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
Jefferson Davis 656 14 Browse Search
United States (United States) 252 0 Browse Search
Zachary Taylor 164 8 Browse Search
Mississippi (Mississippi, United States) 140 0 Browse Search
V. H. Davis 126 0 Browse Search
John C. Calhoun 115 1 Browse Search
John Davis 115 1 Browse Search
Sidney Webster 112 0 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 112 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 84 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Varina Davis, Jefferson Davis: Ex-President of the Confederate States of America, A Memoir by his Wife, Volume 1. Search the whole document.

Found 249 total hits in 44 results.

1 2 3 4 5
Springfield, Mo. (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 32
ublished, and in many precincts his friends did not go to the polls in consequence of the rumor; yet the result stated by Mr. Davis was attained. The following letter, kindly furnished to me by Mr. James A. Pearce, of Kent County, Md., will explain Mr. Davis's views after he resigned his position in the Senate, which was nearly a full term of six years. Copy of letter from Mr. Davis to James Alfred Pearce, M. D., in which he refers to his position in the session of 1850: P. O., Palmyra, Miss., August 22, 1852. My Dear Sir: Among the most pleasing reminiscences of my connection with the Senate I place my association with you, and first among the consolations for the train of events which led to my separation from that body, I remember your very kind letter. When it was received, I was unable, on account of ophthalmic disease, to write, and delayed answering until I could dispense with an amanuensis; why I delayed longer I cannot satisfactorily say, but with entire certa
Benton (Mississippi, United States) (search for this): chapter 32
ny restriction against slavery, but it was imposed upon the remainder of the territory of Louisiana north and west of Missouri, and throughout the whole territory along the southern boundary line of Virginia and Kentucky: the latitude of 36° 30‘. The same author says, This was called compromise, and was all clear gain to the anti-slavery side of the question, done under the United Slave State vote in the Senate, Mr. Benton's statement seems to be at variance with the final vote as given in Benton's Abridgement, chapter VII., pp. 55 to 453. t The vote 95 out of 100 Northern, 39 out of 76 Southern men. the majority of that vote in the House of Representatives, and the undivided sanction of a Southern administration. It was a Southern measure, and divided free and slave soil far more favorably to the North than the ordinance of 1787. That divided about equally; this of 1820 gave about all to the North. + He goes on to say it abolished slavery over an immense area and opened no new te
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) (search for this): chapter 32
tate, Territorial Governments for Utah and New Mexico, the settlement of the Texas Boundary, Slavery in the District of Columbia, and the Fugitive Slave law all into one bill, called the Compromise Bill, in parliamentary phrase, and always spoken of as the Omnibus bill by members of either house. Mr. Clay's resolution set forth: That, as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the Northern States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to provide by law either for its introduction into, or exclusion from, any part of said territory. In a speech on this resolution, Mr. Davis said: But, sir, we are all called on to receive this as a measure of compromise. I look upon it as but a modest mode of taking that, the claim to which has been more boldly asserted by others: and that I may be understood upon this question, and that my position may go forth to the country in the same columns
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 32
oes not allow him to be here to-day-- A Senator: He is here. (Referring to Mr. Calhoun.) Mr. Webster: I am very happy to hear he is; may he long be in health and the enjoyment of it to serve his country . . . The Secretary had the boldness and candor to avow in that correspondence that the great object sought by the annexation of Texas was to strengthen the slave interest of the South. Mr. Calhoun: The ground I put it on was, that it would make an exposed frontier, and if Great Britain succeeded in her object, it would be impossible that the frontier could be secured against the aggression of the abolitionists, and that the Government was bound, under the guarantees of the Constitution, to protect us under such a state. Mr. Webster: It was that Texas must be obtained for the security of the slave interest of the South. Mr. Calhoun: Another view is distinctly given. Mr. Webster: But, sir, the honorable member did avow the object himself, openly, boldly,
Washington (United States) (search for this): chapter 32
e, without even the exchange of a mess of pottage. In a debate in the Senate, Mr. Davis saidin answer to Mr. Foote's announcement that the people of Mississippi did not agree with him — that he would not remain an hour if he did not believe that he truly represented Mississippi; and though no specific pledge was given, it was an understood thing that the two Mississippi senators were to meet and discuss before the people their different views. As soon as Congress adjourned, we left Washington, and went down to Jackson, Miss. There we remained a week for Mr. Davis to make preliminary arrangements for the proposed series of debates with Mr. Foote. General Quitman was one of the nullification-school of which Mr. Calhoun is generally considered the founder, and with which Mr. Davis never in any degree affiliated. In a message to the Legislature of Mississippi, General Quitman had expressed these views, and the people did not feel able to adopt them, but there were peculiar ci
Pacific Ocean (search for this): chapter 32
inia and in the South, who interrogated him on this subject: Mr. Clay is credited with the paternity of the so-called Missouri Compromise of 1820. In 1850, when I was contending for the extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean, and claimed of Mr. Clay that consistency required of him to vote with me on that question, a colloquy ensued in which he emphatically denied the paternity of the Missouri Compromise, all of which will be found in the Congressional Globe. tood upon this question, and that my position may go forth to the country in the same columns that convey the sentiment of the Senator from Kentucky, I here assert that never will I take less than the Missouri Compromise line extended to the Pacific Ocean, with specific recognition of the right to hold slaves in the Territory below that line; and that before such Territories are admitted into the Union as States, slaves may be taken there from any of the United States, at the option of their o
Texas (Texas, United States) (search for this): chapter 32
that none of the New Territory incorporated into the Union should be open to the introduction of slavery. This included California and New Mexico, at the gates of Texas and Louisiana. While the Congressmen from the Slave States protested against this proviso as a violation of their equal rights, under the Articles of Confederatiooyment of it to serve his country . . . The Secretary had the boldness and candor to avow in that correspondence that the great object sought by the annexation of Texas was to strengthen the slave interest of the South. Mr. Calhoun: The ground I put it on was, that it would make an exposed frontier, and if Great Britain succeedon of the abolitionists, and that the Government was bound, under the guarantees of the Constitution, to protect us under such a state. Mr. Webster: It was that Texas must be obtained for the security of the slave interest of the South. Mr. Calhoun: Another view is distinctly given. Mr. Webster: But, sir, the honora
Louisiana (Louisiana, United States) (search for this): chapter 32
r. Benton said, This agitation came from the North and under federal lead, and soon swept both parties into its vortex. Finally Missouri was admitted without any restriction against slavery, but it was imposed upon the remainder of the territory of Louisiana north and west of Missouri, and throughout the whole territory along the southern boundary line of Virginia and Kentucky: the latitude of 36° 30‘. The same author says, This was called compromise, and was all clear gain to the anti-slave The Wilmot Proviso which had been introduced into the House, provided that none of the New Territory incorporated into the Union should be open to the introduction of slavery. This included California and New Mexico, at the gates of Texas and Louisiana. While the Congressmen from the Slave States protested against this proviso as a violation of their equal rights, under the Articles of Confederation and of the Constitution, they were not averse to seeing the proviso passed by Northern votes
Kent County (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 32
you stop at the outworks. Still weak, with the eye most affected tied up, and wearing goggle-glasses, Mr. Davis left home to begin his canvass three weeks before the election. In the eastern counties of the State his opponents had caused a notice of his death to be published, and in many precincts his friends did not go to the polls in consequence of the rumor; yet the result stated by Mr. Davis was attained. The following letter, kindly furnished to me by Mr. James A. Pearce, of Kent County, Md., will explain Mr. Davis's views after he resigned his position in the Senate, which was nearly a full term of six years. Copy of letter from Mr. Davis to James Alfred Pearce, M. D., in which he refers to his position in the session of 1850: P. O., Palmyra, Miss., August 22, 1852. My Dear Sir: Among the most pleasing reminiscences of my connection with the Senate I place my association with you, and first among the consolations for the train of events which led to my separation
Utah (Utah, United States) (search for this): chapter 32
ling throughout both sections, Mr. Clay conceived the idea of getting a joint committee of Senate and House to make a compromise of all the matters in dispute. He incorporated the admission of California as a State, Territorial Governments for Utah and New Mexico, the settlement of the Texas Boundary, Slavery in the District of Columbia, and the Fugitive Slave law all into one bill, called the Compromise Bill, in parliamentary phrase, and always spoken of as the Omnibus bill by members of eie defections from their ranks, strong enough to defeat Mr. Seward's revival of the Wilmot Proviso resolution. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude otherwise than by conviction for crime, shall ever be allowed in either of said Territories of Utah and New Mexico. This was defeated by an almost strictly Southern vote; five only being from the West and North. Yeas, 23; Nays, 33. In the light that forty years have shed upon this struggle, it is interesting to recall a portion of an addre
1 2 3 4 5