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) 682 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery. 358 0 Browse Search
William H. Herndon, Jesse William Weik, Herndon's Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life, Etiam in minimis major, The History and Personal Recollections of Abraham Lincoln by William H. Herndon, for twenty years his friend and Jesse William Weik 258 0 Browse Search
Mrs. John A. Logan, Reminiscences of a Soldier's Wife: An Autobiography 208 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. 204 0 Browse Search
John G. Nicolay, A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, condensed from Nicolay and Hayes' Abraham Lincoln: A History 182 0 Browse Search
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 1. 104 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events, Diary from December 17, 1860 - April 30, 1864 (ed. Frank Moore) 102 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 10. (ed. Frank Moore) 86 0 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 3, 15th edition. 72 0 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 2. (ed. Frank Moore). You can also browse the collection for Illinois (Illinois, United States) or search for Illinois (Illinois, United States) in all documents.

Your search returned 35 results in 18 document sections:

1 2
a Connecticut regiment, strove against the current for a league. I positively declare that, with the two exceptions mentioned, all efforts made to check the panic before Centreville was reached, were confined to civilians. I saw a man in citizen's dress, who had thrown off his coat, seized a musket, and was trying to rally the soldiers who came by at the point of the bayonet. In a reply to a request for his name, he said it was Washburne, and I learned he was the member by that name from Illinois. The Hon. Mr. Kellogg made a similar effort. Both these Congressmen bravely stood their ground till the last moment, and were serviceable at Centreville in assisting the halt there ultimately made. And other civilians did what they could. But what a scene I and how terrific the onset of that tumultous retreat. For three miles, hosts of Federal troops — all detached from their regiments, all mingled in one disorderly rout — were fleeing along the road, but mostly through the lots on ei
the North and the South; Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri do not intend that their peaceful channels of commerce shall become rivers of blood to gratify the ambition of South Carolina and Alabama, who at a remote distance from present danger cry out disunion. I have said that the South has all along had a peaceful remedy and has it still. The union sentiment is overwhelming in all the Middle and Western States, constituting two-thirds of the republic. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois are as little inclined to become frontier States as Maryland, Virginia, and Kentucky. Had the present Administration cut loose from the disunionists, instead of virtually ministering to their designs, and planted itself firmly on union ground, the secessions at Charleston and Baltimore would never have occurred, the constitutional union party would have been an impossibility, the democracy would have recovered its ascendency in the North, and an united party, embracing two-thirds of the No
his specious ability and pleasing eloquence. That gentleman on that occasion endeavored to show that Mr. Lincoln was more conservative and true to the South than Mr. Douglas. Referring to the Senatorial contest which they had recently had in Illinois, he said what I read to you. In that contest the two candidates for the Senate of the United States, in the State of Illinois, went before their people. They agreed to discuss the issues; they put questions to each other for answer ; and I mustState of Illinois, went before their people. They agreed to discuss the issues; they put questions to each other for answer ; and I must say here, for I must be just to all, that I have been surprised in the examination that I made again, within the last few days, of this discussion between Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Douglas, to find that Mr. Lincoln is A far more conservative man, unless he has since changed his opinions, than I had supposed him to be. There was no dodging on his part. Mr. Douglas started with his questions. Here they are with Mr. Lincoln's answers: Question 1.--I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands
ese doctrines up to the year 1850, and I maintain them still. (Applause.) I entertained these opinions, as I remarked before, down to the latest sitting of Congress, and I then reiterated them. I entertain and express them here to-day. (Applause.) In this connection, I may be permitted to remark that, during our last struggle for the Presidency, all parties contended for the preservation of the Union. Without going further back, what was that struggle? Senator Douglas of the State of Illinois was a candidate. His friends presented him as the best Union man. I shall speak upon this subject in reference to my position. Mr. Breckinridge's friends presented him to the people as the Union candidate. I was one of Mr. Breckinridge's friends. The Bell men presented the claims of the Hon. John Bell of Tennessee for the Presidency, upon the ground that he was the best Union candidate. The Republican party, so far as I understand them, have always :been in favor of the Union. Th
then, examine it. After a feeble and futile defence of the right of secession, they present the Personal Liberty Laws of some of the Northern States as a justification; concerning which they say: We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfil their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own statutes for the proof. * * * The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa have enacted laws which either nullify the acts of Congress, or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from the service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligations; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her
lave States--the inevitable consequence of which will be, not only that those States will lose a much larger number of slaves than heretofore, but that in a few years slavery will disappear from them altogether. The truth is, there is but one safety for the slave interests of the border States, and that is in having friendly neighbors on the north of them, and not only friendly neighbors, but friendly, stringent, coercive, penal legislation. With Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and Indiana, and Illinois, and Iowa, made enemies of — as enemies, and bitter enemies, secession will surely make them — no human power can prevent the extinction of slavery in the States of Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Fire will not more effectually reduce the fagot to cinders, or water extinguish flame, than secession will bring slavery in those States to annihilation. To bring the matter home, if with a stringent fugitive slave law, executed (as I think) with all reasonable fidelity and success
d the stronger causes contributed by the abolitionists and disunionists of the North. How could he have forgotten that the South, with one single exception, chose first to come here and demand its solemn constitutional guarantees for their protection against the abuses of the tremendous powers of the Federal Government, before resorting to Secession? Did he not know that at the last session of Congress every substantial proposition for compromise, except the one offered by Mr. Kellogg, of Illinois-and all knew how that was received-came from the South? The Committee of Thirty-three was moved for by a gentleman from Virginia, and received the vote of every Southern representative, except one from South Carolina, who declined to vote. In the Senate this Committee of Thirty-three was moved for by the Senator from Kentucky, and received the silent acquiescence of every Southern Senator present. The Crittenden proposition, too, was moved by another Senator from Kentucky-Mr. Crittende
Congress refused to confer authority, and by what authority did the President do it after they refused? The Constitution declares that Congress alone has power to declare war, yet the President has made war. In the last session the Senator from Illinois (Douglas) delivered a speech, on the 15th of March, which he would read. He then read an extract of Mr. Douglas's speech, declaring that the President had no right to make a blockade at New Orleans or Charleston more than at Chicago. He also rulations, and the Senator declared that, unless the people of these States were willing to obey the Federal Government, they must be reduced to the condition of territories, and, he added, he would govern them by governors from Massachusetts and Illinois. This was said seriously, and afterwards repeated. Mr. Baker (Or.) explained. He said he was delivering a speech against giving too much power to the President, and was keeping his usual constitutional, guarded position against an increase
ness throughout the whole affair. I met a son of Gen. Leavenworth coming off the field, a lad of seventeen, who had stayed in the wood to bathe his feet, after the Twelfth, to which he belonged, was driven out, and who says he was surprised to find he was not half as much scared as he had expected to be. While on the sidehill, being half famished with thirst, I asked a swallow from the canteen of a portly gentleman who was passing. He gave it to me, and I found it was Hon. Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois. There were half-a-dozen private gentlemen present as spectators. The criticism which will be made on this mishap will be that men should not have been thus thrust upon a masked battery — that it is a repetition of the old Big Bethel and Vienna affairs. Gen. Tyler, however, says that it was only a reconnoissance in force — that the object he had in view was to determine what force and batteries the enemy had at that point — and that he now understands this perfectly. Undoubtedly, this<
ng another attack on the 19th, but I have not heard whether there was one or not. My wound is getting on very well — pains me but little. I hope you are all well — wish I could see you. My love to all. Good-bye. Howard Tulle. Baltimore exchange narrative. The following account comes through our occasional correspondent at Washington, on whom we have great reliance: The following account of the battle at Bull Run is given by the Hons. Wm. A. Richardson, John A. McClernand, of Ill., and John W. Noel, of Missouri, (all members of the House,) who were eye-witnesses of the battle, and aided in several instances in bearing from the field members of the New York 12th, who were wounded. The action commenced under the direction of Gen. Tyler, of Connecticut, at 1 1/2 o'clock on Thursday afternoon, at Bull Run, three miles from Centreville, between several companies of skirmishers attached to the Massachusetts 1st, and a masked battery situated on a slight eminence. The ski
1 2