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 59 total hits in 12 results.

1 2
France (France) (search for this): chapter 3.34
gation within those limits by natural increase—and inasmuch as the Confederate Constitution precluded any other than the same natural increase, we may plainly perceive the disingenuousness and absurdity of the pretension by which a factitious sympathy has been obtained in certain quarters for the war upon the South, on the ground that it was a war in behalf of freedom against slavery. As late as April 22, 1861, Seward, United States Secretary of State, in a dispatch to Dayton, minister to France, since made public, expressed the views and purposes of the United States government in the premises as follows. It may be proper to explain that, by what he is pleased to term the revolution, Seward means the withdrawal of the Southern states; that the words italicized are, perhaps, not so distinguished in the original. He says: The Territories will remain in all respects the same, whether the revolution shall succeed or shall fail. The condition of slavery in the several States will rem
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 3.34
side by side with the Constitution of the United States—the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, who was onanguage. The words We, the people of the United States, in one, are replaced by We, the people of the Confederate States, in the other; the gross perversion which has been made of the former expreseholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress isthe introduction of slaves from any of the United States or their territories. Lincoln, in his irpose on the part of the government of the United States to interfere with the institution of slaveery. As late as April 22, 1861, Seward, United States Secretary of State, in a dispatch to Daytoher, they would, as now, be members of the United States; but their Constitutions and laws, customseforms enumerated should be adopted by the United States, with or without a reunion of the seceded accept them with the propositions of the Confederate States on slavery as a basis of reunion? New Y[4 more...]
Montgomery (Alabama, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.34
rch 11, prepared the permanent Constitution, which was submitted to and ratified by the people of the respective states. Of this Constitution—which may be found in an appendix, See Appendix K. side by side with the Constitution of the United States—the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, who was one of its authors, very properly says: The whole document utterly negatives the idea, which so many have been active in endeavoring to put in the enduring form of history, that the Convention at Montgomery was nothing but a set of conspirators, whose object was the overthrow of the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and the erection of a great slavery oligarchy, instead of the free institutions thereby secured and guaranteed. This work of the Montgomery Convention, with that of the Constitution for a Provisional Government, will ever remain, not only as a monument of the wisdom, forecast, and statesmanship of the men who constituted it, but an everlasting refutation of the
Alexander H. Stephens (search for this): chapter 3.34
o continue it in force indefinitely, or at least until the independency of the Confederacy should be assured. The Congress, however, deeming it best that the system of government should emanate from the people, accordingly, on March 11, prepared the permanent Constitution, which was submitted to and ratified by the people of the respective states. Of this Constitution—which may be found in an appendix, See Appendix K. side by side with the Constitution of the United States—the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, who was one of its authors, very properly says: The whole document utterly negatives the idea, which so many have been active in endeavoring to put in the enduring form of history, that the Convention at Montgomery was nothing but a set of conspirators, whose object was the overthrow of the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and the erection of a great slavery oligarchy, instead of the free institutions thereby secured and guaranteed. This work of the Mont
Dayton (search for this): chapter 3.34
permitted its propagation within those limits by natural increase—and inasmuch as the Confederate Constitution precluded any other than the same natural increase, we may plainly perceive the disingenuousness and absurdity of the pretension by which a factitious sympathy has been obtained in certain quarters for the war upon the South, on the ground that it was a war in behalf of freedom against slavery. As late as April 22, 1861, Seward, United States Secretary of State, in a dispatch to Dayton, minister to France, since made public, expressed the views and purposes of the United States government in the premises as follows. It may be proper to explain that, by what he is pleased to term the revolution, Seward means the withdrawal of the Southern states; that the words italicized are, perhaps, not so distinguished in the original. He says: The Territories will remain in all respects the same, whether the revolution shall succeed or shall fail. The condition of slavery in the sev
William H. Seward (search for this): chapter 3.34
disingenuousness and absurdity of the pretension by which a factitious sympathy has been obtained in certain quarters for the war upon the South, on the ground that it was a war in behalf of freedom against slavery. As late as April 22, 1861, Seward, United States Secretary of State, in a dispatch to Dayton, minister to France, since made public, expressed the views and purposes of the United States government in the premises as follows. It may be proper to explain that, by what he is pleased to term the revolution, Seward means the withdrawal of the Southern states; that the words italicized are, perhaps, not so distinguished in the original. He says: The Territories will remain in all respects the same, whether the revolution shall succeed or shall fail. The condition of slavery in the several States will remain just the same, whether it succeed or fail. There is not even a pretext for the complaint that the disaffected States are to be conquered by the United States if the re
Abraham Lincoln (search for this): chapter 3.34
e, or prohibit it. Under the Confederate Constitution, on the contrary, the African slave trade was hereby forbidden, positively and unconditionally, from the beginning. Neither the Confederate government nor that of any of the states could permit it, and the Congress was expressly required to enforce the prohibition. The only discretion in the matter entrusted to the Congress was whether or not to permit the introduction of slaves from any of the United States or their territories. Lincoln, in his inaugural address, had said: I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Now if there was no purpose on the part of the government of the United States to interfere with the institution of slavery within its already existing limits—a proposition which permitted its propagation within those limits by natural increase—and inasmuch
March 11th (search for this): chapter 3.34
abors of their representatives in Congress assembled. The provisional Constitution, although prepared only for temporary use, and necessarily in some haste, was so well adapted for the purpose which it was intended to serve that many thought it would have been wise to continue it in force indefinitely, or at least until the independency of the Confederacy should be assured. The Congress, however, deeming it best that the system of government should emanate from the people, accordingly, on March 11, prepared the permanent Constitution, which was submitted to and ratified by the people of the respective states. Of this Constitution—which may be found in an appendix, See Appendix K. side by side with the Constitution of the United States—the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, who was one of its authors, very properly says: The whole document utterly negatives the idea, which so many have been active in endeavoring to put in the enduring form of history, that the Convention at Montgom
1787 AD (search for this): chapter 3.34
ssion is precluded in the latter merely by the addition of the explanatory clause, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character—an explanation which, at the time of the formation of the Constitution of the United States, would have been deemed entirely superfluous. The official term of the President was fixed at six instead of four years, and it was provided that he should not be eligible for reelection. This was in accordance with the original draft of the Constitution of 1787. See Article II, section 1. The President was empowered to remove officers of his cabinet, or those engaged in the diplomatic service, at his discretion, but in all other cases removal from office could be made only for cause, and the cause was to be reported to the Senate. Ibid., section 2, par. 3. Congress was authorized to provide by law for the admission of the principal officer in each of the executive departments (or cabinet officers) to a seat upon the floor of either house
March 19th, 1861 AD (search for this): chapter 3.34
institutions in either case, will remain the same. I had no direct part in the preparation of the Confederate Constitution. No consideration of delicacy forbids me, therefore, to say, in closing this brief review of that instrument, that it was a model of wise, temperate, and liberal statesmanship. Intelligent criticism, from hostile as well as friendly sources, has been compelled to admit its excellences, and has sustained the judgment of a popular Northern journal which said, a few days after it was adopted and published: The new Constitution is the Constitution of the United States with various modifications and some very important and most desirable improvements. We are free to say that the invaluable reforms enumerated should be adopted by the United States, with or without a reunion of the seceded States, and as soon as possible. But why not accept them with the propositions of the Confederate States on slavery as a basis of reunion? New York Herald, March 19, 1861.
1 2