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 121 total hits in 23 results.

1 2 3
Denmark (Denmark) (search for this): chapter 2.16
excluding also the amendments—the Constitution, in its original draft, makes mention of the states, as states, no less than seventy times; and of these seventy times, only three times in the way of prohibition of the exercise of a power. In fact, it is full of statehood. Leave out all mention of the states—I make no mere verbal point or quibble, but mean the states in their separate, several, distinct capacity—and what would remain would be of less account than the play of the Prince of Denmark with the part of Hamlet omitted. But, leaving out of consideration for the moment all minor questions, the vital and essential point of inquiry now is, by what authority the Constitution was ordained and established. Webster says it was done by the people of the United States in the aggregate; Everett repeats substantially the same thing; Motley, taking a step further, says that it was ordained and established by a power superior to the States—by the people of the whole land in their a
Rhode Island (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.16
ld no protest have been uttered against it—if these had been fractional parts of one community of people? Again, while the will of the consenting majority within any state was binding on the opposing minority in the same, no majority, or majorities, of states or people had any control whatever upon the people of another state. The Constitution was established, not over the States, as asserted by Motley, but between the States, and only between the States so ratifying the same. Little Rhode Island, with her seventy thousand inhabitants, was not a mere fractional part of the people of the whole land, during the period for which she held aloof, but was as free, independent, and unmolested, as any other sovereign power, notwithstanding the majority of more than three millions of the whole people on the other side of the question. Before the ratification of the Constitution—when there was some excuse for an imperfect understanding or misconception of the terms proposed—Madison thus <
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.16
nent units of an association. So clear was this to contemporaries that it needed only to be pointed out to satisfy their scruples. We have seen how effectual was the answer of Madison to the objections raised by Patrick Henry. Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania, one of the ablest political writers of his generation, in answering a similar objection, said: If the Federal Convention had meant to exclude the idea of union — that is, of several and separate sovereignties joining in a confederacy— they wounity) upon the proposed Constitution. On the contrary, seventy thousand people in the state of Delaware had precisely the same weight—one vote—in its ratification, as seven hundred thousand (and more) in Virginia, or four hundred thousand in Pennsylvania. Would not this have been an intolerable grievance and Wrong—would no protest have been uttered against it—if these had been fractional parts of one community of people? Again, while the will of the consenting majority within any stat
Patrick Henry (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.16
only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies. Article III, section 3. The federal character of the Union is expressed by this very phaseology, which recognizes the distinct integrity of its members, not as fractional parts of one great unit, but as component units of an association. So clear was this to contemporaries that it needed only to be pointed out to satisfy their scruples. We have seen how effectual was the answer of Madison to the objections raised by Patrick Henry. Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania, one of the ablest political writers of his generation, in answering a similar objection, said: If the Federal Convention had meant to exclude the idea of union — that is, of several and separate sovereignties joining in a confederacy— they would have said, We, the people of America ; for union necessarily involves the idea of competent States, which complete consolidation excludes. American Museum, February, 1788. More than forty years afterward, when t
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 2.16
d in that instrument. No such unit as the United States is ever mentioned therein. We read that n title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and no person holding any office of profi that period, any other emolument from the United States, or any of them. Article II, section 1,hat it is established by the people of the United States in the aggregate. Benton's Abridgment, ained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity. The Sster says it was done by the people of the United States in the aggregate; Everett repeats substantwas under consideration, the people of the United States were politically one people—a collective uhe case of the action of the people of the United States (if they were one political community) upo was [to be] ordained by the people of the United States in the aggregate, or by the people of Amerg. No such community as the people of the United States in the aggregate is known to it, or ever a[12 more...]
Benton (Mississippi, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.16
can not be shown that the Constitution is a compact between State governments. The Constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that proposition: it declares that it is ordained and established by the people of the United States. So far from saying that it is established by the governments of the several States, it does not even say that it is established by the people of the several States; but it pronounces that it is established by the people of the United States in the aggregate. Benton's Abridgment, Vol. X, p. 448. Judge Story about the same time began to advance the same theory, but more guardedly and with less rashness of statement. It was not until thirty years after that it attained its full development in the annunciations of sectionists rather than statesmen. Two such may suffice as specimens: Edward Everett, in his address delivered on July 4, 1861, and already referred to, says of the Constitution: That instrument does not purport to be a compact, but
Delaware (Delaware, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.16
legal majority would have been binding upon the whole. A denial of the first proposition would be a denial of common justice and equal rights; a denial of the second would be to destroy all government and establish mere anarchy. Now, neither of these principles was practiced or proposed or even imagined in the case of the action of the people of the United States (if they were one political community) upon the proposed Constitution. On the contrary, seventy thousand people in the state of Delaware had precisely the same weight—one vote—in its ratification, as seven hundred thousand (and more) in Virginia, or four hundred thousand in Pennsylvania. Would not this have been an intolerable grievance and Wrong—would no protest have been uttered against it—if these had been fractional parts of one community of people? Again, while the will of the consenting majority within any state was binding on the opposing minority in the same, no majority, or majorities, of states or people
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 2.16
to which they have been imposed upon the acceptance of the public, through reckless assertion and confident and incessant repetition. I remember, says Mr. Webster, to have heard Chief-Justice Marshall ask counsel, who was insisting upon the authority of an act of legislation, if he thought an act of legislation could create or destroy a fact, or change the truth of history? Would it alter the fact, said he, if a Legislature should solemnly enact that Mr. Hume never wrote the History of England? A Legislature may alter the law, continues Mr. Webster, but no power can reverse a fact. Hence, if the Convention of 1787 had expressly declared that the Constitution was [to be] ordained by the people of the United States in the aggregate, or by the people of America as one nation, this would not have destroyed the fact that it was ratified by each State for itself, and that each State was bound only by its own voluntary act. (Bledsoe.) But the convention, as we have seen, said no s
Joseph Story (search for this): chapter 2.16
of the several States, it does not even say that it is established by the people of the several States; but it pronounces that it is established by the people of the United States in the aggregate. Benton's Abridgment, Vol. X, p. 448. Judge Story about the same time began to advance the same theory, but more guardedly and with less rashness of statement. It was not until thirty years after that it attained its full development in the annunciations of sectionists rather than statesmen.of an English journal, to impose upon them a preposterous fiction. It was state ratification alone—the ratification of the people of each state, independently of all other people—that gave force, vitality, and validity to the Constitution. Judge Story, referring to the fact that the voters assembled in the several states, asks where else they could have assembled—a pertinent question on our theory, but the idea he evidently intended to convey was that the voting of the people by states was <
Daniel Webster (search for this): chapter 2.16
Federal Government and accretions of power Revival of old errors Mistakes and misstatements Webster, Story, and Everett who ordained and established the Constitution? In the progressive growtht again, and presented to the country as expositions of the true meaning of the Constitution. Webster, one of the first to revive some of those early misconceptions so long ago refuted as to be almtial point of inquiry now is, by what authority the Constitution was ordained and established. Webster says it was done by the people of the United States in the aggregate; Everett repeats substantiublic, through reckless assertion and confident and incessant repetition. I remember, says Mr. Webster, to have heard Chief-Justice Marshall ask counsel, who was insisting upon the authority of anthat Mr. Hume never wrote the History of England? A Legislature may alter the law, continues Mr. Webster, but no power can reverse a fact. Hence, if the Convention of 1787 had expressly declared th
1 2 3