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 129 total hits in 36 results.

1 2 3 4
1789 AD (search for this): chapter 2.15
one whole people of the colonies, then that geographical section of it formerly known as the colony of Maryland was in a state of revolt or rebellion against the others, as well as against Great Britain, from 1778 to 1781, during which period Maryland refused to ratify or be bound by the Articles of Confederation, which, according to this theory, was binding upon her, as a majority of the whole people had adopted it. A fortiori, North Carolina and Rhode Island were in a state of rebellion in 1789-‘90, while they declined to ratify and recognize the Constitution adopted by the other eleven fractions of this united people. Yet no hint of any such pretension—of any claim of authority over them by the majority—of any assertion of the supremacy of the Union—is to be found in any of the records of that period. It might have been unnecessary to bestow so much time and attention in exposing the absurdity of the deductions from a theory so false, but for the fact that it has been specious
1774 AD (search for this): chapter 2.15
ning, it might have been prevented by an easy periphrasis—such as, We, the people of the States hereby united, or something to the same effect. The word people in 1787, as in 1880, was, as it is, a collective noun, employed indiscriminately, either as a unit in such expressions as this people, a free people, etc., or in a distributive sense, as applied to the citizens or inhabitants of one state or country or a number of states or countries. When the convention of the colony of Virginia, in 1774, instructed their delegates to the Congress that was to meet in Philadelphia, to obtain a redress of those grievances, without which the people of America can neither be safe, free, nor happy, it was certainly not intended to convey the idea that the people of the American continent, or even of the British colonies in America, constituted one political community. Nor did Edmund Burke have any such meaning when he said, in his celebrated speech in Parliament in 1775, The people of the colonie
1836 AD (search for this): chapter 2.15
tes? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the States. Elliott's Debates (Washington edition, 1836), Vol. III, p. 54. Again, on the next day, with reference to the same subject, he said: When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have theovernments is very material. The existing system has been derived from the dependent, derivative authority of the Legislatures of the States, whereas this is derived from the superior power of the people. Elliott's Debates (Washington edition, 1836), Vol. III, pp. 114, 115. It must be remembered that this was spoken by one of the leading members of the convention which formed the Constitution, within a few months after that instrument was drawn up. Madison's hearers could readily apprec
May 29th, 1787 AD (search for this): chapter 2.15
and Madison answered it, the journal of the Philadelphia Convention had not been published. That body had sat with closed doors, and among its rules had been the following: That no copy be taken of any entry on the journal during the sitting of the House, without the leave of the House. That members only be permitted to inspect the journal. That nothing spoken in the House be printed, or otherwise published or communicated, without leave. Journal of the Federal Convention, May 29, 1787, 1 Elliott's Debates. We can understand, by reference to these rules, how Madison should have felt precluded from making allusion to anything that had occurred during the proceedings of the convention. But the secrecy then covering those proceedings has long since been removed. The manuscript journal, which was entrusted to the keeping of General Washington, president of the convention, was deposited by him, nine years afterward, among the archives of the State Department. It has s
August 6th, 1787 AD (search for this): chapter 2.15
he archives of the State Department. It has since been published, and we can trace for ourselves the origin, and ascertain the exact significance, of that expression, We, the people, on which Patrick Henry thought the fate of America might depend, and which has been so grossly perverted in later years from its true intent. The original language of the preamble, reported to the convention by a committee of five appointed to prepare the Constitution, as we find it in the proceedings of August 6, 1787, was as follows: We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish, the following Constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity. There can be no question here what was meant: it was the people of the States, designated by name, that were to ordain, declare
1781 AD (search for this): chapter 2.15
unit; overlooking or suppressing the fact that, in the very same sentence, the colonies declare themselves free and independent States—not a free and independent state—repeating the words independent States three times. If, however, the Declaration of Independence constituted one whole people of the colonies, then that geographical section of it formerly known as the colony of Maryland was in a state of revolt or rebellion against the others, as well as against Great Britain, from 1778 to 1781, during which period Maryland refused to ratify or be bound by the Articles of Confederation, which, according to this theory, was binding upon her, as a majority of the whole people had adopted it. A fortiori, North Carolina and Rhode Island were in a state of rebellion in 1789-‘90, while they declined to ratify and recognize the Constitution adopted by the other eleven fractions of this united people. Yet no hint of any such pretension—of any claim of authority over them by the majority
1 2 3 4