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) 1,742 0 Browse Search
Joseph Wheeler 688 376 Browse Search
Braxton Bragg 254 2 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 242 0 Browse Search
Atlanta (Georgia, United States) 178 6 Browse Search
John B. Hood 168 2 Browse Search
Murfreesboro (Tennessee, United States) 161 7 Browse Search
Archibald Gracie 154 4 Browse Search
James Longstreet 154 2 Browse Search
Joseph E. Johnston 152 16 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Col. O. M. Roberts, Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 12.1, Alabama (ed. Clement Anselm Evans). Search the whole document.

Found 218 total hits in 73 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1776 AD (search for this): chapter 2
the rights and interests of those they leave behind, we shall feel bound to urge and insist that their wishes be gratified—their demand conceded. During the session of the South Carolina convention, Greeley, in his issue of December 7th, as if to afford arguments to strengthen the Southern people in their opposition and to encourage them to be prompt in their action, says: If it (the Declaration of Independence) justifies these cession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not some one attempt to show wherein and why? For our own part, while we deny the right of slaveholders to hold slaves against the will of the latter, we cannot see how 20,000,000 of people can rightfully hold 10,000,000, or even 5,000,000 in a detested Union with them by military force. In the same issue of Mr. Greeley's paper we read
1848 AD (search for this): chapter 2
being dispatched to the Southern States. Their partial success in the John Brown raid had caused widespread terror and alarm. The prevailing sentiment on every side was that prompt action was essential to protect lives and property. As early as 1848 this aggression on the rights of the South had become such a menace that John C. Calhoun contended that we ought to force the issue of the slavery question in the North; and said, moreover, We are now stronger, relatively, than we shall be hereaftd adoption of the Constitution to form again a more perfect Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center. It is a remarkable fact that in 1848 the distinguished son of this illustrious gentleman received 291,267 votes as candidate of the Free Soil party for the vicepresi-dency. This principle of the right of secession had been always sanctioned by the people of Massachusetts. When it
December 8th, 1860 AD (search for this): chapter 2
ep along with you, but if the association is irksome to you, we have too much self-respect to insist on its continuance. We have lived by our industry thus far and hope to do so still, even though you leave us. We repeat that only the sheen of Northern bayonets can bind the South wholly to the evils of secession, but that may do it. Let us be patient, neither speaking daggers nor using them, standing to our principles but not to our arms, and all will yet be well. New York Tribune, December 8, 1860.—. . . . . We again avow our deliberate conviction that whenever six or eight contiguous States shall have formally seceded from the Union, and avowed the pretty unanimous and earnest resolve of their people to stay out, it will not be found practicable to coerce them into subjection; and we doubt that any Congress can be found to direct and provide for such coercion. One or two States may be coerced, but not the entire section, or quarter of a Union. If you do not believe this, wait
November 6th, 1860 AD (search for this): chapter 2
eckinridge, of Kentucky, was nominated. Mr. Lincoln having been the choice of the Republican convention at Chicago in May, the campaign opened with four presidential candidates in the field. The vote for President of the United States on November 6, 1860, was: Abraham Lincoln1,866,352 Stephen A. Douglas1,375,157 John C. Breckinridge845,581 John Bell589,581 The vote in the Southern slave States: Abraham Lincoln26,430 Stephen A. Douglas163,525 John C. Breckinridge543,781 John Be Gulf States: Abraham Lincoln Stephen A. Douglas24,926 John C. Breckinridge168,400 John Bell94,444 The vote in Alabama: Abraham Lincoln Stephen A. Douglas13,651 John C. Breckinridge48,831 John Bell27,825 When on that fateful 6th of November, 1860, it was decided by the election of Mr. Lincoln that Black Republican rule was to dominate the Union and crush the South under with its compromising cruelty. The North and the South both knew that the election of Lincoln meant the destruct
1850 AD (search for this): chapter 2
wered all the purposes expected from it till about the year 1841 or 1842, when the State interfered to make enactments in opposition to it. ... Now, I undertake as a lawyer and on my professional character to say to you and to all, that the law of 1850 is decidedly more favorable to the fugitive than General Washington's law of 1793. . . . Such is the present law, and, much opposed and maligned as it is, it is more favorable to the fugitive slave than the law enacted during Washington's administnd South, will restore and perpetuate the Union contemplated by the fathers. So now that the conservative men of the South are moving, let the Union men of the North second their endeavors, and let New York, as in the matter of the compromises of 1850, lead the way. The following is from the New York Times of December 3, 1860: By common consent, moreover, the most prominent and tangible point of offense seems to be the legislation growing out of the fugitive slave law. Several of the Norther
April 23rd, 1860 AD (search for this): chapter 2
he Northern States, calling itself the Republican party, it shall be the duty of the governor, and he is hereby required, forthwith, to issue his proclamation, calling upon the qualified voters of this State. . . to elect delegates to a convention of the State, to consider, determine and do whatever in the opinion of said convention, the rights, interests, and honor of the State of Alabama requires to be done for their protection. The national Democratic convention met at Charleston, April 23, 1860. On the 27th the committee on resolutions disagreed. The majority report accepted the Cincinnati platform with a clause added which explained the doctrine of non-intervention as laid down in the decision of the Supreme court which was delivered by Chief-Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case. This was satisfactory to the Southern delegates. The minority report reaffirmed the Cincinnati platform and then proceeded to assert that differences of opinion exist in the Democratic party as to
May 19th (search for this): chapter 2
re stepping from the high place of earthly power into the grave to appear before his Maker, in whose presence deception is impossible and earthly position as dust in the balance? (Loud and continued cheering.) Notwithstanding this eloquent appeal, the vote was taken and by a bare majority the minority report was substituted for the majority report. This was the signal for disruption. The Alabama delegation withdrew from the convention, followed by those of the other Gulf States. On May 19th a convention met at Baltimore under the name of the Constitutional Union party (its motto being, The Constitution, the Union and the Enforcement of the Laws). John Bell, of Tennessee, and Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, were nominated as its candidates for President and Vice-President. On June 18th, the Douglas members of the Charleston convention met in Baltimore, and the supporters of the majority report who had withdrawn at Charleston assembled at Richmond, afterward adjourning to m
February 24th, 1860 AD (search for this): chapter 2
arcely a dissenting voice adopted resolutions in substance as follows: That the principles recognized by the Supreme court in the Dred Scott case should be maintained by the South; that their delegates to the approaching national Democratic convention at Charleston should present these resolutions for the adoption of that body; that they insist upon the adoption of the resolutions in substance, and that if they be not adopted, the delegates must withdraw. The Alabama legislature, on February 24, 1860, adopted the following: Whereas, Anti-slavery agitation persistently continued in the non-slaveholding States of this Union for more than a third of a century, marked at every stage of its progress by contempt for the obligations of law and the sanctity of compacts, evincing a deadly hostility to the rights and institutions of the Southern people, and a settled purpose to effect their overthrow even by the subversion of the Constitution, and at the hazard of violence and bloodshe
1842 AD (search for this): chapter 2
fugitive slave law. Let me say a word about that. Under the provisions of the Constitution, during Washington's administration in the year 1793, there was passed by general consent a law for the restoration of fugitive slaves. Hardly any one opposed it at that period; it was thought to be necessary in order to carry the Constitution into effect; the great men of New England and New York all concurred in it. It passed and answered all the purposes expected from it till about the year 1841 or 1842, when the State interfered to make enactments in opposition to it. ... Now, I undertake as a lawyer and on my professional character to say to you and to all, that the law of 1850 is decidedly more favorable to the fugitive than General Washington's law of 1793. . . . Such is the present law, and, much opposed and maligned as it is, it is more favorable to the fugitive slave than the law enacted during Washington's administration in 1793, which was sanctioned by the North as well as by the So
December 17th, 1860 AD (search for this): chapter 2
eliberate conviction that whenever six or eight contiguous States shall have formally seceded from the Union, and avowed the pretty unanimous and earnest resolve of their people to stay out, it will not be found practicable to coerce them into subjection; and we doubt that any Congress can be found to direct and provide for such coercion. One or two States may be coerced, but not the entire section, or quarter of a Union. If you do not believe this, wait and see. New York Tribune, December 17, 1860.— . . . .But if ever seven or eight States sent agents to Washington to say, We want to get out of the Union, we shall feel constrained by our devotion to human liberty to say, Let them go. And we do not see how we could take the other side without coming in direct conflict with those rights of man which we hold paramount to all political arrangements, however convenient and advantageous. New York Tribune, December 24, 1860.—Most certainly we believe that governments are made for t
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8