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
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 427 total hits in 149 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
July (search for this): chapter 1.19
Official report of the history Committee of the Grand Camp C. V., Department of Virginia. By Judge George L. Christian, Acting Chairman, October 11th, 1900. I. The right of secession established by Northern testimony. II. the North the aggressor in bringing on the war established by their own testimony. To the Grand Camp of Confederate Veterans of Virginia: Some time in July last, Dr. Stuart McGuire, seeing that his father, Dr. Hunter McGuire, the able and distinguished Chairman of this Committee, was permanently disabled for longer discharging the duties devolving on him, sent his resignation to your Commander. A meeting of this Committee was promptly called, and it was the unanimous opinion of the members present that the resignation should not be accepted, but that some member of the Committee should be designated to write the Report for this meeting. I was designated by the Commander for the performance of this important task. Fully recognizing then, as I do
November 9th (search for this): chapter 1.19
o believe that we to-day, the dominant party, who are about to take the reins of government, are their mortal foes, and stand ready to trample their institutions under foot. And notwithstanding the expression of these sentiments, we know, as we say, that this man became one of the most ardent supporters of the miserable despotism established by Abraham Lincoln, and became the second officer in that despotism on the assassination of Mr. Lincoln. Doctrine held Bv Greeley. On the 9th of November, in 1860, Mr. Horace Greeley, the great apostle of the Republican party, and who was often referred to during Mr. Lincoln's administration as the power behind the throne —greater than the throne itself —said in his paper, the New York Tribune. If the Cotton States consider the value of the Union debatable, we maintain their perfect right to discuss it; nay, we hold with Jefferson, to the alienable right of communities to alter or abolish forms of government that have become oppressiv
1776 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless; and we do not see how one party can have a right to do what another party has a right to prevent. On the 17th of December, 1860, just three days before the secession of South Carolina, he again said in the Tribune: If it (the Declaration of Independence) justified the secession from the British Empire of three million of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not some one attempt to show wherein and why? Again, on February the 23rd, 1861, five days after the inauguration of President Davis at Montgomery, he said: We have repeatedly said, and we once more insist, that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence—that governments derive their
1788 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
garded the new system as anything but an experiment entered into by the States, and from which each and every Stale had the right peaceably to withdraw.—a right which was very likely to be exercised. Mr. James C. Carter, now of New York, but a native of New England, and perhaps the most distinguished lawyer in this country to-day, in a speech delivered by him at the University of Virginia, in 1898, said: I may hazard the opinion that if the question had been made, not in 1860, but in 1788, immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, whether the Union as formed by that instrument could lawfully treat the secession of a State as rebellion, and suppress it by force, few of those who participated in forming that instrument would have answered in the affirmative. North's Attitude since the war. And we should never forget this pregnant and, we think, conclusive fact in regard to this question, namely: the conduct of the North after the war in regard to Mr. Davis, Gen
1798 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
h had wished to do so, for no better reason than that it could not bear to he beaten in an election, like a sulky school-boy out of temper at not winning a game, and had submitted the question of its right to withdraw from the Union to the decision of any court of law in Europe, she would have carried her point. Indeed, the decision of this question might, with propriety, and doubtless would, have rested for all time on the principles enunciated in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 and ‘99, and the report of Mr. Madison on these resolutions. The Virginia resolutions and report were drawn by Mr. Madison, the father of the Constitution; and those of Kentucky by Mr. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence. These principles, emanating from these master-builders, would, as we have said, have settled the rights of the States on this question forever, but for the fact, as Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts tells us that the North was controlled by exp
1799 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
from whom we have before quoted, and at this time one of the distinguished senators from Massachusetts, uses this language in speaking of Mr. Webster's reply to Mr. Hayne. He says: The weak places in his (Webster's) armor were historical in their nature. It was probably necessary (at all events Mr. Webster felt it to be so) to argue that the Constitution at the outset was not a compact between the States, but a national instrument, and to distinguish the cases of Virginia and Kentucky in 1799, and of New England in 1814, front that of South Carolina in 1830. The former point he touched upon lightly; the latter he discussed ably, eloquently and at length. Unfortunately the facts wear against him in both instances. And in this connection, Mr. Lodge then uses this language: When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of the States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of the States in popular convention, it is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from
November 10th, 1800 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
s of the North have constantly warred upon Southern institutions, by incessant abuse from the pulpit, from the press, on the stump, and in the halls of Congress, denouncing them as a sin against God and man. * * * By these denunciations and lawless acts on the part of Abolition fanatics such results have been produced as to drive the people of the Southern States to a sleepless vigilance for the protection of their property and the preservation of their rights. The Albany Argus of November 10th, 1800, said: We sympathize with, and justify the South as far as this: their rights have been invaded to the extreme limit possible within the forms of the Constitution; and beyond this limit; their feelings have been insulted, and their interests and honor assailed by almost every possible form of denunciation and invective; and if we deemed it certain that the real animus of the Republican party could be carried into the administration of the Federal Government, and become the perma
1803 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
several States would be freed from their federal bonds and obligations; and that, as it will be the right of all (the States), so it will be the duty of some, to prepare definitely for a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must. Whilst this author may be right in characterizing the development of the doctrine, and fixing this right as a Massachusetts heresy, he is wrong in fixing upon its first progenitor, and in saying that the date of its birth was as late as 1811; for in 1803, one Colonel Timothy Pickering, a Senator from Massachusetts, and Secretary of State in the Cabinet of John Adams, complaining of what he called the oppressions of the aristocratic Democrats of the South, said, I will not despair; I will rather anticipate a new Confederacy. * * * That this can be accomplished without spilling one drop of blood I have little doubt. * * * it must begin with Massachusetts. The proposition would be welcomed by Connecticut; and could we doubt of New Hampshire? Bu
1811 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
r secession doctrine, was originated by Josiah Quincy, and was a Massachusetts heresy. This writer says Quincy first enunciated the doctrine in opposing the bill for the admission of what was then called the Orleans Territory (now Louisiana) in 1811, when he declared, that if the bill passed and that territory was admitted, the act would be subversive of the Union, and the several States would be freed from their federal bonds and obligations; and that, as it will be the right of all (the Stay must. Whilst this author may be right in characterizing the development of the doctrine, and fixing this right as a Massachusetts heresy, he is wrong in fixing upon its first progenitor, and in saying that the date of its birth was as late as 1811; for in 1803, one Colonel Timothy Pickering, a Senator from Massachusetts, and Secretary of State in the Cabinet of John Adams, complaining of what he called the oppressions of the aristocratic Democrats of the South, said, I will not despair; I w
1814 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
ire? But New York must be associated; and how is her concurrence to be obtained? She must be made the center of the Confederacy. Vermont and New Jersey would follow, of course; and Rhode Island of necessity. The Hartford Convention. In 1814, the Hartford Convention was called and met in consequence of the opposition of New England to the war then pending with Great Britain. Delegates were sent to this Convention by the Legislatures of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, andcessary (at all events Mr. Webster felt it to be so) to argue that the Constitution at the outset was not a compact between the States, but a national instrument, and to distinguish the cases of Virginia and Kentucky in 1799, and of New England in 1814, front that of South Carolina in 1830. The former point he touched upon lightly; the latter he discussed ably, eloquently and at length. Unfortunately the facts wear against him in both instances. And in this connection, Mr. Lodge then uses t
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...