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 descending order. Sort in ascending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
United States (United States) 84 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 36 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 26 0 Browse Search
Kansas (Kansas, United States) 24 0 Browse Search
France (France) 24 0 Browse Search
Boteler 16 10 Browse Search
Alabama (Alabama, United States) 14 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 14 0 Browse Search
China (China) 12 0 Browse Search
Goochland (Virginia, United States) 10 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in The Daily Dispatch: December 5, 1860., [Electronic resource].

Found 1,131 total hits in 414 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
1856 AD (search for this): article 1
uffered a series of wrongs and outrages such as we have never patiently borne from any other nation. For these our successful ministers, invoking the faith of treaties, had, in the name of their country, persistently demanded redress and identification, but without the est effect. Indeed, so confident had the Mexican an horatius become of our patient endurance, that they universally believed they might commit these outrages upon American citizens with impunity. Thus wrote our minister in 1856, and expressed the opinion that "nothing a manifestation of the power of the Government, and of its purpose to punish these wrongs, will avail." Afterwards, in 1857, came the adoption of a new constitution for Mexico, the election of a President and Congress under its provisions, and the inauguration of the President. With in one short month, however, this President was expelled from the capital by a rebellious in the army, and the supreme power of the republic was assigned to Gen. Zul
1852 AD (search for this): article 1
ies. Under the French law, no person can serve in the armies of France unless he be a French citizen. The law of France recognizing the natural right of expatriation, it follows as a necessary consequence that a Frenchman, by the fact of having become a citizen of the United States, has changed his allegiance and has lost his native character. He cannot, therefore, be compelled to serve in the French armies in case he should return to his native country. These principles were announced in 1852 by the French Minister of War, and in two late cases have been confirmed by the French judiciary. In these, two natives of France have been discharged from the French army because they had become American citizens. To employ the language of our present Minister to France, who has rendered good service on this occasion, "I do not think our French naturalized fellow-citizens will hereafter experience much annoyance on this subject." I venture to predict that the time is not far distant when t
1850 AD (search for this): article 1
validity of this law has been established over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States with perfect unanimity. It is founded upon an express provision of the Constitution requiring that fugitive slaves who escape from service in one State to another shall be "delivered up" to their masters. Without this provision it is a well-known historical fact that the Constitution itself could never have been adopted by the Convention. In one form or other under the acts of 1793 and 1850, both being substantially the same, the fugitive slave law has been the law of the land from the days of Washington until the present moment.--Here, then, a clear case is presented, in which it will be the duty of the next President, as it has been my own, to act with vigor in executing this supreme law against the conflicting enactments of State Legislatures. Should he fail in the performance of this high duty, he will then have manifested a disregard of the Constitution and laws, to the gr
1859 AD (search for this): article 1
ng on the 30th June, 1860, including $1,010,667.71 for the contingent expenses of Congress, there must be deducted from this amount the sum of $4,296,009.26, with the interest upon of $150,000, appropriated by the act of 15th February, 1860, "for the purpose of supplying the deficiency in the revenues and defraying the expenses of the Post Office Department for the year ending the thirtieth of June, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine." This sum, therefore, justly chargeable to the year 1859, must be deducted from the sum of $59,848,474.72, in order to ascertain the expenditure for the year ending on the 30th June, 1860, which leaves a balance for the expenditures of that year of $55,402,465.46. The interest on the public debt, including Treasury notes for the same fiscal year ending on the 30th June, 1860, amounted to $3,177,314.62, which, added to the above sum of $55,402,465.16, makes the aggregate of $58,579,780. It ought in justice to be observed that several of the est
1793 AD (search for this): article 1
dent. The validity of this law has been established over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States with perfect unanimity. It is founded upon an express provision of the Constitution requiring that fugitive slaves who escape from service in one State to another shall be "delivered up" to their masters. Without this provision it is a well-known historical fact that the Constitution itself could never have been adopted by the Convention. In one form or other under the acts of 1793 and 1850, both being substantially the same, the fugitive slave law has been the law of the land from the days of Washington until the present moment.--Here, then, a clear case is presented, in which it will be the duty of the next President, as it has been my own, to act with vigor in executing this supreme law against the conflicting enactments of State Legislatures. Should he fail in the performance of this high duty, he will then have manifested a disregard of the Constitution and laws,
1858 AD (search for this): article 1
n precipitated into a war. This was rendered manifest by the exasperated state of public feeling throughout our entire country, produced by the forcible search of American merchant vessels by British cruisers on the coast of Cuba, in the spring of 1858. The American people hailed with general acclaim the orders of the Secretary of the Navy to our naval force in the Gulf of Mexico, "to protect all vessels of the United States on the high seas from search or detention by the vessels-of-war of anyce of the Supreme Court, became the lawful President of the Republic; and it was for the countenance of the constitution and his authority derived from it that the civil war commenced, and still continues to be prosecuted. Throughout the year 1858 the constitutional party grew stronger and stronger. In the previous history of Mexico a successful military revolution at the capital had almost universally been the signal for submission throughout the republic. Not so on the present occasion.
1857 AD (search for this): article 1
d, in the name of their country, persistently demanded redress and identification, but without the est effect. Indeed, so confident had the Mexican an horatius become of our patient endurance, that they universally believed they might commit these outrages upon American citizens with impunity. Thus wrote our minister in 1856, and expressed the opinion that "nothing a manifestation of the power of the Government, and of its purpose to punish these wrongs, will avail." Afterwards, in 1857, came the adoption of a new constitution for Mexico, the election of a President and Congress under its provisions, and the inauguration of the President. With in one short month, however, this President was expelled from the capital by a rebellious in the army, and the supreme power of the republic was assigned to Gen. Zuloaga. This usurper was in his turn soon compelled to retire and give place to Gen Moramon. Under the constitution which had thus been adopted, Senor Juarez, as chief
1799 AD (search for this): article 1
e dangers which had seriously threatened the existence of the Government during the pendency of that election. The article for its own amendment was intended to secure the amicable adjustment of conflicting constitutional questions like the present, which might arise between the governments of the States and that of the United States. This appears from contemporaneous history. In this connection, I shall merely call attention to a few sentences in Mr. Madison's justly celebrated report, in 1799, to the legislature of Virginia. In this he ably and conclusively defended the resolutions of the preceding legislature against the strictures of several other State legislatures. These were mainly founded upon the protest of the Virginia legislature against the "After and Sedition Acts," as "palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution." In pointing out the peaceful and constitutional remedies, and be referred to none other, to which the States were authorized to resort, on such o
June (search for this): article 1
tion for that purpose had passed the Senate of the United States. They were content that it should be submitted to the board for examination and decision, like the other claims. Both governments were bound respectively to pay the amounts awarded to the several claimants "at such times and places as may be fixed by and according to the tenor of said awards." I transmitted this convention to the Senate for their constitutional action on the 3d May, 1860, and on the 27th of the succeeding June they determined that they would "not advise and consent" to its ratification. These proceedings place our relations with Spain in an awkward and embarrassing position. It is more than probable that the final adjustment of these claims will devolve upon my successor. I reiterate the recommendation contained in my Annual Message of December, 1858, and repeated in that of December, 1859, in favor of the acquisition of Cuba from Spain by fair purchase. I firmly believe that such an ac
Madison (search for this): article 1
as ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, like an individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to secure the remainder! In the language of Mr. Madison, who has been called the father of the Constitution: "It was formed by the States--that is, by the people in each of the States, acting in their highest sovereiof that body, that on the 31st May, 1787, the clause, "authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent State" come up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single sentence. He observed; "The use of force against a State would look more likf the States and that of the United States. This appears from contemporaneous history. In this connection, I shall merely call attention to a few sentences in Mr. Madison's justly celebrated report, in 1799, to the legislature of Virginia. In this he ably and conclusively defended the resolutions of the preceding legislature aga
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...