hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity (current method)
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
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) 384 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 272 0 Browse Search
James Buchanan 162 0 Browse Search
Winfield Scott 148 0 Browse Search
Kansas (Kansas, United States) 118 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 114 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 100 0 Browse Search
Anderson 68 68 Browse Search
John B. Floyd 60 0 Browse Search
Stephen A. Douglas 58 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in James Buchanan, Buchanan's administration on the eve of the rebellion.

Found 4,911 total hits in 1,158 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
1st (search for this): chapter 4
ected not to declare any person nominated for the office of President or Vice-President, unless he shall have received a number of votes equal to two-thirds of the votes of all the electoral colleges. It was well known at the time that this resolution rendered the regular nomination of Mr. Douglas impossible. The balloting then commenced (Tuesday evening, May 1st), on the eighth day of the session. Pages 141-152. Necessary to a nomination, under the two-thirds rule, 202 votes. On the first ballot Mr. Douglas received 145 1/2 votes; Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, 42; Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, 35 1/2; Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, 12; Mr. Dickinson, of New York, 7; Mr. Lane, of Oregon, 6; Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, 2 1/2; Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, 1 1/2, and Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, 1 vote. The voting continued until 3d May, during which there were fifty-four additional ballotings. Mr. Douglas never rose to more than 152 1/2, and ended at 151 1/2 votes, 202 votes being necessary to
3rd (search for this): chapter 8
arded. It would be a useless labor to recapitulate all the proceedings in the Senate upon the proposition of Mr. Crittenden to refer his amendment to a vote of the people. On the 14th January, 1861, he made an unsuccessful attempt to have it considered, but it was postponed until the day following. Con. Globe, 1860-1, . 361-363. On this day it was again postponed by the vote of every Republican Senator present, in order to make way for the Pacific Railroad bill. Ibid., p. 881. On the third attempt (January 16), he succeeded, but by a majority of a single vote, in bringing his resolution before the body. Every Republican Senator present voted against its consideration. A direct vote upon the resolution, so earnestly desired by the country, now seemed inevitable. The parliamentary tactics of the Republican party, however, defeated this object. Mr. Clark, a Republican Senator from New Hampshire, moved to strike out the entire preamble and resolution of Mr. Crittenden, and in
5th (search for this): chapter 13
n of the United States. Accordingly he transmitted to the House, on the 28th March, 1860, the following message: Ibid., p. 18. to the House of Representatives: After a delay which has afforded me ample time for reflection, and after much and careful deliberation, I find myself constrained by an imperious sense of duty, as a coordinate branch of the Federal Government, to protest against the first two clauses of the first resolution, adopted by the House of Representatives on the 5th instant, and published in the Congressional Globe on the succeeding day: These clauses are in the following words: Resolved, That a committee of five members be appointed by the Speaker, for the purpose, 1st, of investigating whether the President of the United States, or any other officer of the Government, has, by money, patronage, or other improper means, sought to influence the action of Congress, or any committee thereof, for or against the passage of any law appertaining to the rights of a
6th (search for this): chapter 4
ceed to ballot for a candidate for the Presidency until the platform shall have been adopted. On the 27th of April the Committee on Resolutions made majority and minority reports. 5th day, p. 45. After a long, able, and eloquent discussion on the respective merits of the two reports, they were both, on motion of Mr. Bigler, of Pennsylvania, re-committed to the Committee on Resolutions, Page 89. with a view, if possible, to promote harmony; but this proved to be impracticable. On the sixth day of the Convention (Saturday, April 28th), Pages 92, 98. at an evening session, Mr. Avery, of North Carolina, and Mr. Samuels, of Iowa, from the majority and minority of the committee, again made opposite and conflicting reports on the question of slavery in the Territories. On this question the committee had divided from the beginning, the one portion embracing the fifteen members from the slaveholding States, with those from California and Oregon, and the other consisting of the mem
15th (search for this): chapter 11
request. Should his safety, however, require reinforcements, every effort will be made to supply them. I can add nothing to the explicitness of this language, which still applies to the existing status. The right to send forward reenforcements when, in the judgment of the President, the safety of the garrison requires them, rests on the same unquestionable foundation as the right to occupy the fortress itself. In the letter of Senator Davis and others to yourself, under date of the 15th ultimo, they say: We therefore think it especially due from South Carolina to our States —to say nothing of other slaveholding States—that she should, as far as she can consistently with her honor, avoid initiating hostilities between her and the United States or any other power; and you now yourself give to the President the gratifying assurance that South Carolina has every disposition to preserve the public peace; and since he is himself sincerely animated by the same desire, it would seem th
21st (search for this): chapter 3
and his staff everywhere deny the authority of the territorial laws, and counsel a total disregard of these enactments. Without making further quotations of a similar character from other despatches of Governor Walker, it appears by a reference to Mr. Stanton's communication to General Cass, of the 9th of December last, that the important step of calling the [Territorial] Legislature together was taken after I [he] had become satisfied that the election ordered by the Convention on the 21st instant [December] could not be conducted without collision and bloodshed. So intense was the disloyal feeling among the enemies of the government established by Congress, that an election which afforded them an opportunity, if in the majority, of making Kansas a free State, according to their own professed desire, could not be conducted without collision and bloodshed! The truth is, that, up till the present moment, the enemies of the existing government still adhere to their Topeka revoluti
25th (search for this): chapter 3
iliarly called the Kansas and Nebraska Bill. On the question of repeal, a long and angry debate arose in both Houses of Congress. This consumed a large portion of tie session, and exasperated the contending parties to a degree never before witnessed. The opponents of the bill openly and violently predicted imminent danger to the peace of the Union from its passage, whilst its advocates treated any such danger with proud and indignant disdain. The bill finally passed both Houses on the 25th, and was approved by President Pierce on the 30th May, 1854. It was ominous of evil that every Southern Senator present, whether Whig or Democrat, without regard to past political distinctions, voted for the repeal, with the exception of Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, and Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, who voted against it; and that every Northern Democratic Senator present, uniting with the South, also voted for the repeal, with the exception of Messrs. Allen and James, of Rhode Island, and Mr. Walke
29th (search for this): chapter 12
isions and placed in perfect security, until an adequate force had arrived to defend it against any attack. The fort has ever since been in our possession. General Scott, in his report to President Lincoln, speaks of this arrangement in the hostile spirit toward President Buchanan which pervades the whole document. He condemns it without qualification. He alleges that the Brooklyn, with Captain Vogdes' company alone, left the Chesapeake for tort Pickens about January the 22d, and on the 29th President Buchanan, having entered into a quasi armistice with certain leading seceders at Pensacola and elsewhere, caused Secretaries Holt and Toucey to instruct, in a joint note, the commanders of the war vessels off Pensacola, and Lieutenant Slemmer, commanding Fort Pickens, to commit no act of hostility, and not to land Captain Vogdes' company unless the fort should be attacked. He washes his hands of all knowledge of the transaction by declaring, That joint note I never saw, but suppose
30th (search for this): chapter 11
onel Hayne still longer to withhold the letter from the President, and await farther instructions from Charleston. In his answer of 24th January to their note containing this advice, he informs them that although the letter from the Secretary of War was far from being satisfactory, yet in compliance with their request he would withhold the communication with which he was at present charged, and refer the whole matter to the authorities of South Carolina, and would await their reply. On the 30th this reply was received, and on the next. day Colonel Hayne transmitted to the President the letter of Governor Pickens demanding the surrender of the fort, with a long communication from himself. This letter is dated Headquarters, Charleston, January 12, 1861, and is as follows: Sir: At the time of the separation of the State of South Carolina from the United States, Fort Sumter was, and still is, in the possession of troops of the United States, under the command of Major Anderson.
31st (search for this): chapter 11
the adjustment of its relations with the United States, of which it was a part. On the 6th February, the Secretary of War, on behalf of the President, replied to this demand, as well as to the letter of Colonel Hayne accompanying it. Our narrative would be incomplete without this admirable and conclusive reply. It is as follows: War Department, February 6, 1861. H. R. Ex. Doc, 1860-61, vol. IX, Doc, No 61. Sir. The President of the United States has received your letter of the 31st ultimo, and has charged me with the duty of replying thereto. In the communication addressed to the President by Governor Pickens, under date of the 12th January, and which accompanies yours now before me, his Excellency says: I have determined to send to you the Hon. I. W. Hayne, the Attorney-General of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him to demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities of the State of South Carolina. The d
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...