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 213 1 Browse Search
Sherman 156 4 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 144 0 Browse Search
Nathan B. Forrest 128 2 Browse Search
John C. Pemberton 126 2 Browse Search
Joseph E. Johnston 113 9 Browse Search
Mississippi (Mississippi, United States) 98 0 Browse Search
W. W. Loring 95 3 Browse Search
Jackson (Mississippi, United States) 91 3 Browse Search
Earl Van Dorn 86 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in Colonel Charles E. Hooker, Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 12.2, Mississippi (ed. Clement Anselm Evans).

Found 8,477 total hits in 2,958 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
ty. Before presenting these reasons, however, and for the purpose of comparison hereafter, and to show the unanimity with which the people acted, an observation or two may be deemed necessary. The threatened invasion of Mississippi soil, the assailment of their right of property and its possible ultimate destruction, caused Whig and Democrat to stand shoulder to shoulder and hand to hand in support of a common cause. The report of the auditor of public accounts of Mississippi for the year 1860 shows that there were 60,001 free white polls between 21 and 50 years of age in the State, and 415,689 slaves under 60 years of age. In a memorial of the legislature to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States, adopted July 29, 1861, it is stated that fully one-fifth of the entire cotton crop, averaging $40 per bale, was gathered from the soil of Mississippi, and that at the time of separation the people were in a prosperous condition. The Democratic party of the State, represent
hoice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few unquestionable facts will sufficiently prove. The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well known ordinance of 1787 in regard to the Northwestern Territory. The feeling increased until, in 1819 and 1820, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France. The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico. It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States has jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within it
t Philadelphia in 1787 to adopt a new constitution. The convention, presided over by General Washington, adopted the new constitution known as the Constitution of 1789, and in accordance with its own provisions submitted it to the several States for their adoption or rejection. Let it at once be noted that by the very terms of the original thirteen States, with an insignificant and sparse population, to have defeated its adoption. It is also important to observe that this Constitution of 1789 further provided, that when adopted by nine of the original thirteen States it should only be operative and binding on the States so ratifying the same. Each StatThe United States government had at last to recognize the great principle of home rule and community independence, which is the corner stone of the Constitution of 1789, and allow the States, in their own conventions, to resume their places in the Union. The sovereign power and entity of the States had not been destroyed by the
U. S. Grant (search for this): chapter 1
rn States were invaded by unlawful conspiracies and combinations to destroy their property and disturb their domestic tranquillity, what was more natural than that they should declare, as they acceded to the Union of their own right and free will to secure liberty and the peaceable possession of their property, when this was denied them they had the right of secession? When the war closed we surrendered by capitulation, with arms in our hands. What were the terms of the capitulation with Grant at Appomattox and Sherman in North Carolina? They were that the Confederates should furl their flags, stack their arms, return to their homes and yield obedience to the Constitution and laws of the Union then existing; and it was stipulated on the other side, that they should have the protection of the Constitution and laws of the Union. That the Confederates kept the terms of their capitulation, no one will be heard to deny. The question soon arose as to how the seceded States were to
was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few unquestionable facts will sufficiently prove. The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well known ordinance of 1787 in regard to the Northwestern Territory. The feeling increased until, in 1819 and 1820, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France. The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico. It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States has jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it w
Washington (search for this): chapter 1
ed them to deny the power of taxation to the newly constructed confederacy. A very few years sufficed to show that a general or federal government, dependent on the voluntary quota of taxes to be furnished by each State, and without the power of taxation, could not be self-sustaining. The Continental Congress passed an act authorizing a convention of all the original thirteen States, to assemble at Philadelphia in 1787 to adopt a new constitution. The convention, presided over by General Washington, adopted the new constitution known as the Constitution of 1789, and in accordance with its own provisions submitted it to the several States for their adoption or rejection. Let it at once be noted that by the very terms of this constitution, it was to become a constitution over the States only when nine of the original thirteen States should, in convention assembled, adopt the same; thus placing it in the power of four of the smallest of the original thirteen States, with an insigni
Humphrey Marshall (search for this): chapter 1
d, one hundred in all, assembled at the capitol in the city of Jackson on Monday, the 7th day of January, 1861, and on the following Wednesday, the 9th day of January, 1861, the ordinance of secession was adopted. Subsequently Mr. Clayton, of Marshall, from the committee to which was referred the subject of preparing an address setting forth the causes which induce and justify the secession of Mississippi from the Federal Union, submitted the following report: A Declaration of the Immediaother species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the crown of England. Our decision is made. We follow in their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation and, for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights, with the full consciousness of the justice of our course and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it. On motion of Mr. Clayton, of Marshall, the report was received and agreed to. The address was then adopted.
December 20th, 1860 AD (search for this): chapter 1
sed a bill providing for a convention of the people of Mississippi, agreeably to which an election was to be held, according to law, in each precinct of every county in the State, sixty in number, for delegates to the convention, just as in case of an election for representatives to the legislature, each county being entitled to the same number of delegates in the convention as in the legislature, including the representation of any city or town. The election was to be held on the 20th day of December, 1860. The legislature, having submitted the question to the people, adjourned sine die, November 30th. The question whether the State should secede or not was debated before the people in every county of the State, some of the most able and distinguished citizens upholding the negative of the issue. Under the provisions of the bill convoking the sovereign people of the State in convention, passed by both branches of the legislature without a dissenting voice, an election for delega
November 30th (search for this): chapter 1
be held, according to law, in each precinct of every county in the State, sixty in number, for delegates to the convention, just as in case of an election for representatives to the legislature, each county being entitled to the same number of delegates in the convention as in the legislature, including the representation of any city or town. The election was to be held on the 20th day of December, 1860. The legislature, having submitted the question to the people, adjourned sine die, November 30th. The question whether the State should secede or not was debated before the people in every county of the State, some of the most able and distinguished citizens upholding the negative of the issue. Under the provisions of the bill convoking the sovereign people of the State in convention, passed by both branches of the legislature without a dissenting voice, an election for delegates to the convention was held at the time and places mentioned, resulting in favor of secession delegat
ssary for the maintenance of their rights as co-equal members of the confederacy. Official returns of the vote for governor of the State of Mississippi, at an election held on the first Monday of October, 1859, as opened and counted by a joint convention of the two houses of the legislature on Thursday, the 10 day of November, 1859, show that the total vote cast was 44,882. Of this number, John J. Pettus received 34,559; H. W. Walter, 10,306; scattering 15.pettus majority, 24,253. Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Hamlin having been elected, Governor Pettus convened the legislature in extraordinary session, saying in his message that he had assembled them to take into consideration the greatest and most solemn question that ever engaged the attention of any legislative body on the continent. The legislature met at Jackson, November 26, 1860, and, after citing in a preamble their reasons for so doing, adopted the following resolution: Be it Resolved, by the legislature of the State of Miss
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...