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
W. H. C. Whiting 200 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 144 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 136 0 Browse Search
Moses D. Hoge 135 1 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 107 3 Browse Search
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) 104 0 Browse Search
Joseph Wheeler 99 3 Browse Search
McClellan 94 4 Browse Search
Alabama (Alabama, United States) 88 0 Browse Search
James Ewell Brown Stuart 87 5 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 26. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 312 total hits in 112 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...
James Hamilton (search for this): chapter 1.3
s her leading statesmen showed a far-sighted wisdom, and a breadth of patriotism for which no words of praise can be too strong. In the making of the government under which we live, says the same writer, these five names—Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson and Marshall—stand before all others. Four out of the five, as it is hardly necessary to remind the reader, were Virginians. But why accumulate testimony? The warmest of partisans could not desire, could not select himself, strondge, of Massachusetts. When, says he, 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 Washington and Hamilton, on the one side, to George Clinton and George Mason, on the other, who regarded the new system as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right peaceably to withdraw, a right which was
Segar (search for this): chapter 1.3
ssachusetts, was equally decided in his opposition to the scheme. So far as I know, he said, I do not believe there is a single person representing any portion of that part of Virginia which is left who ever consented to the erection and admission of this new State. Not one. And again. It is trifling with the spirit of the Constitution to say that any portion of the State of Virginia which is left has consented in any way, in any form and substance to the dismemberment of the State. Mr. Segar, from the Norfolk district, in Virginia, protested earnestly against the passage of the bill. I must say, he said, that according to my judgment the legal argument is altogether against the admission of the new State. Of the forty-eight counties of which it was to be composed, eleven had never, he declared, had even the semblance of representation. It would be found that there was not only not a majority of the people, but a singularly small proportion of them that voted for the new S
Lincoin (search for this): chapter 1.3
wer to act in their name and behalf. Men are not apt to be cool and logical in a crisis like that which preceded the great conflict of 1861, yet it would seem, whatever their constitutional views, that the dominant party might have better recollected, not only the traditional American doctrine so closely interwoven with the life and history of the country, but the comparatively recent declarations of the man whom they had just placed at the head of the Government. Any people anywhere, Mr. Lincoin had said, being inclined, and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inh
Unionists (search for this): chapter 1.3
itory from one State to another, in the act admitting West Virginia, did not include these counties within its limits. In addition to this, and as evidence that Mr. Peirpoint was not sustained in his position even by the most extreme class of Unionists (so-called) With regard to this assumption of the name of Unionists by those whose whole course tended constantly to the destruction of the real Union framed by the founders of the government, the following sentence from Mr. Calhoun's last gUnionists by those whose whole course tended constantly to the destruction of the real Union framed by the founders of the government, the following sentence from Mr. Calhoun's last great speech in the Senate will be found strikingly just and appropriate: But surely, that can with no propriety of language be called a Union, when the only means by which the weaker is held connected with the stronger portion, is force. in Virginia, it should be noted that the convention which met in Alexandria, on the 13th of February, 1864, consisting of, and representing, that class alone, entirely ignored his proclamation announcing the transfer of Berkeley and Jefferson to West Virginia,
Goldwin Smith (search for this): chapter 1.3
d be hard to find language more exactly and comprehensively descriptive of all that the policy actually pursued was not. Every statement of this declaration was contradicted, every pledge broken, while, in the words of an English writer (Professor Goldwin Smith), whose systematic Northern bias, unphilosophical and misleading as it is, could not wholly blind him to the patent facts of the case, the stronger of the two separate nations proceeded to attack, conquer and re-annex the weaker. It is to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. Well might the English historian, Goldwin Smith, in spite of his strong partiality for the North, say of this passage, Southern revolution could not have asked for a clearer sanction. Not the Constitution alone, but the whole spirit of the American Revolution, and of the institutions fo
Field (search for this): chapter 1.3
the strong pressure in favor of the new State's claim, the Court was equally divided, which must, under the circumstances, be regarded as a decided moral, though of course not a legal victory for Virginia. On the reconstruction of the Court, and the appointment of two new justices in 1871, the case came up again, and on a demurrer filed by the counsel for West Virginia, was decided in her favor. The dissenting opinion delivered by Justice Davis, and concurred in by Justices Clifford and Field, states the case tersely and clearly: To my mind there is nothing clearer than that Congress never did undertake to give its consent to the transfer of Berkeley and Jefferson counties to the State of West Virginia until March 2nd, 1866. If so, the consent came too late, because the Legislature of Virginia had, on the 5th day of December, 1865, withdrawn its assent to the proposed cession of the two counties. This withdrawal was in ample time, as it was before the proposal of the State had
George Rogers Clarke (search for this): chapter 1.3
eel a deep personal interest in the good name and good fortune of a State so closely identified with the early renown of the Republic—a State with whose soil is mingled the dust of those to whom all States and all generations are debtors—the Father of his country, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the chief projector of the National Constitution. Perhaps the only thing, says Fiske, that kept the Union from falling to pieces in 1786 was the Northwestern territory, which George Rogers Clarke had conquered in 1779, and which skilful diplomacy had enabled us to keep when the treaty was drawn up in 1782. And again, in reference to the gift by Virginia of this territory to the United States for the common benefit of all. —— Virginia gave up a magnificent and princely territory of which she was actually in possession. She might have held back and made endless trouble, just as, at the beginning of the Revolution she might have refused to make common cause with Massachusetts;
Abraham Lincoln (search for this): chapter 1.3
s recorded by a leading Republican after the most straitest sect of that political faith. The Dred Scott decision, says Mr. Blaine, received no respect after Mr. Lincoln became President, and without reversal by the court was utterly disregarded. And again, almost immediately afterward, on the same page, When President LincolPresident Lincoln, in 1861, authorized the denial of the writ of habeas corpus to persons arrested on a charge of treason, Chief Justice Taney delivered an opinion in the case of John Merryman, denying the President's power to suspend the writ, declaring that Congress only was competent to do it. The executive department paid no attention to the dess, forebore to join them, and still, hoping against hope, persisted in spite of every discouragement, in earnest efforts for peace and reconciliation until President Lincoln's proclamation demanding troops for the invasion of the seceding States appeared, and the choice was abruptly presented to her of fighting either for her con
Wirt Adams (search for this): chapter 1.3
side, to George Clinton and George Mason, on the other, who regarded the new system as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right peaceably to withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised. Speaking to the same effect, Woodrow Wilson declares that the men of that time would certainly have laughed at any such idea as that of a national government constituting an indestructible bond of union for the States. ExPresi-dent Adams, in an address delivered in 1839, said that should alienation of feeling take place, it would be far better for the people of the dis-United States to part in friendship from each other than to be held together by constraint. Then, said he, will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separate parts to be re-united by the
Peirpoint (search for this): chapter 1.3
the Legislature of which in its turn passed the acts for the admission of these counties, and this shameful travesty of solemn constitutional proceedings was complete. As has been already observed, however, the Congress of the United States, the assent of which is by the Constitution made indispensable to the transfer of territory from one State to another, in the act admitting West Virginia, did not include these counties within its limits. In addition to this, and as evidence that Mr. Peirpoint was not sustained in his position even by the most extreme class of Unionists (so-called) With regard to this assumption of the name of Unionists by those whose whole course tended constantly to the destruction of the real Union framed by the founders of the government, the following sentence from Mr. Calhoun's last great speech in the Senate will be found strikingly just and appropriate: But surely, that can with no propriety of language be called a Union, when the only means by whic
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...