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
Alabama (Alabama, United States) 1,016 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 896 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 300 0 Browse Search
William H. Seward 180 2 Browse Search
Europe 134 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 102 0 Browse Search
Brazil (Brazil) 92 0 Browse Search
Gibralter (North Carolina, United States) 88 0 Browse Search
Raphael Semmes 87 5 Browse Search
Liverpool (United Kingdom) 86 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States. Search the whole document.

Found 178 total hits in 20 results.

1 2
Story (search for this): chapter 2
though it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual. In his Commentaries on the Constitution, Mr. Justice Story says, The obvious deductions which may be, and indeed have been drawn, from considering the Constitution a compact on by literary quackery and the legerdemain of words, as our fellow-citizens of the North have in accepting Webster's and Story's version of the preamble of the Constitution. A brief history of the manner, in which the words, We, the people, &c.,n to make the new government a still more complex affair, and to muddle still further the brains of Mr. Webster and Mr. Justice Story. But this motion failed also, and the Constitution was referred to the States for adoption. But now a new questn opinion, I must insist that the proof is conclusive that the Constitution is a compact between the States; and this being so, we have the admission of both Mr. Webster and Justice Story that any one of the States may withdraw from it at pleasure.
Alexander (search for this): chapter 2
The question now is, who formed the Constitution, not what was formed by it? If it was formed by the States, admit our adversaries, it may be broken by the States. The delegates who met at Annapolis were sent thither by the States, and not by the people of the United States. The Convention of 1787, which formed the Constitution, was equally composed of members sent to Philadelphia by the States. James Madison was chosen by the people of Virginia and not by the people of New York; and Alexander Hamilton was chosen by the people of New York, and not by the people of Virginia. Every article, section, and paragraph of the Constitution was voted for, or against, by States; the little State of Delaware, not much larger than a single county of New York, off-setting the vote of that great State. And when the Constitution was formed, to whom was it submitted for ratification? Was there any convention of the people of the United States in the aggregate, as one nation, called for the
John C. Calhoun (search for this): chapter 2
on; in short, it is, and it is not a compact, by turns, according to the use they intend to make of the argument. Mr. Webster's doctrine of the Constitution, chiefly relied on by Northern men, is to be found in his speech of 1833, in reply to Mr. Calhoun. It is in that speech that he makes the admission, that if the Constitution of the United States is a compact between the States, the States have the right to withdraw from it at pleasure. He says, If a league between sovereign powers have nas Webster and Story should have risked their reputations with posterity, on a construction which may so easily be shown to be a falsification of the facts of history. Mr. Webster, in his celebrated speech in the Senate, in 1833, in reply to Mr. Calhoun, made this bold declaration: The Constitution itself, in its very front, declares, that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States in the aggregate! From that day to this, this declaration of Mr. Webster has been the c
Webster (search for this): chapter 2
r and Joseph Story, both from Massachusetts. Webster was, for a long time, a Senator in Congress, e use they intend to make of the argument. Mr. Webster's doctrine of the Constitution, chiefly relt at pleasure, even though, in the words of Mr. Webster, it might be one of its stipulations that ie several States, to be by them exercised. Webster and Story had not yet arisen in Massachusettsut it is admitted, on the other hand, by both Webster and Story, as we have seen, that if they did ellow-citizens of the North have in accepting Webster's and Story's version of the preamble of the a falsification of the facts of history. Mr. Webster, in his celebrated speech in the Senate, in From that day to this, this declaration of Mr. Webster has been the chief foundation on which all rue character, there might be some force in Mr. Webster's position; but, unfortunately for him and his being so, we have the admission of both Mr. Webster and Justice Story that any one of the State[6 more...]
James Madison (search for this): chapter 2
omposed of members sent to Philadelphia by the States. James Madison was chosen by the people of Virginia and not by the peot recorded by the Convention. The reader who has read Mr. Madison's articles in the Federalist, and his speeches before th in the aggregate, instead of the people of the States. Mr. Madison replied to Henry on this occasion. Madison had been in Madison had been in the Convention, knew, of course, all about the change of phraseology in question, and this was his reply: The parties to it [, and the Virginia Convention adopted the Constitution. Madison has been called the Father of the Constitution. Next to hthe compact. Thus, we do not hear Hamilton, any more than Madison, talking of a people of the United States in the aggregate by the States, and acted in the names of the States. Mr. Madison did, indeed, endeavor to have the ratification made in be of the United States in the aggregate? As remarked by Mr. Madison, in the Virginia Convention, a ratification by the peopl
Gouverneur Morris (search for this): chapter 2
re in the Convention several members in favor of submitting the instrument to the people of the United States in the aggregate, and thereby accomplishing their favorite object of establishing a consolidated government—Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris among the number. On the Journal of the Convention, the following record is found: Gouverneur Morris moved that the reference of the plan [i. e. of the Constitution] be made to one General Convention, chosen and authorized by the people, tGouverneur Morris moved that the reference of the plan [i. e. of the Constitution] be made to one General Convention, chosen and authorized by the people, to consider, amend, and establish the same. Thus the question, as to who should ordain and establish the Constitution, whether it should be the people in the aggregate, or the people of the States, was clearly presented to the Convention. How did the Convention vote on this proposition? The reader will perhaps be surprised to learn, that the question was not even brought to a vote, for want of a second; and yet this is the fact recorded by the Convention. The reader who has read Mr. Madiso
Tyler (search for this): chapter 2
The powers not delegated were to be reserved to those delegating them, to wit: the several States; that is to say, to each and every one of the States. Virginia fought long and sturdily against adopting the Constitution at all. Henry, Mason, Tyler, and a host of other giants raised their powerful voices against it, warning their people, in thunder tones, that they were rushing upon destruction. Tyler even went so far as to say that British tyranny would have been more tolerable. So distTyler even went so far as to say that British tyranny would have been more tolerable. So distasteful to her was the foul embrace that was tendered her, that she not only recommended an amendment of the Constitution, similar to that which was recommended by Massachusetts, making explicit reservation of her sovereignty, but she annexed a condition to her ratification, to the effect that she retained the right to withdraw the powers which she had granted, whenever the same shall be perverted to her injury or oppression. North Carolina urged the following amendment—the same, substantial
1792 AD (search for this): chapter 2
nvention, or those of the several State Conventions to which the Constitution was submitted for adoption, without being struck with the scrupulous care with which all the States guarded their sovereignty. The Northern States were quite as jealous, in this respect, as the Southern States. Next to Massachusetts, New Hampshire has been, perhaps, the most fanatical and bitter of the former States, in the prosecution of the late war against the South. That State, in her Constitution, adopted in 1792, three years after the Federal Constitution went into operation, inserted the following provision, among others, in her declaration of principles: The people of this Common-wealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them, expressly delegated to the United States. Although it was quite clear
1833 AD (search for this): chapter 2
this particular question; in short, it is, and it is not a compact, by turns, according to the use they intend to make of the argument. Mr. Webster's doctrine of the Constitution, chiefly relied on by Northern men, is to be found in his speech of 1833, in reply to Mr. Calhoun. It is in that speech that he makes the admission, that if the Constitution of the United States is a compact between the States, the States have the right to withdraw from it at pleasure. He says, If a league between soder is, that such men as Webster and Story should have risked their reputations with posterity, on a construction which may so easily be shown to be a falsification of the facts of history. Mr. Webster, in his celebrated speech in the Senate, in 1833, in reply to Mr. Calhoun, made this bold declaration: The Constitution itself, in its very front, declares, that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States in the aggregate! From that day to this, this declaration of Mr. W
1787 AD (search for this): chapter 2
ot what was formed by it? If it was formed by the States, admit our adversaries, it may be broken by the States. The delegates who met at Annapolis were sent thither by the States, and not by the people of the United States. The Convention of 1787, which formed the Constitution, was equally composed of members sent to Philadelphia by the States. James Madison was chosen by the people of Virginia and not by the people of New York; and Alexander Hamilton was chosen by the people of New Yorkssion in the Virginia ratifying Convention. Patrick Henry, with the prevision of a prophet, was, as we have seen, bitterly opposed to the adoption of the Constitution. He was its enemy a l'outrance. Not having been a member of the Convention, of 1787, that framed the instrument, and being unacquainted with the circumstances above detailed, relative to the change which had been made in the phraseology of its Preamble, he attacked the Constitution on the very ground since assumed by Webster and
1 2