Constitutional law -- United States

Cover title.Title within type-ornament border. Includes bibliographical references. FAU Libraries' copy has original printed wrappers, side stitched with cord.

Series: Papers from the Society for the Diffusion of Political Knowledge ; no. 1. Alternate title: Caption title on page 2: Organization of the Society for the Diffusion of Political Knowledge. Notes: Cover title. "When a party in power violates the Constitution and disregards state-rights, plain men read pamphlets." "Read--discuss--diffuse." With duplicate pagination at foot, for through-numbering of the Papers. Two columns to the page. FAU Libraries' copy has "Geo. P. Hambrecht" stamp on cover. Edges have been trimmed to 22 cm.

This is the story of the February 1861 Washington Peace Conference, the bipartisan, last-ditch effort to prevent the Civil War, an effort that nearly averted the carnage that followed. Most of America's great statesmen came together at the historic Willard Hotel in a desperate attempt to stave off Civil War. Participants included Lincoln himself. Seven southern states had already seceded, and the conferees battled against time to craft a compromise to protect slavery and thus preserve the union and prevent war. Revelatory and definitive, The Peace That Almost Was, demonstrates that slavery was the main issue of the conference, and thus of the war itself, and that no matter the shared faith, family, and friendships of the participants, ultimately no compromise could be reached.
At head of title: Non-extension of slavery the policy of "the fathers of the Republic."--Slavery allowed, though disapproved, in the old states, but absolutely prohibited in the territories and new states. - Effect of this policy, and its bearing upon the modern doctrine of state rights and state equality, stated and considered.
"Appendix:" pages [29]-31.FAU Libraries' copy side stitched with cord.

Series: Documents from New York State Union Central Committee ; no. 11. Alternate title: Speech of Honorable P.E. Havens, of Essex County, in the House of Assembly, March 5, 1863. Notes: Caption title. Two columns to the page.

Caption title: To the people of Maryland. Notes: "Baltimore, February 23, 1861"--Page 17. FAU copy has original blue printed wrappers.

Caption title: Mr. Webster's speech. Speech of the Honorable Daniel Webster "J.E. Hinckley & Co., printers, no. 14, Water Street."--verso of title page. One of at least two editions, very similar in appearance, printed by J.E. Hinckley & Co. for Stimpson & Clapp. In the present edition, the last word on page [3] is "particu-". There exist at least five variants of gathering 6 (page 41-[44]), which seem to be found promiscuously in both editions and in the "Journal of the proceedings of the National Republican Convention, held at Worcester, October 11, 1832," also printed by J.E. Hinckley & Co. for Stimpson & Clapp. Of gathering 6, three settings of type have been noted, with last word on page 41 "nor", "can-", and "that" respectively. Three states of the "that" setting noted (priority not determined). One has pages numbered 41, 42, 43, and the gathering is signed: 6. Another has pages numbered 73, 74, 75, and is signed: 10. The third has pages numbered 73, 42, 43, and is signed: 10. FAU copy side stiched with brown cord.

With the documents, which accompanied the same. Printed by order of the House of Representatives. Concerning request of Secretary of War for militia of Massachusetts to defend the sea-coast, action of Governor Strong in the matter, etc. On page 10: "Caleb Strong. October 14, 1812."

In just over one year since United States v. Windsor— the case invalidating sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined marriage, for purposes of federal statutes, as the “union of man and woman”— more than a dozen states have had their same-sex marriage bans ruled unconstitutional. This suggests a shift in legal meaning; previously successful arguments against same-sex “marriage” now seem irrational as argumentative ground has shifted. Since favorable rulings redefine “marriage” to include same-sex unions, this thesis analyzes Kitchen v. Herbert, a 2014 legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit, to understand the rhetorical processes underpinning its redefinitional act. That analysis draws on Kenneth Burke’s theories of entitling and constitutions and discusses the rhetorical concepts of terministic screens, casuistic screens, scope and circumference as key features of the rhetoric of the legal opinions. The findings call for a balancing of deconstructive and conventional approaches to legal discourse.