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
Robert E. Lee 204 0 Browse Search
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) 160 0 Browse Search
Charles Pickett 145 1 Browse Search
March 14th, 1862 AD 134 134 Browse Search
P. G. T. Beauregard 124 2 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 110 4 Browse Search
Jubal A. Early 104 4 Browse Search
James Longstreet 96 2 Browse Search
United States (United States) 90 0 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 84 4 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 31. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 304 total hits in 129 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.22
of Vermont. To show that it was intended to apply equally to all the States and that there was no thought of excluding any or hampering any in making an absolutely free choice of representatives, may be quoted the language of Mr. Morrill himself, who said in a speech on the occasion when the statue of Lewis Cass was placed in the Hall in 1889: We have much reason to expect the grand old hall will ere long be adorned by such notable figures, possibly, as would be that of Benton, from Missouri, or those of Charles Carroll and William Wirt, from Maryland; Lincoln and Douglas, from Illinois; Grimes, from Iowa; Morton and Hendricks, of Indiana; Webster, from New Hampshire; Macon, once styled the last of the Romans, from North Carolina; Clay, from Kentucky; Calhoun, from South Carolina; William H. Crawford and George M. Troup, from Georgia; Austin and Sam Houston, from Texas, and Madison and Patrick Henry, from Virginia, with a long illustrious list of others easily to be mentioned,
Orange, N. J. (New Jersey, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.22
mous appreciation of the valor and manhood of his former enemies. In another speech, delivered before the Phi Beta Kappa Society of the University of Chicago in June of last year, See Southern Historical Society Papers, Vol. XXX, pp. 1-33. he effectually rebukes those who would apply to Lee the epithet of traitor, and with merciless and faultless logic, demonstrates that if Lee was a traitor, so also, and indisputably, were George Washington, Oliver Cromwell, John Hampden and William of Orange, and further, that the man who pursued Lee's course after the war had not, could not have had in his whole being one drop of traitor's blood or conceived a treacherous thought. It is in this speech, which is entitled Shall Cromwell have a Statue? that he proposes that the Federal Government shall provide a site for an equestrian statue of Lee in the city of Washington, and shows that the choice of Lee, when he put aside the temptations of ambition, place and power (being unreservedly ten
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.22
, a compact; dissoluble, perhaps most of them would have said, at pleasure, dissoluble certainly on breach of the articles of Union. To the same effect, but in even stronger terms, are the words of Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, now a Senator from Massachusetts, who said in one of his historical works: When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say that there was not a man in the country from Wasas impossible for the future American historian, however devoted to the Union he may be, to dispute the rectitude of Lee's motives, as it will be to belittle his military abilities. In this connection it may be mentioned that the Springfield (Mass.) Republican, while thinking the time not yet ripe for the presentation of the statue, said, in commenting upon the fact, brought out by Mr. Charles Francis Adams in a footnote to his Charleston address, that the constitutional right of secession
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 1.22
right in terms so clear and explicit that no room is left for any possible adverse construction. It is positively and unmistakably to the effect that every State shall have the right to select such two of its illustrious dead for this purpose as each State shall determine to be worthy of this national commemoration. It then goes on to provide that these statues when so furnished by the several States shall be placed in the old Hall of the House of Representatives, in the Capitol of the United States, which is hereby set apart, or so much thereof as may be necessary, as a National Statuary Hall. There is no provision in the law giving the authority to the President or anyone else, to either accept or reject these statues, and passing by the question of whether Virginia was in or out of the Union at the time that the law was passed and the invitation extended, I will only say that there is no question about her being in the Union now, and having the same rights under the laws of the
Kansas (Kansas, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.22
of the Union as every other State. The only people, therefore, who have the right to say anything as to whose statues Virginia shall send are the people of Virginia themselves, who speak through their representatives in the General Assembly. If Kansas were to choose the statue of John Brown to represent her, would Virginia have the right to complain? Certainly not. It is the prerogative of both Virginia and Kansas to choose whom they will to represent them, and neither has the right to interfKansas to choose whom they will to represent them, and neither has the right to interfere with the choice of the other. These are Virginia's places that Virginia is invited to fill as she herself shall determine, and no acceptance is necessary beyond the mere mechanical act involved. The statue of Washington is already one of the places allotted to Virginia, and as she has the right to choose another of her illustrious sons to fill the vacant niche, whom shall it be but Lee? The law on the subject was passed in 1864, and was introduced by Mr. Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont
Illinois (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.22
no thought of excluding any or hampering any in making an absolutely free choice of representatives, may be quoted the language of Mr. Morrill himself, who said in a speech on the occasion when the statue of Lewis Cass was placed in the Hall in 1889: We have much reason to expect the grand old hall will ere long be adorned by such notable figures, possibly, as would be that of Benton, from Missouri, or those of Charles Carroll and William Wirt, from Maryland; Lincoln and Douglas, from Illinois; Grimes, from Iowa; Morton and Hendricks, of Indiana; Webster, from New Hampshire; Macon, once styled the last of the Romans, from North Carolina; Clay, from Kentucky; Calhoun, from South Carolina; William H. Crawford and George M. Troup, from Georgia; Austin and Sam Houston, from Texas, and Madison and Patrick Henry, from Virginia, with a long illustrious list of others easily to be mentioned, sufficient to show that our materials to make the hall nationally attractive are in no danger of
Fortress Monroe (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.22
is unequalled in history, and that, therefore, he, and no other, should be placed by the side of her majestic Washington, that together they may stand through the centuries as chiefs of our grand army of immortals. Neither do we offer Lee because we have no others worthy to stand in that congregation of the nation's great. It is rather from such a wealth of material that we must draw, that it constitutes an embarrassment of riches. Our Jefferson, our Mason, our Henry, our Madison, our Monroe, and our Marshall; all of these and many others are worthy of that great company, but having selected Washington for our representative of the Revolutionary time, it seems that the most fitting selection we can now make is to fake the other from a later time and that the most stirring period of our history, and surely none can be found more worthy of this national commemoration than the stainless chieftain, Robert Edward Lee. Of the absolute legal right of Virginia to choose whom she will
Vermont (Vermont, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.22
erfere with the choice of the other. These are Virginia's places that Virginia is invited to fill as she herself shall determine, and no acceptance is necessary beyond the mere mechanical act involved. The statue of Washington is already one of the places allotted to Virginia, and as she has the right to choose another of her illustrious sons to fill the vacant niche, whom shall it be but Lee? The law on the subject was passed in 1864, and was introduced by Mr. Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont. To show that it was intended to apply equally to all the States and that there was no thought of excluding any or hampering any in making an absolutely free choice of representatives, may be quoted the language of Mr. Morrill himself, who said in a speech on the occasion when the statue of Lewis Cass was placed in the Hall in 1889: We have much reason to expect the grand old hall will ere long be adorned by such notable figures, possibly, as would be that of Benton, from Missouri, o
New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.22
of representatives, may be quoted the language of Mr. Morrill himself, who said in a speech on the occasion when the statue of Lewis Cass was placed in the Hall in 1889: We have much reason to expect the grand old hall will ere long be adorned by such notable figures, possibly, as would be that of Benton, from Missouri, or those of Charles Carroll and William Wirt, from Maryland; Lincoln and Douglas, from Illinois; Grimes, from Iowa; Morton and Hendricks, of Indiana; Webster, from New Hampshire; Macon, once styled the last of the Romans, from North Carolina; Clay, from Kentucky; Calhoun, from South Carolina; William H. Crawford and George M. Troup, from Georgia; Austin and Sam Houston, from Texas, and Madison and Patrick Henry, from Virginia, with a long illustrious list of others easily to be mentioned, sufficient to show that our materials to make the hall nationally attractive are in no danger of being exhausted, but in some States may prove embarrassing from their abundance
Quebec (Canada) (search for this): chapter 1.22
e rose of York and the red rose of Lancaster are entwined together in fragrant garlands of fraternal love, and a statue of Cromwell stands in the yard of Westminster Hall, where his skull was once exposed to insult; as in Mexico, the statues of Viceroy, Emperor, Dictator, King and President all stand together, so may we, as citizens of a common country, unite in honoring the heroes of every section who have fought and suffered for what they deemed the right. Upon the same granite obelisk at Quebec are engraved the names of Wolfe and Montcalm, with this inscription: Valor gave a united death; history a united fame; posterity a united monument, and in the hall of the Kremlin at Moscow there stands a grand statue of the great Napoleon. Surely, then, the statue of Robert E. Lee can stand in the Capitol of his own country without arousing rancorous or unkind feelings. It is a remarkable fact, Mr. President, that, although nearly a month has elapsed since this bill was offered, and that
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...