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) 384 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 272 0 Browse Search
James Buchanan 162 0 Browse Search
Winfield Scott 148 0 Browse Search
Kansas (Kansas, United States) 118 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 114 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 100 0 Browse Search
Anderson 68 68 Browse Search
John B. Floyd 60 0 Browse Search
Stephen A. Douglas 58 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of James Buchanan, Buchanan's administration on the eve of the rebellion. Search the whole document.

Found 582 total hits in 102 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...
Abraham Lincoln (search for this): chapter 11
t action, it is difficult to imagine how the General could have asserted, in his report to President Lincoln, that the South Carolina commissioners had already been many days in Washington, and no mo on a question of military strategy. What a failure and confusion of memory the report to President Lincoln exhibits I At the interview with President Buchanan on the evening of the 31st December, te of these facts, the President saw with astonishment that General Scott, in his report to President Lincoln, had stated that the expedition under Captain Ward, of three or four small steamers, had bof the General, events altogether distinct in their nature are so blended in his report to President Lincoln, that it is difficult to disentangle them. Such is eminently the case in mixing up the faing, he would have been the last man to make such a proposition; and yet, in his report to President Lincoln, he does not make the most distant allusion to the fact, well known to him, that such a tr
Winfield Scott (search for this): chapter 11
been at the date of the interview between General Scott and the President. Fort Sumter was now thexpedition for its relief. At this crisis General Scott, being too unwell to call in person, addref the Brooklyn at the pressing instance of General Scott himself? And yet such is the fact. The P which this ill-fated steamer went to sea, General Scott despatched a telegram to his sonlaw, ColoColonel Scott, of the United States army, then at New York, to countermand her departure; but this did sanctioned by the President than it was by General Scott and myself; not because of any dissent fro short time before it reached the officer (Colonel Scott) to whom it was addressed. General ScotGeneral Scott, as well as the Secretaries of War and the Navy, convinced of the blunder which had been committe commander of the Brooklyn (Farragut), and General Scott simultaneously forwarded to him a despatch, the President saw with astonishment that General Scott, in his report to President Lincoln, had s[3 more...]
.H. R. Ex. (search for this): chapter 11
orized to give you the pledge of the State that the valuation of such property will be accounted for by this State, upon the adjustment of its relations with the United States, of which it was a part. On the 6th February, the Secretary of War, on behalf of the President, replied to this demand, as well as to the letter of Colonel Hayne accompanying it. Our narrative would be incomplete without this admirable and conclusive reply. It is as follows: War Department, February 6, 1861. H. R. Ex. Doc, 1860-61, vol. IX, Doc, No 61. Sir. The President of the United States has received your letter of the 31st ultimo, and has charged me with the duty of replying thereto. In the communication addressed to the President by Governor Pickens, under date of the 12th January, and which accompanies yours now before me, his Excellency says: I have determined to send to you the Hon. I. W. Hayne, the Attorney-General of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him to demand the sur
Keitt (search for this): chapter 11
alleged pledge, we have already shown that no such thing existed. It has never been pretended that it rests upon any pretext except the note of the 9th December, delivered to the President by the South Carolina members of Congress, and what occurred on that occasion. All this has been already stated. But if additional evidence were wanting to refute the assertion of a pledge, this might be found in the statement published afterwards in Charleston by two of their number (Messrs. Miles and Keitt), Appleton'a American Annual Cyclopedia for 1861, p. 703. who, in giving an account of this interview, do not pretend or even intimate that any thing passed even in their opinion on either side in the nature of a pledge. By what officer, then, was the assurance given to the commissioners since their arrival in Washington, that Major Anderson had acted not only without but against the President's order? It was none other than the Secretary of War himself, notwithstanding it was in obedie
D. F. Jamison (search for this): chapter 11
rized. He demanded its disavowal, and if this were not sent in a reasonable time he would consider it war, and fire on any vessel that attempted to leave the harbor. Had he adhered to his purpose, the civil war would then have commenced. This demand of Major Anderson, so worthy of an American officer, was totally disregarded by the Governor. Instead of disavowing the act or apologizing for it, he had the audacity, but two days after the outrage, to send the Hon. A. G. Magrath and General D. F. Jamison, whom he styled as both members of the Executive Council and of the highest position in the State, to Major Anderson, for the purpose of persuading him to surrender the fort. In the letter which they bore from the Governor, dated on the 11th January, they were instructed to present to Major Anderson considerations of the gravest public character, and of the deepest interest to all who deprecate the improper waste of life, to induce the delivery of Fort Sumter to the constituted aut
J. Holt (search for this): chapter 11
Fort Sumter. Nay, more: Afterwards, says the General, Secretary Holt and myself endeavored, in vain, to obtain a ship-of-wartant service. This ball be stated in the language of Secretary Holt in his letter of the 5th March, 1861, in reply to cert its own limitation on the 5th February, the day when Secretary Holt finally and peremptorily announced to the South Carolian express refusal to enter into the proposed agreement. Mr. Holt says: I am happy to observe that, in your letter to Colontter to yourself from the Senators, communicating that of Mr. Holt of the 22d January. This letter of Mr. Holt, though fMr. Holt, though firm and decided in character, is courteous and respectful, both in tone and in terms. It reviews the subject in an able ane 8th February he addressed an insulting answer not to Secretary Holt, as usage and common civility required, but directly t we ever heard of it since. What effect this letter of Mr. Holt may have produced upon the truculent Governor of South Ca
Miles (search for this): chapter 11
me. As to the alleged pledge, we have already shown that no such thing existed. It has never been pretended that it rests upon any pretext except the note of the 9th December, delivered to the President by the South Carolina members of Congress, and what occurred on that occasion. All this has been already stated. But if additional evidence were wanting to refute the assertion of a pledge, this might be found in the statement published afterwards in Charleston by two of their number (Messrs. Miles and Keitt), Appleton'a American Annual Cyclopedia for 1861, p. 703. who, in giving an account of this interview, do not pretend or even intimate that any thing passed even in their opinion on either side in the nature of a pledge. By what officer, then, was the assurance given to the commissioners since their arrival in Washington, that Major Anderson had acted not only without but against the President's order? It was none other than the Secretary of War himself, notwithstanding it
John Robertson (search for this): chapter 11
action of the General Assembly of Virginia, instituting the Peace Convention, had interposed an insurmountable obstacle to the reenforcement of Fort Sumter, unless attacked or in immediate danger of attack, without entirely defeating this beneficent measure. Among their other proceedings they had passed a resolution that ex-President John Tyler is hereby appointed by the concurrent vote of each branch of the General Assembly, a commissioner to the President of the United States; and Judge John Robertson is hereby appointed by a like vote, a commissioner to the State of South Carolina and the other States that have seceded or shall secede, with instructions respectfully to request the President of the United States and the authorities of such States to agree to abstain, pending the proceedings contemplated by the action of the General Assembly, from any and all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms between the States and the Government of the United States. Mr. Tyler arriv
30th (search for this): chapter 11
onel Hayne still longer to withhold the letter from the President, and await farther instructions from Charleston. In his answer of 24th January to their note containing this advice, he informs them that although the letter from the Secretary of War was far from being satisfactory, yet in compliance with their request he would withhold the communication with which he was at present charged, and refer the whole matter to the authorities of South Carolina, and would await their reply. On the 30th this reply was received, and on the next. day Colonel Hayne transmitted to the President the letter of Governor Pickens demanding the surrender of the fort, with a long communication from himself. This letter is dated Headquarters, Charleston, January 12, 1861, and is as follows: Sir: At the time of the separation of the State of South Carolina from the United States, Fort Sumter was, and still is, in the possession of troops of the United States, under the command of Major Anderson.
31st (search for this): chapter 11
the adjustment of its relations with the United States, of which it was a part. On the 6th February, the Secretary of War, on behalf of the President, replied to this demand, as well as to the letter of Colonel Hayne accompanying it. Our narrative would be incomplete without this admirable and conclusive reply. It is as follows: War Department, February 6, 1861. H. R. Ex. Doc, 1860-61, vol. IX, Doc, No 61. Sir. The President of the United States has received your letter of the 31st ultimo, and has charged me with the duty of replying thereto. In the communication addressed to the President by Governor Pickens, under date of the 12th January, and which accompanies yours now before me, his Excellency says: I have determined to send to you the Hon. I. W. Hayne, the Attorney-General of the State of South Carolina, and have instructed him to demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities of the State of South Carolina. The d
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...