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
William Mahone 274 2 Browse Search
United States (United States) 224 0 Browse Search
David A. Weisiger 181 1 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 176 18 Browse Search
P. G. T. Beauregard 142 2 Browse Search
Hunter McGuire 122 4 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 119 5 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 103 1 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 100 0 Browse Search
James H. Grant 84 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 28. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 272 total hits in 65 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
May, 1775 AD (search for this): chapter 1.17
ing on any fishery on the banks of Newfoundland or other places therein mentioned, under certain conditions and limitations. This act diminished the food supplies of the poor in Boston, and great distress would have followed but for contributions from other colonies. But, stimulated rather than deterred by this last act of aggression, the colonies, as advised, appointed delegates to another general Congress, all being represented except Canada and Georgia, as before, on its assemblage in May, 1775. Georgia was also represented some two months later. Hostilities had broken out between Great Britain and Massachusetts before this Congress met. The battle of Lexington had been fought, and volunteers from Connecticut and Vermont, under Colonel Ethan Allen, had seized upon the military posts of Ticonderoga and Crown Point. New England, says Mr. Grady, had now crossed the Rubicon; a step had been taken which imposed on the other colonies the necessity of choosing whether they would stand
discriminating tonnage tax was imposed on all foreign ships engaged in carrying goods to or from these States; a discriminating tariff tax was imposed on all articles imported into these States in foreign ships; ship builders in the United States were granted an absolute monopoly of the home market for ships, and New England's cod fishermen were quartered on the taxpayers of all the States. Largely in consequence of these protective measures, the shippers of the United States, as far back as 1810, controlled a greater part of the world's carrying trade than either Holland or England; but already the victims of paternalism had begun to ask what had become of the justice promised in the constitution. At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and for several decades afterwards, agriculture was the employment of the great majority of the people of this country, and diversification of industry was confined almost exclusively to the north. In the northern States the surplus crops
January 25th (search for this): chapter 1.17
Mr. Hayne's opinions many of the honest and sincere friends of the union and all those who were, or hoped to be, beneficiaries of Federal legislation. Naturally, a champion of the union was sought for; and he was found in Daniel Webster, whose reply to Hayne added very much to his fame, was regarded as a coup de grace to States' rights, and became as familiar as Mother Goose's Melodies in every section of the union. Mr. Webster delivered two speeches in the course of the debate, one on January 25th, and the other two days after, as a rejoinder. Mr. Grady considers the two together and summarizes them as follows: First—He (Webster) asserts that the power of Congress is unlimited in granting public lands for roads, canals, education, etc., in Ohio and other western States, without regard to the conditions on which Virginia and other States ceded the lands to the United States; and he finds his authority in the common good, it being, he declares, fairly embraced in its objects
January, 1830 AD (search for this): chapter 1.17
after the passage of the tariff act of 1832: That in this manner the burden of supporting the government was thrown exclusively on the Southern States, and the other states gained more than they lost by the operations of the revenue system. The nullification proceedings in South Carolina ensued upon the passage of the act of 1832. The discussion of the doctrine, or theory, of nullification, was begun by some southern members of Congress, notably by Senator Hayne, of South Carolina, in January, 1830. Senator Hayne asserted the right of a state to interpose and arrest the execution of any federal measure oppressive to its citizens and violative of the Constitution, and as a last resort to retire from the union. Mr. Grady observes that this was an unfortunate move, aside from any merit in it; it united against those who held Mr. Hayne's opinions many of the honest and sincere friends of the union and all those who were, or hoped to be, beneficiaries of Federal legislation. Naturally
resses, by the States under the articles of confederation, and, in the Senate, under the constitution. Without it co-operation and union would have been impossible. This Congress declared what it deemed to be the inalienable rights of English freemen, pointed out the dangers which threatened those rights, and besought the people of the colonies to renounce commerce with Great Britain, and advised all the colonies to send delegates to a general Congress, to be assembled in the same place in May of the next year. Meanwhile an act of parliament restrained the trade and commerce of the provinces of Massachusetts Bay and New Hampshire and the colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in North America, to Great Britain, Ireland and the British Islands in the West Indies, and prohibited such provinces and colonies from carrying on any fishery on the banks of Newfoundland or other places therein mentioned, under certain conditions and limitations. This act dimin
February, 1768 AD (search for this): chapter 1.17
w Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. This Congress adopted a declaration of rights, and sent an address to the king and a petition to the parliament, asserting the right of the colonies to be exempted from all taxes not imposed by their consent. The obnoxious act was repealed the next year, but another was passed imposing taxes on glass, paper, painters' colors and tea, on their importation into the colonies. This latter act was approved by the king in June, 1767, and in February, 1768, the Legislature of Massachusetts invited the co-operation of the other colonies in an effort to secure a redress of grievances. The circular in which this invitation was conveyed was very offensive to the British government, and a demand was made for its rescission, but Massachusetts refused to rescind, reaffirming its position in still stronger language. A body of troops was then sent over to suppress the rebels, and finally, on the 5th of March, 1770, a number of the citizens of Bos
September 5th, 1774 AD (search for this): chapter 1.17
, humiliation and prayer, and the royal governor having at once dissolved the House of Burgesses, the members resolved themselves into a committee, adopted resolutions declaring, in substance, that the cause of Boston was the cause of all, and took steps to induce the other colonies to appoint delegates to the general Congress proposed by Boston. North Carolina's legislative assembly also denounced the Boston port bill, and approved the plan for a general Congress. At last, on the 5th of September, 1774, the first Continental Congress was organized in Philadelphia, all the colonies being represented except Canada and Georgia. The first act of this Congress was to agree that each colony should have one vote, and this equality, says Mr. Grady, was preserved by subsequent congresses, by the States under the articles of confederation, and, in the Senate, under the constitution. Without it co-operation and union would have been impossible. This Congress declared what it deemed to be t
since the revolution to the value of $800,000,000, and the north has exported comparatively nothing. And truly, adds Mr. Grady, did the South Carolina delegation say, in their address to their constituents, after the passage of the tariff act of 1832: That in this manner the burden of supporting the government was thrown exclusively on the Southern States, and the other states gained more than they lost by the operations of the revenue system. The nullification proceedings in South Carolina ensued upon the passage of the act of 1832. The discussion of the doctrine, or theory, of nullification, was begun by some southern members of Congress, notably by Senator Hayne, of South Carolina, in January, 1830. Senator Hayne asserted the right of a state to interpose and arrest the execution of any federal measure oppressive to its citizens and violative of the Constitution, and as a last resort to retire from the union. Mr. Grady observes that this was an unfortunate move, aside from any
June, 1767 AD (search for this): chapter 1.17
all except Canada, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. This Congress adopted a declaration of rights, and sent an address to the king and a petition to the parliament, asserting the right of the colonies to be exempted from all taxes not imposed by their consent. The obnoxious act was repealed the next year, but another was passed imposing taxes on glass, paper, painters' colors and tea, on their importation into the colonies. This latter act was approved by the king in June, 1767, and in February, 1768, the Legislature of Massachusetts invited the co-operation of the other colonies in an effort to secure a redress of grievances. The circular in which this invitation was conveyed was very offensive to the British government, and a demand was made for its rescission, but Massachusetts refused to rescind, reaffirming its position in still stronger language. A body of troops was then sent over to suppress the rebels, and finally, on the 5th of March, 1770, a number o
irable. He, in fact, had not contemplated the cession of the whole of the Louisiana territory; that proposal came from Napoleon himself. In regard to the general effect of the preponderant influence of the protected interests, Mr. Grady quotes the view presented by Mr. Benton in his Thirty Years in the United States Senate. Referring in general terms to the causes of southern discontent, Mr. Benton says that the complaint of the South against the North existed when he came into the Senate (1821), and had commenced in the first years of the Federal Government, at the time of the assumption of the State debts, the incorporation of the first national bank and the adoption of the funding system, all of which drew capital from the South to the North: It continued to increase, and, at the period (1838) to which this chapter relates, it had reached the stage of an organized sectional expression in a voluntary convention of the Southern States. * * * The changed relative condition of the tw
1 2 3 4 5 6 7