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) 1,668 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 440 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 256 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 239 3 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 172 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 168 0 Browse Search
J. E. Johnston 166 0 Browse Search
P. G. T. Beauregard 158 6 Browse Search
Robert Anderson 136 6 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 124 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Search the whole document.

Found 169 total hits in 32 results.

1 2 3 4
Rhode Island (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.14
to discontinue his fortifications. American Archives, Fourth Series, Vol. I, p. 908. These were the people referred to by the Congress; the children of the Pilgrims, who occupied at that period the town of Boston and the province of Massachusetts Bay, would have been not a little astonished to be reckoned as one people, in any other respect than that of the common cause, with the Roman Catholics of Maryland, the Episcopalians of Virginia, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, or the Baptists of Rhode Island. The other citation of Everett is from the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence: When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, etc., etc. This, he says, characterizes the good people of the colonies as one people. Plainly, it does no such thing. The misconception is so palpable as scarcely to admit of serious answer. The Declaration of Independence opens with a general pro
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.14
sition of the inhabitants of the town of Boston and of the Providence of Massachusetts Bay, to discontinue his fortifications. American Archives, Fourth Series, Vol. I, p. 908. These were the people referred to by the Congress; the children of the Pilgrims, who occupied at that period the town of Boston and the province of Massachusetts Bay, would have been not a little astonished to be reckoned as one people, in any other respect than that of the common cause, with the Roman Catholics of Maryland, the Episcopalians of Virginia, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, or the Baptists of Rhode Island. The other citation of Everett is from the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence: When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, etc., etc. This, he says, characterizes the good people of the colonies as one people. Plainly, it does no such thing. The misconception is so palpable as sca
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.14
to provide money for the purpose. There were, however, local and partial confederacies among the New England colonies, long before the Declaration of Independence. As early as the year 1643 a Congress had been organized of delegates from Massachusetts, Plymouth, New Haven, and Connecticut, under the style of The United colonies of New England. The objects of this confederacy, according to Bancroft, were protection against the encroachments of the Dutch and French, security against the tris was even then in existence. Thus remarkable for unmixed simplicity (he proceeds) was the form of the first confederated government in America. . . . There was no president, except as a moderator of its meetings, and the larger state [sic], Massachusetts, superior to all the rest in territory, wealth, and population, had no greater number of votes than New Haven. But the commissioners were in reality little more than a deliberative body; they possessed no executive power, and, while they cou
Runnymede (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 2.14
he flight of the Roman eagles, which elsewhere had been the emblem of their dominion over the known world. This principle—the great preserver of all communal freedom and of mutual harmony—was transplanted by the Saxons into England, and there sustained those personal rights which, after the fall of the Heptarchy, were almost obliterated by the encroachments of Norman despotism; having the strength and perpetuity of truth and right, they were reasserted by the mailed hands of the barons at Runnymede for their own benefit and that of their posterity. Englishmen, the early settlers, brought this idea to the wilds of America, and it found expression in many forms among the infant colonies. Edward Everett, in his Fourth-of-July address delivered in New York in 1861, following the lead of Judge Story, and with even less caution, boldly declares that, before their independence of England was asserted, they [the colonies] constituted a provincial people. To sustain this position—utterly<
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 2.14
ople origin and continuance of the title United States no such political community as the people of the United States. The historical retrospect of the last three chapters and the extracts frod a league or alliance with one another as United States. This title antedated the adoption of the form of the first confederated government in America. . . . There was no president, except as a moy, the people of which were considered by all America as suffering in the common causes for their nir independence of the mother country. As United States they adopted the Articles of Confederationf each was distinctly asserted. They were united States when Great Britain acknowledged the absolut was without any change of title—still as United States—without any sacrifice of individuality—witn of their independence, the people of the United States have never acted otherwise than as the peoh political community as the people of the United States in the aggregate exists at this day or eve[10 more...
Plymouth, N. C. (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.14
o Albany, in the colony of New York, for a ransom; inasmuch as he belonged to New Hampshire, however, the government of New York took no action for his release. There was not even enough community of feeling to induce individual citizens to provide money for the purpose. There were, however, local and partial confederacies among the New England colonies, long before the Declaration of Independence. As early as the year 1643 a Congress had been organized of delegates from Massachusetts, Plymouth, New Haven, and Connecticut, under the style of The United colonies of New England. The objects of this confederacy, according to Bancroft, were protection against the encroachments of the Dutch and French, security against the tribes of savages, the liberties of the gospel in purity and in peace. Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. I, Chapter IX. The general affairs of the company were entrusted to commissions, two from each colony; the same historian tells us that to each i
Delaware (Delaware, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.14
people of the colonies as one people. Plainly, it does no such thing. The misconception is so palpable as scarcely to admit of serious answer. The Declaration of Independence opens with a general proposition. One people is equivalent to saying any people. The use of the correlatives one and another was the simple and natural way of stating this general proposition. One people applies, and was obviously intended to apply, to all cases of the same category—to that of New Hampshire, or Delaware, or South Carolina, or of any other people existing or to exist, and whether acting separately or in concert. It applies to any case, and all cases, of dissolution of political bands, as well as to the case of the British colonies. It does not, either directly or by implication, assert their unification, and has no bearing whatever upon the question. When the colonies united in sending representatives to a Congress in Philadelphia, there was no purpose—no suggestion of a purpose— to m<
New England (United States) (search for this): chapter 2.14
e people in the aggregate a great fallacy exposed mistake of Judge Story colonial relations the United colonies of New England other associations Independence of communities traced from Germany to great Britain, and from great Britain to Amerindividual citizens to provide money for the purpose. There were, however, local and partial confederacies among the New England colonies, long before the Declaration of Independence. As early as the year 1643 a Congress had been organized of delegates from Massachusetts, Plymouth, New Haven, and Connecticut, under the style of The United colonies of New England. The objects of this confederacy, according to Bancroft, were protection against the encroachments of the Dutch and French, secur or province, but styled themselves united colonies—colonies united for purposes of mutual counsel and defense, as the New England colonies had been united more than a hundred years before. It was as United States—not as a state, or united people—t<
France (France) (search for this): chapter 2.14
s United States—not as a state, or united people—that these colonies—still distinct and politically independent of each other—asserted and achieved their independence of the mother country. As United States they adopted the Articles of Confederation, in which the separate sovereignty, freedom, and independence of each was distinctly asserted. They were united States when Great Britain acknowledged the absolute freedom and independence of each, distinctly and separately recognized by name. France and Spain were parties to the same treaty, and the French and Spanish idioms still express and perpetuate, more exactly than the English, the true idea intended to be embodied in the title—les États-Unis, or los Estados Unidos—the States united. It was without any change of title—still as United States—without any sacrifice of individuality—without any compromise of sovereignty—that the same parties entered into a new and amended compact with one another under the present Co
Norman (search for this): chapter 2.14
the German forests before the days of the Caesars, had given to that rude people a self-reliance and patriotism which first checked the flight of the Roman eagles, which elsewhere had been the emblem of their dominion over the known world. This principle—the great preserver of all communal freedom and of mutual harmony—was transplanted by the Saxons into England, and there sustained those personal rights which, after the fall of the Heptarchy, were almost obliterated by the encroachments of Norman despotism; having the strength and perpetuity of truth and right, they were reasserted by the mailed hands of the barons at Runnymede for their own benefit and that of their posterity. Englishmen, the early settlers, brought this idea to the wilds of America, and it found expression in many forms among the infant colonies. Edward Everett, in his Fourth-of-July address delivered in New York in 1861, following the lead of Judge Story, and with even less caution, boldly declares that, befor
1 2 3 4