"The Abolition Crusade and Its Consequences" by Hilary A. Herbert. Published by Good Press. Good Press publishes a wide range of titles that encompasses every genre. From well-known classics & literary fiction and non-fiction to forgotten−or yet undiscovered gems−of world literature, we issue the books that need to be read. Each Good Press edition has been meticulously edited and formatted to boost readability for all e-readers and devices. Our goal is to produce eBooks that are user-friendly and accessible to everyone in a high-quality digital format.
Оглавление
Hilary A. Herbert. The Abolition Crusade and Its Consequences
The Abolition Crusade and Its Consequences
Table of Contents
PREFACE
THE ABOLITION CRUSADE AND ITS. CONSEQUENCES
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
SECESSION AND ITS DOCTRINE
CHAPTER II
EMANCIPATION PRIOR TO 1831
CHAPTER III
THE NEW ABOLITIONISTS
CHAPTER IV
FEELING IN THE SOUTH—1835
CHAPTER V
ANTI-ABOLITION AT THE NORTH
CHAPTER VI
A CRISIS AND A COMPROMISE
CHAPTER VII
EFFORTS FOR PEACE
CHAPTER VIII
INCOMPATIBILITY OF SLAVERY AND FREEDOM
CHAPTER IX
FOUR YEARS OF WAR
CHAPTER X
RECONSTRUCTION, LINCOLN-JOHNSON PLAN AND CONGRESSIONAL
CHAPTER XI
THE SOUTH UNDER SELF-GOVERNMENT
INDEX
FOOTNOTES:
Отрывок из книги
Hilary A. Herbert
Four Periods of American History
.....
"Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government, but that by compact, under the style and title of a constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for specific purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no effect: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: That the government created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its direction, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has a right to judge for itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
Undoubtedly it is from the famous resolutions of 1798–9 that the secessionists of a later date drew their arguments. The authors of these celebrated resolutions were, both of them, devoted friends of the Union they had helped to construct. Why should they announce a theory of the Constitution that was so full of dangerous possibilities?
