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) 324 0 Browse Search
Richmond (Virginia, United States) 294 28 Browse Search
Virginia (Virginia, United States) 262 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 210 2 Browse Search
Andersonville, Ga. (Georgia, United States) 177 1 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 162 2 Browse Search
Arkansas (Arkansas, United States) 116 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 114 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 106 0 Browse Search
William T. Sherman 105 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones).

Found 11,630 total hits in 3,040 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
r. Crittenden, of Kentucky, introduced certain resolutions proposing amendments to the constitution, which would have saved the Union, and which received every Southern vote except the South Carolina senators, who had withdrawn. They proposed to adopt, in effect, the Missouri compromise line, to prohibit Congress from abolishing the slave trade between the States, or slavery in places where the United States had exclusive jurisdiction, or in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland and of the slaveholders, and proposed a more effectual provision for the recovery of fugitive slaves. For these, a substitute was offered by Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, declaring, amongst other things, that the provisions of the constitution are ample for the preservation of the Union, and the resolutions of Mr. Crittenden were voted down, and the substitute adopted by a united vote of the Republicans. Says Lunt: The vote of the Republican members of the Senate was a blank denial of the
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
party, which denounced the constitution as a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, was fast growing in power and influence in the free States, and threatened to become the most powerful political organization within their borders. Massachusetts had adopted resolutions by her legislature, with the assent of her governor — if his message represented his opinions — resolutions which were denounced at the time as being of a disunion character. Her senator, Bates, presented them in silence, and Colonel King, of Alabama, regretted that a proposition should come from Massachusetts to dissolve the Union. (See Lunt's Origin of the War, 128-9). All hope of acquiring any additional political strength by the South to defend their rights was gone. The free States had announced their determination to exclude slavery from the territories of the United States, and they had the strength to do it, if they believed, as they affected to do, that the constitution was no obstacle in their p
Michigan (Michigan, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
Mr. Douglass, would have saved every Southern State except South Carolina. Undoubtedly such would have been the effect of a general agreement upon these resolutions between the two sections. But did the Rebublicans desire it? It would seem not from the postscript to Mr. Chandler's letter to Governor Blair: Some of the manufacturing States think that a fight would be awful. Without a little blood-letting, this Union will not, in my opinion, be worth a curse. This was from a senator from Michigan, a man of much influence in his party. Virginia, not yet giving up her hope of preserving the Union, interposed to call a peace conference. Resolutions were adopted by this body, composed of able and eminent men from the different States, very similar to Mr. Crittenden's, which met with no better success. Under these circumstances what were the slaveholding States to do? In 1790 they kept quiet, because they relied upon the virtue of Congress that they would do nothing without constitut
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
ustice persons charged with participation in the John Brown raid --see note, p. 320. At the era of secession the constitution had not only ceased to be a palladium for these rights of secession, but was hardly recognized to be binding at all. If, then, this instrument was to be relied upon by the slave States to protect them, it was only in the event that they could arm themselves with enough political power to enforce its provisions. So obvious had this become by 1819-20, when the State of Missouri was struggling for admission as a slave State, that the slave States at that time solemnly asserted their right to settle the unoccupied and unappropriated territory of the United States with their slave property, under the protection of its laws — a right which was as vehemently denied by the free States. So bitter and fierce was this contest, that its agitations shook the very foundations of American society. It was settled for a time by a compromise excluding slavery from the Unit
New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
vote except the South Carolina senators, who had withdrawn. They proposed to adopt, in effect, the Missouri compromise line, to prohibit Congress from abolishing the slave trade between the States, or slavery in places where the United States had exclusive jurisdiction, or in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland and of the slaveholders, and proposed a more effectual provision for the recovery of fugitive slaves. For these, a substitute was offered by Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, declaring, amongst other things, that the provisions of the constitution are ample for the preservation of the Union, and the resolutions of Mr. Crittenden were voted down, and the substitute adopted by a united vote of the Republicans. Says Lunt: The vote of the Republican members of the Senate was a blank denial of the necessity of compromise, and showed, of course, that they had deliberately made up their minds to refuse any negotiation. （Lunt's Origin of the War, p. 411). The adop
Ohio (Ohio, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
ates in an attitude of virtual resistance to the laws of the United States. When Mr. Toombs, in the Senate of the United States, during the session in which he withdrew from that body, referred to these laws and taxed the free States with their violations of constitutional obligation, in evidence of which he produced these statutes, it was pitiful to hear the excuses by which the representatives of these States sought to squirm out of the difficulty — a difficulty for which the executives of Ohio and Iowa would scarcely have cared to apologize, if it be true, as doubtless it is, as Lunt states, that at a somewhat later period those officers refused to surrender to justice persons charged with participation in the John Brown raid --see note, p. 320. At the era of secession the constitution had not only ceased to be a palladium for these rights of secession, but was hardly recognized to be binding at all. If, then, this instrument was to be relied upon by the slave States to protect
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
es were constantly becoming more angry and bitter. A party had sprung up which proclaimed the constitution to be an agreement with death and a covenant with hell. This party was daily becoming stronger and more dangerous in spirit. It began at first by taking part in the contests between Whigs and Democrats, and grew upon the agitations in Congress and the newspaper press. This war of petitions for abolition was commenced by John Quincy Adams in 1831, when he presented a petition from Pennsylvania for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, but at the same time declared that he could not vote for it. He who was so denounced when he left the Federal party, on account of its disunion tendencies, and joined the Democratic under Mr. Jefferson, became the old man eloquent when he fanned the smouldering spark of sectional division with the burning breath of hate and anger which was yet to burst out in flames and consume the house with the fire whose initial spark he consent
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
nts? That no effort to save the Union should be spared, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, introduced certain resolutions proposing amendments to the constitution, which would have saved the Union, and which received every Southern vote except the South Carolina senators, who had withdrawn. They proposed to adopt, in effect, the Missouri compromise line, to prohibit Congress from abolishing the slave trade between the States, or slavery in places where the United States had exclusive jurisdiction, o of course, that they had deliberately made up their minds to refuse any negotiation. （Lunt's Origin of the War, p. 411). The adoption of Mr. Crittenden's resolutions, it was said by Mr. Douglass, would have saved every Southern State except South Carolina. Undoubtedly such would have been the effect of a general agreement upon these resolutions between the two sections. But did the Rebublicans desire it? It would seem not from the postscript to Mr. Chandler's letter to Governor Blair: Some
Texas (Texas, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
otection of its laws — a right which was as vehemently denied by the free States. So bitter and fierce was this contest, that its agitations shook the very foundations of American society. It was settled for a time by a compromise excluding slavery from the United States Territories north of a line 36° 30′ north latitude, and admitting it south of that line. Even this line left the South in a condition of hopeless inferiority, which was but little helped by the acquisition of a portion of Texas as a slave State. When the vast territory obtained from Mexico at the close of the war was organized, the Missouri compromise line was set aside, and the non-intervention principle was adopted, by which it became between the sections a mere question of the ability to colonize — a question in regard to which there could scarcely be a doubt, with the superior resources in wealth and population of the free States. It had become manifest that the South had no protection for its rights but the
Virginia (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
mous northwestern ordinance, to which the old Virginia fathers were driven by their abhorrence of slre by the past. Indeed, an armed invasion of Virginia had been just made by John Brown, with the avf spirit also. She did not wish — certainly, Virginia did not desire it — if she could maintain hern J. Allen, President of the Supreme court of Virginia, and adopted with but two dissenting voices. ax the colonies without their consent, it was Virginia who, by the resolutions against the stamp actarted the first impulse to the Revolution. Virginia declared her independence before any of the cthe legislative hall. Under the leading of Virginia statesmen the Revolution of 1798 was brought nfederate States, cannot admit of question in Virginia. Our people in convention, by their act ofurt, in February, 1775, to the delegates from Virginia to the Continental Congress, That we desire nrights and insure the safety of the people of Virginia. And in the event of a change in our relat[3 more...]<
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...