took the United States by surprise. But Andrew Jackson, of Tenn in time of war. While President of the United States Mr. Adams wrote: That project, I repeat (sstitutional power of the government of the United States. It formed a new confederacy to which theto abolish slavery in any Territory of the United States in which it exists would create serious alportion of the territory controlled by the United States, and how the industry of the South was sapification, whereby the revenue laws of the United States were suspended. The militia of the South o take with him, into any territory of the United States, any property that the Constitution recognuch were the words of the President of the United States on the very eve of the great Civil war. It[7 more...]
Georgia (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.9
n commerce, and consequently their own carrying trade, than by protection; Daniel Webster was, in fact, one of the most earnest opponents of protection in its early stages. But soon New England found it more profitable to foster manufactories under protection than to nurse the carrying trade—hence she has ever since advocated protection as a patriotic measure. Each successive tariff bill increased the bitter discontent and sense of injustice under which the South labored. The States of Georgia and South Carolina entered formal protests in their sovereign capacity. Nullification. At length the irritation became so intense that in 1832 South Carolina passed the famous Ordinance of Nullification, whereby the revenue laws of the United States were suspended. The militia of the South were put in readiness for immediate service. On the other hand President Jackson sent United States troops and men-of-war to Charleston, and an armed conflict was imminent. But at this critical
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...