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
United States (United States) 1,170 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 573 1 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 566 0 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 532 0 Browse Search
Texas (Texas, United States) 482 0 Browse Search
Charleston (South Carolina, United States) 470 8 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 449 3 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 405 1 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 340 0 Browse Search
Maryland (Maryland, United States) 324 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of 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.. Search the whole document.

Found 409 total hits in 81 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Samuel Hopkins (search for this): chapter 18
the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken See, in refutation of this, the views of Henry Laurens, Dr. Hopkins, La Fayette. Washington, Jefferson, etc., as quoted in the earlier chapters of this work. of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection. This state of public opinion haks were identified in the public mind with the race to which they belonged, and regarded as a part of the slave population rather than the free. He is so kind as to tell the people of the Free States that the efforts of Wesley, and Edwards, and Hopkins, and Franklin, and Jay, and all the other eminent divines, patriots, and statesmen, who appealed to their consciences and their hearts against Slavery as unjust and cruel, had no existence, or, at least, no effect — that Slavery was abolished by
Roger B. Taney (search for this): chapter 18
. Views of President Buchanan Chief Justice Taney Judge Wayne Judge Nelson Judge Grierylvania, for refusing to make such removal. Mr. Taney, born in 1777, was an ultra Federalist previ and laudation, to an expectant world. Chief Justice Taney, in pronouncing the decision of the Coust flagrantly defied in that portion of Chief Justice Taney's opinion which follows: In the opivident from its provisions and language. Mr. Taney here deliberately asserts that the unhappy by successful ventures on the Slave-Coast. Mr. Taney proceeds to show, after his fashion, that nol questions introduced and discussed by Chief Justice Taney, in order to put them finally to rest. d with a general assent to the views of Chief Justice Taney. Mr. Justice Catron, of Tennessee, c opinion of the Court, as pronounced by Chief Justice Taney in this celebrated case, is, in essence know such to be the case. In reply to Chief Justice Taney's disquisition as to the opinions and v
Dred Scott (search for this): chapter 18
Xviii. The Dred Scott case. Views of President Buchanan Chief Justice Taney Judge Waynniel Webster Judge McLean Judge Curtis. Dred Scott, a negro, was, previously to 1834, held as an and opinions of this Court, in the case of Dred Scott, had not been made public when Mr. Buchanan tories of the Union, commenced by denying to Dred Scott, or to any person whose ancestors were imporus determined, to his own satisfaction, that Dred Scott, being a negro and descended from slaves, ha, and it is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made frthe Federal tribunals. And, having thus put Dred Scott out of court, and finished the case, he procTennessee, concurs with Justice Nelson, that Dred Scott has no right to freedom, at the hands of thie sums up his conclusions as to the right of Dred Scott to bring this action, as follows: First.osing the Supreme Court, after deciding that Dred Scott had no standing in that Court, and that the [1 more...]
John C. Calhoun (search for this): chapter 18
e several States, gives slaveholders an indefeasible right to carry their slaves into, and hold them in, the territories. Col. Benton In his Historical and Legal Examination of that part of the Decision of the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, which declares the unconstitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. observes that the opinion of the Court, as pronounced by Chief Justice Taney in this celebrated case, is, in essence, but an amplification of certain resolves submitted by Mr. Calhoun to the United States Senate, in February, 1847, in the following language: Resolved, That the Territories of the United States belong to the several States composing this Union, and are held by them as their joint and common property. Resolved, That Congress, as the joint agent and representative of the States of the Union, has no right to make any law, or do any act whatever, that shall directly, or by its effects, make any discrimination between the States of this Union, by which
Webster (search for this): chapter 18
nor can he carry it into another Slave State, but must take the law which he finds there, and have his property governed by it; and, in some instances, wholly changed by it, and rights lost, or acquired, by the change. To the same effect, Mr. Webster, when resisting, in 1848, the attempt, on a bill organizing the Territory of Oregon, to fasten a rider extending the Slave line of 36° 30′ to the Pacific, refuted this doctrine as follows: The Southern Senators say we deprive them of the rvilized country, the power to introduce and permanently continue diverse systems of foreign municipal law, for holding persons in Slavery? Justice Curtis is an ultra conservative of the State-street (Boston) school--a life-long follower of Mr. Webster, especially in his later and more lamentable days — and yet his opinion delivered in this case evinces considerably more freedom and boldness than that of Judge McLean. Though couched in judicial and respectful language, it constantly, and pr
Benjamin R. Curtis (search for this): chapter 18
on Wm. L. Yancey Daniel Webster Judge McLean Judge Curtis. Dred Scott, a negro, was, previously to 1834 McLean, only Samuel Nelson, of New York, and Benjamin R. Curtis, of Massachusetts, were ever presumed qualifio an endless existence. To the same effect, Justice Curtis, of Massachusetts, in his dissenting opinion, ticipal law, for holding persons in Slavery? Justice Curtis is an ultra conservative of the State-street (Bpinions and views of our Revolutionary statesmen, Mr. Curtis bluntly says: To determine whether any free pg his review of the Chief Justice's assumptions, Judge Curtis says: It has been often asserted that the Coe Constitution was ordained and established. Judge Curtis is not content with refuting the logic of the Chadmitted to citizenship of the United States. Mr. Curtis cites with effect the action of Congress in 1821 in this opinion of the majority of the Court. Mr. Curtis proceeds to confute at length, and with decided a
Samuel Nelson (search for this): chapter 18
ase. Views of President Buchanan Chief Justice Taney Judge Wayne Judge Nelson Judge Grier Judge Daniel Judge Campbell Judge Catron Col. Benton Wm. Ltee of prerogative and power. Of his associates, beside Judge McLean, only Samuel Nelson, of New York, and Benjamin R. Curtis, of Massachusetts, were ever presumed Justice, without any qualification of its reasoning or its conclusions. Justice Nelson, of New York, concurred also in the conclusion of the Court, and favored an, if it exist at all, over the whole subject. But the power against which Mr. Nelson is contending is a power to prohibit by legislation certain forms of injustic otherwise commendable, opinion: I concur in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Nelson on the question discussed by him. I also concur with the opinion of ths of Chief Justice Taney. Mr. Justice Catron, of Tennessee, concurs with Justice Nelson, that Dred Scott has no right to freedom, at the hands of this court, on th
Manuel (search for this): chapter 18
ticles 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 could ever boast — pronounced the opinion of the Court in the following terms; According to the laws of this State, all human beings within it, who are not slaves, fall within one of two classes. Whatever distinctions may have existed in the Roman laws between citizens and free inhabitants, they are unknown to our institutions. Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Gre
Taliaferro (search for this): chapter 18
ro, was, previously to 1834, held as a slave in Missouri by Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the U. S. Army. In that year, the doctor was transferred to the military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and took his slave with him. Here, Major Taliaferro (also of the army) had, in 1835, in his service a black known as Harriet, whom he likewise held as his slave. The major was transferred that year to Fort Snelling, on the other side of the Missippi, in what is now known as Minnesota, but was then an unorganized territory of the United States, expressly covered by the Slavery Prohibition included in the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Dr. Emerson was likewise transferred to Fort Snelling in 1836, and here bought Harriet of Major Taliaferro, and held her and Dred as his slaves; they being married to each other with his consent soon after his arrival at the Fort. Two children were born to them; Eliza, in 1838, on board the steamboat Gipsy, on their way down the Mississippi, but still n
Jonathan Edwards (search for this): chapter 18
e coolly says, the importation which it thus sanctions, was unquestionably of all persons of the race of which we are now speaking. The Chief Justice proceeds to defy history and common sense by asserting that, in the days of the fathers, even emancipated blacks were identified in the public mind with the race to which they belonged, and regarded as a part of the slave population rather than the free. He is so kind as to tell the people of the Free States that the efforts of Wesley, and Edwards, and Hopkins, and Franklin, and Jay, and all the other eminent divines, patriots, and statesmen, who appealed to their consciences and their hearts against Slavery as unjust and cruel, had no existence, or, at least, no effect — that Slavery was abolished by our fathers, not at all because it was felt to be wrong, but because it was found to be unprofitable in this particular locality. On this point, he says: (It is very true that, in that portion of the Union where the labor of the ne
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9