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
David Hunter 245 3 Browse Search
United States (United States) 186 0 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 174 0 Browse Search
Lynchburg (Virginia, United States) 172 6 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 158 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 142 0 Browse Search
James 135 1 Browse Search
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) 132 0 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 128 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 116 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 30. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones).

Found 11,655 total hits in 4,314 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
1776 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
indisputably were George Washington, Oliver Cromwell, John Hampden, and William of Orange. The list might be extended indefinitely; but these will suffice. There can be no question that every one of those named violated his allegiance, and gave aid and comfort to the enemies of his sovereign. Washington furnishes a precedent at every point. A Virginian like Lee, he was also a British subject; he had fought under the British flag, as Lee had fought under that of the United States; when, in 1776, Virginia seceded from the British Empire, he went with his State, just as Lee went with it eighty-five years later; subsequently Washington commanded armies in the field designated by those opposed to them as rebels, and whose descendants now glorify them as the rebels of ‘76, much as Lee later commanded, and at last surrendered, much larger armies, also designated rebels by those they confronted. Except in their outcome, the cases were, therefore, precisely alike; and logic is logic. It c
1898 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
They certainly cannot be reconciled. The single point I make is that they were, when made, the expression of views honestly and sincerely entertained. We sympathize with Great Britain's rebels; Great Britain sympathized with our rebels. Our rebels in 1862, as theirs in 1900, thoroughly believed they were resisting an iniquitous attempt to deprive them of their rights, and to establish over them a grinding, a galling, and an irritating tyrannical government. We in 1861, as Great Britain in 1898, and Charles the Martyr and Philip of Spain some centuries earlier, were fully convinced that we were engaged in God's work while we trod under foot the rebel and the traitor. Presently, as distance lends a more correct perspective, and things are viewed in their true proportions, we will get perhaps to realize that our case furnishes no exception to the general rule, and that we, too, like the English generally sympathize with everybody's rebels but our own. Justice may then be done. Ha
1798 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
nied by practical difficulty. And, after all is said and done, the legality of secession is somewhat of a metaphysical abstraction so long as the right of revolution is inalienable. As matter of fact it was to might and revolution the South appealed in 1861; and it was to coercion the government of Union had recourse. So with his supreme good sense and that political insight at once instinctive and unerring, in respect to which he stands almost alone, Washington foresaw this alternative in 1798. Washington seems, indeed, to have foreseen it from the commencement. Hardly was the independence of the country achieved before he began to direct his efforts toward the creation of a nation, with a central power adequate to a coercive policy if called for by the occasion. Thus, in March, 1783, he wrote to Nathaniel Greene (Ford, Writings of Washington, Vol. X, p. 203, note): It remains only for the States to be wise, and to establish their independence on the basis of an inviolable
1950 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
try's blood. I hand him over to the avenging pen of History. This was when Lee had been just two months dead; but, three-quarters of a century after the protector's skull had been removed from over the roof of Westminster Hall, Pope wrote, in similar spirit— See Cromwell, damn'd to everlasting fame; and, sixteen years later,—four-fifths of a century after Cromwell's disentombment at Westminster and reburial at Tyburn,—period from the death of Lee equal to that which will have elapsed in 1950, Gray sang of the Stoke Pogis churchyard— Some mute, inglorious Milton here may rest, Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood. And now, a century and a half later, Cromwell's statue looms defiantly up in front of the Parliament House. When, therefore, an appeal is in such cases made to the avenging pen of History, it is well to bear this instance in mind, while recalling, perchance, that other line of a greater than Pope, or Gray, or Sumner— Thus the whirligig of time
1900 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
reconciled. The single point I make is that they were, when made, the expression of views honestly and sincerely entertained. We sympathize with Great Britain's rebels; Great Britain sympathized with our rebels. Our rebels in 1862, as theirs in 1900, thoroughly believed they were resisting an iniquitous attempt to deprive them of their rights, and to establish over them a grinding, a galling, and an irritating tyrannical government. We in 1861, as Great Britain in 1898, and Charles the Marty therewith. Secession is not intended to break up the present government, but to perpetuate it. We go out of the Union, not to destroy it, but for the purpose of getting further guarantees and security, this was said in January, 1861; and this in 1900: And so we believe that with the success of the South, the Union of the fathers, which the South was the principal factor in forming, and to which she was far more attached than the North, would have been restored and re-established; that in this
1860 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
se vital issues, were proclaiming a crusade of reaction. Moreover, what availed the views or intentions of the framers of the Constitution? What mattered it in 1860 whether they, in 1787, contemplated a nation or only a more compact federation of sovereign States? In spite of logic and historical precedent, and in sublime unconciousness of metaphysics and abstractions, realities have unpleasant way of asserting their existence. However it may have been in 1788, in 1860 a nation had grown into existence. Its peaceful dismemberment was impossible. The complex system of tissues and ligaments, the growth of seventy years, could not be gently taken apar and fondly loved to call herself, had never been affected by the nullification heresies of South Carolina; and the long line of her eminent public men, though, in 1860, showing marked signs of a deteriorating standard, still retained a prominence in the national councils. If John B. Floyd was secretary of war, Winfield Scott was
February (search for this): chapter 1.1
sever her connection with it because of the lawful election of an anti-slavery president, even by a distinctly sectional vote. For a time she even stayed the fast flooding tide of secession, bringing about a brief but important reaction. Those of us old enough to remember the drear and anxious winter which followed the election and preceded the inauguration of Lincoln, recall vividly the ray of bright hope which, in the midst of its deepest gloom, then came from Virginia. It was in early February. Up to that time the record was unbroken. Beginning with South Carolina on December 20, State after State, meeting in convention, had with significant unanimity passed ordinances of secession. Each successive ordinance was felt to be equivalent to a renewed declaration of war. The outlook was dark indeed, and, amid the fast gathering gloom, all eyes, all thoughts, turned to Virginia. She represented the Border States; her action, it was felt, would largely influence, and might control t
1788 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
man; while they, on both of these vital issues, were proclaiming a crusade of reaction. Moreover, what availed the views or intentions of the framers of the Constitution? What mattered it in 1860 whether they, in 1787, contemplated a nation or only a more compact federation of sovereign States? In spite of logic and historical precedent, and in sublime unconciousness of metaphysics and abstractions, realities have unpleasant way of asserting their existence. However it may have been in 1788, in 1860 a nation had grown into existence. Its peaceful dismemberment was impossible. The complex system of tissues and ligaments, the growth of seventy years, could not be gently taken apart, without wound or hurt; the separation, if separation there was to be, involved a tearing asunder, supplementing a liberal use of the knife. Their professions to the contrary notwithstanding, this the southern leaders failed not to realize. In point of fact, therefore, believing fully in the abstrac
1862 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
of the most grinding, one of the most galling, one of the most irritating attempts to establish tyrranical government that ever disgraced the history of the world. Upon the correctness or otherwise of these judgments I do not care to pass. They certainly cannot be reconciled. The single point I make is that they were, when made, the expression of views honestly and sincerely entertained. We sympathize with Great Britain's rebels; Great Britain sympathized with our rebels. Our rebels in 1862, as theirs in 1900, thoroughly believed they were resisting an iniquitous attempt to deprive them of their rights, and to establish over them a grinding, a galling, and an irritating tyrannical government. We in 1861, as Great Britain in 1898, and Charles the Martyr and Philip of Spain some centuries earlier, were fully convinced that we were engaged in God's work while we trod under foot the rebel and the traitor. Presently, as distance lends a more correct perspective, and things are view
1861 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
and an irritating tyrannical government. We in 1861, as Great Britain in 1898, and Charles the Marts to might and revolution the South appealed in 1861; and it was to coercion the government of Union. Lodge conclusively show, the secessionists of 1861 stand in history's court by no means without a was the same with the secessionists. That, in 1861, they could really have had faith in the practie to actualities. The secessionist recourse in 1861 was to the sword, and to the sword it was meant Hercules—the parting of those terrible ways of 1861. Like Scott and Lee, Thomas was a Virginian;e Pocahontas blood. When the war broke out, in 1861, Thomas had been twenty-one years a commissioneUnion without the sympathy and assent of Lee in 1861? The question gave me pause. And then I must ted with the question what would I have done in 1861 had positions been reversed, and Massachusetts Virginia who threw in his lot with his State in 1861. Thus much for the choice of Hercules. Pass[1 more...]
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...