hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing) 644 0 Browse Search
Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume I. 128 0 Browse Search
Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Massachusetts in the Army and Navy during the war of 1861-1865, vol. 2 104 0 Browse Search
Benjamnin F. Butler, Butler's Book: Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin Butler 74 0 Browse Search
Lucius R. Paige, History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, with a genealogical register 66 0 Browse Search
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 1. 50 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 50 0 Browse Search
James Parton, The life of Horace Greeley 50 0 Browse Search
Francis Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879; the story of his life told by his children: volume 3 48 0 Browse Search
Hon. J. L. M. Curry , LL.D., William Robertson Garrett , A. M. , Ph.D., Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 1.1, Legal Justification of the South in secession, The South as a factor in the territorial expansion of the United States (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) 42 0 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume I.. You can also browse the collection for New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) or search for New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) in all documents.

Your search returned 64 results in 19 document sections:

1 2
exatious trammels of the custom-house marker and gauger, fell tangled and prostrate in the toils of the usurer and the sheriff. The common people, writhing under the intolerable pressure of debt, for which no means of payment existed, were continually prompting their legislators to authorize and direct those baseless issues of irredeemable paper money, by which a temporary relief is achieved, at the cost of more pervading and less curable disorders. In the year 1786, the legislature of New Hampshire, then sitting at Exeter, was surrounded, evidently by preconcert, by a gathering of angry and desperate men, intent on overawing it into an authorization of such an issue. In 1786, the famous Shays's Insurrection occurred in western Massachusetts, wherein fifteen hundred men, stung to madness by the snow-shower of writs to which they could not respond, and executions which they had no means of satisfying, undertook to relieve themselves from intolerable infestation, and save their famil
shown by the following, which is compiled from statistics contained in a work published by Jacob Moore, Concord, entitled, Collections of the New Hampshire Historical Society for the year 1824, vol. i., p. 236.   Continental. Militia. New Hampshire 12,496 2,093 Massachusetts 68,007 15,155 Rhode Island 5,878 4,284 Connecticut 32,039 7,792 New York 18,331 3,304 New Jersey 10,726 6,055 Pennsylvania 25,608 7,357 Delaware 2,317 376 Maryland 13,912 4,127 Virginia 26 The number of slaves in the States respectively, at the time of the Revolution, is not known. But it may be closely approximated by the aid of the census of 1790, wherein the slave population is returned as follows: North. South. New Hampshire 158 Delaware 8,887 Vermont 17 Maryland 103,036 Rhode Island 952 Virginia 293,427 Connecticut 2,759 North Carolina 100,572 Massachusetts Massachusetts adopted a new State Constitution in 1780, to which a bill of rights was prefi
ion now stands, all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is, in fact, a bounty on that article. Mr. Dickinson [of Delaware] expressed his sentiments as of a similar character. And Messrs. King and Langdon [of New Hampshire] were also in favor of giving the power to the General Government. General Pinckney thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any short time; but only stop them followed and legally reclaimed. This requirement, be it observed, was entirely outside of any general and obvious necessity. No one could pretend that there was any thing mutual in the obligation it sought to impose — that Massachusetts or New Hampshire was either anxious to secure the privilege of reclaiming her fugitive slaves who might escape into Carolina or Georgia, or had any desire to enter into reciprocal engagements to this end. Nor could any one gravely insist that the provision fo
the former had decreed their manumission. except one of the two members from Delaware--to 76 Nays, whereof ten were from Free States--Massachusetts (then including Maine) supplying three of them, New York three, with one each from New Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Illinois. The residue of the amendment was likewise sustained, by the close vote of 82 Yeas to 78 Nays. The bill thus amended was ordered to a third reading by 98 Yeas to 56 Nays, and the next day was passed and sent to the Senatesolves were adopted by the Legislature of the Slave State of Delaware. A frank and forcible memorial from inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity, drafted by Daniel Webster, Then a recent emigrant to Massachusetts from the neighboring State of New Hampshire. and signed by the principal citizens of all parties, asserted the complete authority of Congress over the subject, and demanded Restriction on those grounds of expediency, morality, and justice, with which thoughtful readers are by this
fending their lives and liberties, and that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. The Supreme Court of that State, upon the first case arising which involved the question, decided that this provision had abolished Slavery. New Hampshire was, in like manner, held to have abolished Slavery by her Constitution, framed in 1783. Pennsylvania passed a Gradual Emancipation Act, March 1, 1780. All persons born in that State after that day, were to be free at the age of twenty-eieriodical; and, in the course of a few days, they aided him to hold an anti-Slavery meeting, which was largely attended. At the close of his remarks, several clergymen expressed a general concurrence in his views. He extended his journey to New Hampshire and Maine, lecturing where he could, and obtaining some encouragement. He spoke also in the principal towns of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut; and, on his homeward route, traversed the State of New York, speaking at Poughkeepsi
9, 1802. His ancestors, partly English and partly Scotch, all of the industrious middle class, had been citizens of New Hampshire and of Maine for several generations. He was distinguished, from early youth, alike for diligence in labor and for zmittee appointed under the above resolution consisted of Messrs. Pinckney of South Carolina; Hamer of Ohio; Pierce of New Hampshire; Hardin of Kentucky; Jarvis of Maine; Owens of Georgia; Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania; Dromgoole of Virginia; and Turrilely, the Whig members from the Free States. At the next session, December 11, 1838. Mr. Charles G. Atherton, of New Hampshire, moved the following resolutions: Resolved, That this government is a government of limited powers; and that, by Proffit, a Tylerized Whig), who voted for this resolve, were as follows: Maine.--Virgil D. Parris, Albert Smith.--New Hampshire.--Charles G. Atherton, Edmund Burke, Ira A. Eastman, Tristram Shaw.--New York.--Nehemiah II. Earle, John Fine, Natha
lina, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee--105 in all, being those of eleven States; while Mr. Polk was supported by Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Indiana, Illinois, Michi contest of 1844, on the contrary, the battle raged with uniform fury from extreme North to furthest South--Maine and New Hampshire voting strongly for Polk, while Tennessee (his own State) went against him by a small majority, and Louisiana was car for the Annexation of Texas to the United States; which was sent to the Committee of the whole. Mr. John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, then also a Democrat, proposed (January 10, 1845), an amendment, as follows: Provided, That, immediately after tht regret this early fruit of their triumph, but could hardly be expected openly to denounce it. Mr. John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, who had evinced (as we have seen) insubordination in the House, and who was then the regular Democratic nominee for
o 50, and his friends had high hopes. On the fourteenth ballot, Mr. Douglas's vote, which had risen gradually, was 92; while Gen. Cass's had settled to 33. On the next ballot, Mr. Douglas for the first time fell off; the result announced being — Douglas 92; Buchanan 83; Cass 64; all others 53. On the thirty-third, Gen. Cass ran up again to 123; and on the thirty-fifth to 131, which was his highest--Mr. Douglas dropping to 60 on the thirty-third, and to 53 on this. Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, was first named on this ballot, receiving 15 votes. He ran up to 30 on the next; fell back to 29 on the following; and there stood till the forty-sixth, when he received 44; while Gov. Marcy received 97; Gen. Cass 78; Mr. Buchanan 28; and Mr. Douglas 32, with 8 scattering. On the forty-eighth, Gen. Pierce received 55, and on the next 232 votes-being all that were cast but six--and was declared the candidate. For Vice-President, William R. King, of Alabama, received 126 on the first b
operative. The section which authorized Nebraska to send a delegate was amended in precisely the same manner. Mr. Douglas called up his new bill for consideration next morning; when not only Messrs. Chase and Sumner, but Mr. Norris, of New Hampshire, Gen. Cass, and other Democrats, desired that time be given to consider the grave changes which had just been made in the vital character of the measure. On the other hand, Messrs. Dawson, of Georgia, and Dixon, of Kentucky, were ready to sus follows: Yeas — Fessenden and Hamlin, of Maine; Sumner, of Massachusetts; Foot, of Vermont; Smith, of Connecticut; Fish and Seward, of New York; Chase and Wade, of Ohio; Dodge (Henry), of Wisconsin--10. Nays — Norris and Williams, of New Hampshire; Toucey, of Connecticut; Brodhead, of Pennsylvania; Clayton, of Delaware; Stuart, Gen. Cass, the inventor of Popular Sovereignty, who was in his seat and voted just before, did not respond to the call of his name on this occasion. of Michi
rom Africans held in Slavery, were citizens of the United States under the Confederation, and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether such persons were citizens of either of the States under the Confederation, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Of this, there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free, native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens. He proceeds to cite, in support of this averment, the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina in the case of the State against Manuel, wherein William Gaston — by far the most eminent jurist of whom that State co
1 2