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
Hilton Head (South Carolina, United States) 36 0 Browse Search
James P. Holcombe 24 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 24 0 Browse Search
Maryland (Maryland, United States) 22 0 Browse Search
Beaufort, S. C. (South Carolina, United States) 22 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 20 0 Browse Search
New Bern (North Carolina, United States) 17 1 Browse Search
R. G. H. Kean 16 0 Browse Search
D. D. Sirmond 15 1 Browse Search
Port Royal (South Carolina, United States) 14 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: November 12, 1861., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 2 total hits in 2 results.

The Constitutionality of secession. --The London Standard, of the 2d of October, has a "leader" in reply to an essay in McMillan's Magazine, on the American question and the right of secession. We quote the following extract: A State withdrawing from an alliance of a permanent nature may, according both to principle and precedent, be justly compelled to return by war, if other means fail. If half a Confederacy secede, however, both policy and justice would be better satisfied by a peaceable separation; and the case of the Federal (American) Government, in the present war is as doubtful as any case ever was. It rests its defence on the unconstitutionality of secession, and every act of coercion it has yet attempted is, at least, equally unconstitutional.* * * * * * * * The fact that the South cannot be attacked without breaking the very compact by which the attack is justified is surely a strong reason for letting it alone.
February, 10 AD (search for this): article 5
The Constitutionality of secession. --The London Standard, of the 2d of October, has a "leader" in reply to an essay in McMillan's Magazine, on the American question and the right of secession. We quote the following extract: A State withdrawing from an alliance of a permanent nature may, according both to principle and precedent, be justly compelled to return by war, if other means fail. If half a Confederacy secede, however, both policy and justice would be better satisfied by a peaceable separation; and the case of the Federal (American) Government, in the present war is as doubtful as any case ever was. It rests its defence on the unconstitutionality of secession, and every act of coercion it has yet attempted is, at least, equally unconstitutional.* * * * * * * * The fact that the South cannot be attacked without breaking the very compact by which the attack is justified is surely a strong reason for letting it alone.