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
United States (United States) 1,668 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 440 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 256 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 239 3 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 172 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 168 0 Browse Search
J. E. Johnston 166 0 Browse Search
P. G. T. Beauregard 158 6 Browse Search
Robert Anderson 136 6 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 124 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Search the whole document.

Found 181 total hits in 44 results.

1 2 3 4 5
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.20
ve the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side. Curtis's Life of Webster, Chapt. XXXVII, Vol. II, pp. 518, 519. The principles which have been set forth in the foregoing chapters, although they had come to be considered as peculiarly Southern, were not sectional in their origin. In the beginning and earlier years of our history they were cherished as faithfully and guarded as jealously in Massachusetts and New Hampshire as in Virginia or South Carolina. It was in these principles that I was nurtured. I have frankly proclaimed them during my whole life, always contending in the Senate of the United States against what I believed to be the mistaken construction of the Constitution taught by Webster and his adherents. While I honored the genius of that great man, and held friendly personal relations with him, I considered his doctrines on these points—or rather the doctrines advocated by him during the most conspicuous and influential
Fort Henry (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.20
ple were known to the authors of the declarations above quoted. Madison was a leading member of the Virginia convention, which made that declaration, as well as of the general convention that drew up the Constitution. We have seen what his idea of the people of the United States was—not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. Elliott's Debates, Vol. III, p. 114. Lee of Westmoreland (Light-horse Harry) in the same convention, answering Henry's objection to the expression, We, the people, said: It [the Constitution] is now submitted to the people of Virginia. If we do not adopt it, it will be always null and void as to us. Suppose it was found proper for our adoption, and becoming the government of the people of Virginia, by what style should it be done? Ought we not to make use of the name of the people? No other style would be proper. Ibid., p. 71. It would certainly be superfluous, after all that has been presented heretofo
Capon Springs (West Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.20
A recapitulation remarkable propositions of Gouverneur Morris in the convention of 1787, and their fate further testimony Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Marshall, etc. later theories Webster: his views at various periods speech at Capon Springs State rights not a sectional theory. Looking back for a moment at the ground over which we have gone, I think it may be fairly asserted that the following propositions have been clearly and fully established: 1. That the states of whicre founded on the rock of truth. In letters written and addresses delivered during the administration of Fillmore, he repeatedly applies to the Constitution the term compact, which, in 1833, he had so vehemently repudiated. In his speech at Capon Springs, Virginia, in 1851, he says: If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 2.20
ity or corporate unit as one people of the United States then existed, has ever been organized, or The fictitious idea of one people of the United States, contradicted in the last paragraph, has b concerning the office of President of the United States contemplated his election by the Congress,ature be stricken out, and citizens of the United States inserted. The proposition was supported bthe remark that every Constitution for the United States must inevitably consist of a great varietyng what he understood by the people of the United States, who were to ordain and establish it. Thesr to prevent it expressly delegated to the United States, it remains as reserved to the states or the old compact, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, but no one has claithat political fiction. The people of the United States, from whom the powers of the federal goverve seen what his idea of the people of the United States was—not the people as composing one great [11 more...]
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.20
bjections made by its adversaries. Those objections were refuted and silenced, until revived long afterward, and presented as the true interpretation, by the school of which Judge Story was the most effective founder. At an earlier period—but when he had already served for several years in Congress, and had attained the full maturity of his powers— Webster held the views which were presented in a memorial to Congress of citizens of Boston, December 15, 1819, relative to the admission of Missouri, drawn up and signed by a committee of which he was chairman, and which also included among its members Josiah Quincy. He speaks of the states as enjoying the exclusive possession of sovereignty over their own territory, calls the United States the American Confederacy, and says, The only parties to the Constitution, contemplated by it originally, were the thirteen confederated States. And again: As between the original States, the representation rests on compact and plighted faith; and y
Rhode Island (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.20
ted States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will. See Elliott's Debates, Vol. I, p. 360. New York and Rhode Island were no less explicit, both declaring that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness. Ibid., pp. 361, 369. These expressions are not mere obiter dicta, thrown out incidenied the Constitution and acceded to the Union, and cannot be detached from them. If they are invalid, the ratification itself was invalid, for they are inseparable. By inserting these declarations in their ordinances, Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island formally, officially, and permanently declared their interpretation of the Constitution as recognizing the right of secession by the resumption of their grants. By accepting the ratifications with this declaration incorporated, the other stat
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.20
ion being under consideration, Gouverneur Morris moved that the words national Legislature be stricken out, and citizens of the United States inserted. The proposition was supported by James Wilson—both of these gentlemen being delegates from Pennsylvania, and both among the most earnest advocates of centralism in the convention. Now, it is not at all certain that Morris had in view an election by the citizens of the United States in the aggregate, voting as one people. The language of his by the citizens of each state, voting separately and independently, though it is ambiguous, and may admit of the other construction. But this is immaterial. The proposition was submitted to a vote, and received the approval of only one state—Pennsylvania, of which Morris and Wilson were both representatives. Nine states voted against it. Elliott's Debates, Vol. I, p. 239; Madison Papers, pp. 1119-1124. Six days afterward (July 23d), in a discussion of the proposed ratification of the C
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.20
that is, the people of the several States—he says in a letter to Lafayette, April 28, 1788, retain everything they do not, by express terms, give up. In a letter written to Benjamin Lincoln October 26, 1788, he refers to the expectation that North Carolina will accede to the Union, and adds, Whoever shall be found to enjoy the confidence of the States so far as to be elected Vice-President, etc.—showing that in the confederated Government, as he termed it, the states were still to act independeot but hope that the States which may be disposed to make a secession will think often and seriously on the consequences. June 28, 1788, he wrote to General Pinckney that New Hampshire had acceded to the new Confederacy, and, in reference to North Carolina, I should be astonished if that State should withdraw from the Union. I shall add but two other citations. They are from speeches of John Marshall, afterward the most distinguished Chief Justice of the United States—who has certainly neve<
New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.20
e general government. He wrote to General Knox, June 17, 1788, I can not but hope that the States which may be disposed to make a secession will think often and seriously on the consequences. June 28, 1788, he wrote to General Pinckney that New Hampshire had acceded to the new Confederacy, and, in reference to North Carolina, I should be astonished if that State should withdraw from the Union. I shall add but two other citations. They are from speeches of John Marshall, afterward the mostg chapters, although they had come to be considered as peculiarly Southern, were not sectional in their origin. In the beginning and earlier years of our history they were cherished as faithfully and guarded as jealously in Massachusetts and New Hampshire as in Virginia or South Carolina. It was in these principles that I was nurtured. I have frankly proclaimed them during my whole life, always contending in the Senate of the United States against what I believed to be the mistaken construct
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.20
Southern, were not sectional in their origin. In the beginning and earlier years of our history they were cherished as faithfully and guarded as jealously in Massachusetts and New Hampshire as in Virginia or South Carolina. It was in these principles that I was nurtured. I have frankly proclaimed them during my whole life, alwa the nature of a partnership between individuals without limitation of time, and the recognized law of such partnerships is thus stated by an eminent lawyer of Massachusetts in a work intended for popular use: If the articles between the partners do not contain an agreement that the partnership shall continue for a specified tithe meaning that was attached to these expressions by their authors. The people of the United States were in their minds the people of Virginia, the people of Massachusetts, and the people of every other state that should agree to unite. They could have meant only that the people of their respective states who had delegated certa
1 2 3 4 5