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
U. S. Grant 194 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 130 0 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 115 11 Browse Search
J. Longstreet 114 0 Browse Search
Fitzhugh Lee 111 13 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 110 6 Browse Search
United States (United States) 104 0 Browse Search
W. H. F. Lee 100 2 Browse Search
S. D. Ramseur 95 1 Browse Search
George G. Meade 88 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 2. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 135 total hits in 70 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 5.26
id and well informed men as to the relation of the States to the Federal Government, these are facts concerning which we presume there can be no controversy between them. First, that counties are mere local subdivisions of the territory of a State created for purposes of convenience by the legislative power thereof, and liable to be altered or abolished altogether at the will and pleasure of the same authority. Secondly, that the States of the American Union were originally colonies of Great Britain, entirely separate from and independent of each other; that for the purposes of mutual support and assistance, they entered voluntarily into an union with each other, and that they subsequently saw fit to alter and modify the articles of union, and to ordain and establish a new Constitution, which each separate State adopted for itself, and which the adoption by twelve would have made in no way binding on the thirteenth. Here we pause, for this is a mere statement of facts, upon which a
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 5.26
origin and structure of the Federal Government, in which he deals very summarily with the doctrine of States-rights and Mr. Calhoun, the foremost statesman of South Carolina, who, he tells us, soon came to be considered the palladium of the peculiar institutions of the Southern States. It is sufficient, we are informed, to sum uprom the South; that the Crittenden resolutions were distinctly accepted by the Southern leaders, received the vote of every Southern Senator except those from South Carolina, who had already vacated their seats, and were rejected by a united Republican vote, by which also Mr. Clark's substitute, peremptorily closing the door to aning Fort Sumter), did not hesitate; but being always disposed to deal fairly even towards a perfidious enemy, he deemed it proper to inform the authorities of South Carolina of his intentions. Now, it so happens that upon this very interesting episode of the late contest, the public is in possession of particularly clear and am
Hartford (Connecticut, United States) (search for this): chapter 5.26
ch all are agreed who know anything of the matter, and this is abundantly sufficient to prove that there is not the faintest analogy between the relation of counties to States and that of States to the Union. We might well go further, and remind the author that the doctrine of which he disposes so easily was held not only by the selfish leaders and deluded masses of the South, but by eminent Northern politicians, notably those of New England in the days of a certain memorable convention at Hartford, as well as by able, thoughtful and disinterested foreigners. We will make but a single quotation from one of the most distinguished of these latter. Will he hear De Tocqueville on the point? The Union, says that eminent writer, despite his manifest leaning towards the North, and more especially towards New England, was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together, they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one
New England (United States) (search for this): chapter 5.26
tes to the Union. We might well go further, and remind the author that the doctrine of which he disposes so easily was held not only by the selfish leaders and deluded masses of the South, but by eminent Northern politicians, notably those of New England in the days of a certain memorable convention at Hartford, as well as by able, thoughtful and disinterested foreigners. We will make but a single quotation from one of the most distinguished of these latter. Will he hear De Tocqueville on the point? The Union, says that eminent writer, despite his manifest leaning towards the North, and more especially towards New England, was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together, they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of ma
Harper's Ferry (West Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 5.26
rs. Errors, misconceptions, misstatements, confront as on every page, not to mention the arrogant prejudice and elaborate one-sidedness that pervade the whole, as instanced in such samples of judicially impartial historical narrative as the following: In short, the mere fact that a simple Kansas farmer named John Brown, who had been ruined and persecuted by the slave-holders, sought to wreak his revenge upon them in Virginia, and had gathered together a dozen of fugitive slaves at Harper's Ferry, was sufficient to arouse a terrible sensation in the South. It was thought that a civil war had broken out, preparations were made for a great uprising, and it was found necessary to send regular troops from Washington to seize this man, who expiated upon the gallows the crime of having frightened the proud Virginians. Or this: Whether by accident or intentionally, the Confederates selected the 4th of March to adopt a new flag, and on the day when Mr. Lincoln entered upon the
Cumberland River (Kentucky, United States) (search for this): chapter 5.26
lation delivered into the hands of Grant fourteen thousand six hundred and twenty-three prisoners, sixty-five cannons, seventeen thousand muskets — that is to say, an entire army with all its materiel. * * * * * * * * * * * * The moral effect was immense. The remembrance of Bull Run was blotted out by a victory much more hotly contested, and the results of which were otherwise of importance. In short, after the scenes which had just been witnessed in Floyd's tent, and on the banks of the Cumberland, the Confederates could no longer taunt their enemies with the panic of the 21st of July; the game was henceforth even between them. That is to say, the case of a garrison beleagured by land and water by a force four times their own, after having not only repulsed repeated assaults, with heavy loss to the besiegers, but even defeated and driven them from important positions in the field, thus well nigh forcing a passage, sword in hand, through the masses that environed them, at length s
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 5.26
resentative, Secretary Seward? We cheerfully leave to him the task of settling the question between his two heroes. After what they have already seen of the scrupulous accuracy and thorough acquaintance with his subject displayed by this historian, our readers will scarcely be surprised to meet with such original and interesting items of information as that the three fractions of the Democratic party were personified by Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell, and that the electoral colleges of Tennessee and North Carolina refused to call a convention at the bidding of the seceders. But enough of this. We grow weary of pointing out errors which a stupid school boy would be ashamed to commit, and a clever school boy would scarcely have patience to correct. It may perhaps be suggested that, from his education and previous habits, the Count of Paris is better fitted to figure as a writer of military than of civil history. If so, we would strenuously advise him to confine himself in fu
Europe (search for this): chapter 5.26
have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or right. It would be a waste of time to dwell any longer upon so plain a point, or even to cite, as might easily be done, other eminent authorities, both Northern and European. We prefer to leave the Count of Paris in the hands of his distinguished countryman, with this advice however, which we commend to his serious consideration, that before he again undertakes to write upon American constitutional questions, he will devote half an hour to the perusal of the Constitution itself, and an equal space of time to the history of the events immediately preceding its adoption. This will not indeed make him an able constitutional lawyer, but it may avail to save him f
Bull Run, Va. (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 5.26
st serious reverse of the Confederate arms. The capture of Donelson, he says, with a glow of rapturous exultations, was a great and glorious success for the Federals. The material results were considerable. The capitulation delivered into the hands of Grant fourteen thousand six hundred and twenty-three prisoners, sixty-five cannons, seventeen thousand muskets — that is to say, an entire army with all its materiel. * * * * * * * * * * * * The moral effect was immense. The remembrance of Bull Run was blotted out by a victory much more hotly contested, and the results of which were otherwise of importance. In short, after the scenes which had just been witnessed in Floyd's tent, and on the banks of the Cumberland, the Confederates could no longer taunt their enemies with the panic of the 21st of July; the game was henceforth even between them. That is to say, the case of a garrison beleagured by land and water by a force four times their own, after having not only repulsed repeat
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 5.26
retary Seward? We cheerfully leave to him the task of settling the question between his two heroes. After what they have already seen of the scrupulous accuracy and thorough acquaintance with his subject displayed by this historian, our readers will scarcely be surprised to meet with such original and interesting items of information as that the three fractions of the Democratic party were personified by Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell, and that the electoral colleges of Tennessee and North Carolina refused to call a convention at the bidding of the seceders. But enough of this. We grow weary of pointing out errors which a stupid school boy would be ashamed to commit, and a clever school boy would scarcely have patience to correct. It may perhaps be suggested that, from his education and previous habits, the Count of Paris is better fitted to figure as a writer of military than of civil history. If so, we would strenuously advise him to confine himself in future strictly to
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...