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
John H. Morgan 129 5 Browse Search
Fitz Lee 128 8 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 124 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 122 0 Browse Search
James 117 5 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 86 18 Browse Search
Tecumseh Sherman 80 0 Browse Search
Douglass (Nevada, United States) 80 0 Browse Search
Tom Jackson 78 0 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 77 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 35. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 79 total hits in 35 results.

1 2 3 4
Abraham Lincoln (search for this): chapter 1.48
ormer years so strenuously contended, that the States entering into the Federal compact had surrendered absolutely and irrevocably the sovereign powers delegated to the Federal Government. There was, indeed, up to the very commencement of hostilities, no settled conviction on this subject, even in the North, contrary to the historic view of it, which prevailed almost unanimously in the South. As Mr. Henderson, in his most admirable work (Stonewall Jackson, Vol. I., page 117), says: Mr. Lincoln's predecessor in the presidential chair had publicly proclaimed that coercion was both illegal and inexpedient; and for the three months which intervened between the secession of South Carolina and the inauguration of the Republican President, the Government made not the slightest attempt to interfere with the peaceable establishment of the new Confederacy. Nota single soldier reinforced the garrisons of the military posts in the South. Not a single regiment was recalled from the Wester
Albert Sydney Johnston (search for this): chapter 1.48
ry Barksdale Newton, in memory of her husband, Virginius Newton, of Richmond, Va. The Hermitage Press, Inc., 1907, Richmond, Va. As expressed in its preface: It is not the design of this book to open the subject of secession (but merely to discuss that subject from the standpoint of abstract right), in order to vindicate the character of the South for loyalty, and to wipe off the charges of treason and rebellion from the names and memories of Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, Albert Sydney Johnston, Robert E. Lee and all who fought and suffered in the great war of coercion. The recent Confederate Reunion at Richmond; Va., where gathered once again the survivors of the historic struggle of 1861-5, makes timely the republication of the work under review; and, as a valuable contribution to the history of this subject, this work should be included in all public libraries and generally read. It is true that it cannot be claimed for this work that it is a dispassionate summary
Virginius Newton (search for this): chapter 1.48
The right of secession—a Review of Bledsoe's able work. From the Times-dispatch, October 20-27, 1907. An Epitome of the views of Webster, Calhoun and other famous statesmen. By Frederick Wilmer Sims, Louisa, Va. Is Davis a Traitor, or Was Secession a Constitutional Right, Previous to the War of 1861? By Albert Taylor Bledsoe, A. M., L. L. D., late professor of mathematics in the University of Virginia. Republished by Mary Barksdale Newton, in memory of her husband, Virginius Newton, of Richmond, Va. The Hermitage Press, Inc., 1907, Richmond, Va. As expressed in its preface: It is not the design of this book to open the subject of secession (but merely to discuss that subject from the standpoint of abstract right), in order to vindicate the character of the South for loyalty, and to wipe off the charges of treason and rebellion from the names and memories of Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, Albert Sydney Johnston, Robert E. Lee and all who fought and suffered in t
William Daniel (search for this): chapter 1.48
f so intended, that they did not dare avow such an intention, is matter of historic knowledge. That if such an avowal had been made, the Federal Constitution would not have been ratified or adopted by the necessary number of three-fourths of the States, is matter of like knowledge. That for many years following the adoption of such Constitution such an intention found no advocates, but that the contrary view prevailed, both north and south, is equally demonstrated by history. Mr. Webster (Daniel) himself, when, in one of his later speeches, he said: I do not hesitate to say and repeat that if the Northern States refuse wilfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, the South would be no longer bound to keep the compact. A bargain broken on one side is broken on all sides (see page 101 of Dr. Bledsoe's work), appears not to have had clearly defined in his mind the idea for which he had in former years s
Stonewall (search for this): chapter 1.48
ginia. Republished by Mary Barksdale Newton, in memory of her husband, Virginius Newton, of Richmond, Va. The Hermitage Press, Inc., 1907, Richmond, Va. As expressed in its preface: It is not the design of this book to open the subject of secession (but merely to discuss that subject from the standpoint of abstract right), in order to vindicate the character of the South for loyalty, and to wipe off the charges of treason and rebellion from the names and memories of Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, Albert Sydney Johnston, Robert E. Lee and all who fought and suffered in the great war of coercion. The recent Confederate Reunion at Richmond; Va., where gathered once again the survivors of the historic struggle of 1861-5, makes timely the republication of the work under review; and, as a valuable contribution to the history of this subject, this work should be included in all public libraries and generally read. It is true that it cannot be claimed for this work that it i
Sam Henderson (search for this): chapter 1.48
ted to the Federal Government. There was, indeed, up to the very commencement of hostilities, no settled conviction on this subject, even in the North, contrary to the historic view of it, which prevailed almost unanimously in the South. As Mr. Henderson, in his most admirable work (Stonewall Jackson, Vol. I., page 117), says: Mr. Lincoln's predecessor in the presidential chair had publicly proclaimed that coercion was both illegal and inexpedient; and for the three months which intervenho fought and suffered in the great war of coercion to hazard their all, as they did in that great struggle, with an unselfish devotion that in itself is a priceless heritage to posterity. As so admirably said by that inimitable historian (Mr. Henderson) last quoted (Vol. I. p. 123): The North, in resolving to maintain the Union by force of arms, was upheld by the belief that she was acting in accordance with the Constitution. The South, in asserting her independence and resisting c
George H. Payne (search for this): chapter 1.48
tion was not formed by the people of the United States as a whole, acting individually and nationally, with respect to the nationel powers delegated. It will be remembered that Mr. Calhoun brought all the weight of his great character and fervid eloquence to maintain the affirmative of that proposition; and that Mr. Webster combatted such affirmative in that epoch-making speech of his in 1833—even more memorable and able than that delivered by him in his perhaps more famous debate with Mr. Payne. Indeed, it seems to have been assumed by Mr. Calhoun as an elemental and unassailable proposition, and conceded by Mr. Webster (strange as it may seem now, reviewing the question from his standpoint), that it would inevitably result from this that, whatever sovereign States may have bound together, they could put asunder. But did this conclusion necessarily follow? Viewing the question in the light of past history alone, it would seem that it did. Assigning to sovereign States the
1861 AD (search for this): chapter 1.48
From the Times-dispatch, October 20-27, 1907. An Epitome of the views of Webster, Calhoun and other famous statesmen. By Frederick Wilmer Sims, Louisa, Va. Is Davis a Traitor, or Was Secession a Constitutional Right, Previous to the War of 1861? By Albert Taylor Bledsoe, A. M., L. L. D., late professor of mathematics in the University of Virginia. Republished by Mary Barksdale Newton, in memory of her husband, Virginius Newton, of Richmond, Va. The Hermitage Press, Inc., 1907, Richmondn Davis, Stonewall Jackson, Albert Sydney Johnston, Robert E. Lee and all who fought and suffered in the great war of coercion. The recent Confederate Reunion at Richmond; Va., where gathered once again the survivors of the historic struggle of 1861-5, makes timely the republication of the work under review; and, as a valuable contribution to the history of this subject, this work should be included in all public libraries and generally read. It is true that it cannot be claimed for this w
October 20th, 1907 AD (search for this): chapter 1.48
The right of secession—a Review of Bledsoe's able work. From the Times-dispatch, October 20-27, 1907. An Epitome of the views of Webster, Calhoun and other famous statesmen. By Frederick Wilmer Sims, Louisa, Va. Is Davis a Traitor, or Was Secession a Constitutional Right, Previous to the War of 1861? By Albert Taylor Bledsoe, A. M., L. L. D., late professor of mathematics in the University of Virginia. Republished by Mary Barksdale Newton, in memory of her husband, Virginius Newton, of Richmond, Va. The Hermitage Press, Inc., 1907, Richmond, Va. As expressed in its preface: It is not the design of this book to open the subject of secession (but merely to discuss that subject from the standpoint of abstract right), in order to vindicate the character of the South for loyalty, and to wipe off the charges of treason and rebellion from the names and memories of Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, Albert Sydney Johnston, Robert E. Lee and all who fought and suffered in t
1833 AD (search for this): chapter 1.48
man of the committee on style; and of its adoption by the whole convention in absolute silence, is peculiarly instructive and interesting reading. In this connection will be remembered Mr. Calhoun's suggestion, in his debate with Mr. Webster in 1833, that this phraseology—We, the people, etc.—was used as expressing only the condition of the people under the old Confederacy and before the adoption of the Federal Constitution, as it speaks of a time before such adoption, and was not intended tod. It will be remembered that Mr. Calhoun brought all the weight of his great character and fervid eloquence to maintain the affirmative of that proposition; and that Mr. Webster combatted such affirmative in that epoch-making speech of his in 1833—even more memorable and able than that delivered by him in his perhaps more famous debate with Mr. Payne. Indeed, it seems to have been assumed by Mr. Calhoun as an elemental and unassailable proposition, and conceded by Mr. Webster (strange as i<
1 2 3 4