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 descending order. Sort in ascending 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 ...
Nebraska (Nebraska, United States) (search for this): chapter 18
ractical importance. Besides, it is a judicial question, which legitimately belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit. Not many days thereafter, the decision and opinions thus heralded, and commended as a new and admirable exemplification of Popular Sovereignty, and the happy conception embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, were revealed, with due trumpeting and laudation, to an expectant world. Chief Justice Taney, in pronouncing the decision of the Court, which nullified the Missouri Restriction, or any restriction by Congress on the boundless diffusion of Slavery throughout the territories of the Union, commenced by denying to Dred Scott, or to any person whose ancestors were imported to this country and sold as slaves, any right to sue in a court of the United States. He said: The question befo
Jefferson Barracks (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 18
vered 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 north of the Missouri line; Lizzie, seven years later, at Jefferson Barracks, in the State of Missouri. The doctor, with Dred, Harriet, and Eliza, returned thence to St. Louis, and he there continued to hold them as his slaves, until he sold them, several years later, to John F. A. Sanford, of the State and City of New York. Finally, Dred brought suit for his freedom, on the above state of facts, in the State Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and obtained a verdict and judgment in his favor. But this was reversed by a judgment on a writ of error t
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 18
, was, previously to 1834, held as a slave in Missouri by Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the U. S. Army. down the Mississippi, but still north of the Missouri line; Lizzie, seven years later, at Jefferson Barracks, in the State of Missouri. The doctor, with Dred, Harriet, and Eliza, returned thence to by it was to be adjudged by the tribunals of Missouri alone; and he concludes as follows: Upon at the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in tion, the plaintiff cannot sue as a citizen of Missouri in the courts of the United States. But, thaars been exercising jurisdiction from the Western Missouri line to the Rocky Mountains, and, on thisction of Congress in 1821 on the admission of Missouri, whereby that State was constrained to abando, nor anything in the Constitution or laws of Missouri, could confer or take away any privilege or ie United States and his residence in the State of Missouri, the plea to the jurisdiction was bad, a[1 more...]
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 18
aced by the Constitution upon the same high ground, nor shielded by a similar guarantee. There is much more of this, but the above must suffice. Mr. Daniel, pushing his doctrines to their legitimate result, pronounces the Ordinance of ‘87 only equal in constitutionality and validity with the Missouri Restriction — that is to say, essentially null and void. Mr. Justice Campbell, of Alabama, followed with a general assent to the views 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 the ground of his two years residence in Illinois; but he dissents from the Chief Justice's notion that the power over the territories, expressly given to Congress by the Constitution, has no force or application beyond the territory possessed by us when that Constitution was framed. In fact, as he had been hanging men for the last twenty years under this very power, he could not well do
Washington (United States) (search for this): chapter 18
this was reversed by a judgment on a writ of error to the Supreme Court of that State, from which an appeal was taken to the courts of the United States, and the case came to trial in May, 1854. Having been fully heard by the Supreme Court at Washington, that court was about to decide it at its term of 1855-6; but the controlling majority of its Judges concluded, in view of the pending Presidential election, and the strong excitement which the Nebraska bill and the Kansas outrages had aroused nderstood 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 had, undergone no change whe
Alabama (Alabama, United States) (search for this): chapter 18
nt, to protect and enforce, is the property of the master in his slave; no other right of property is placed by the Constitution upon the same high ground, nor shielded by a similar guarantee. There is much more of this, but the above must suffice. Mr. Daniel, pushing his doctrines to their legitimate result, pronounces the Ordinance of ‘87 only equal in constitutionality and validity with the Missouri Restriction — that is to say, essentially null and void. Mr. Justice Campbell, of Alabama, followed with a general assent to the views 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 the ground of his two years residence in Illinois; but he dissents from the Chief Justice's notion that the power over the territories, expressly given to Congress by the Constitution, has no force or application beyond the territory possessed by us when that Constitution was framed. In
Rock Island, Ill. (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 18
Xviii. The Dred Scott case. Views of President Buchanan Chief Justice Taney Judge Wayne Judge Nelson Judge Grier Judge Daniel Judge Campbell Judge Catron Col. Benton Wm. L. Yancey Daniel Webster Judge McLean Judge Curtis. Dred Scott, a negro, 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
Missouri (United States) (search for this): chapter 18
s in Louisiana, as in other Slave States, that a slave taken by his master, or removed with his assent, to a Free State, or to any country wherein Slavery is prohibited, becomes thereby a freeman, and cannot be returned or reduced again to Slavery. It cannot, however, be necessary to quote further on this head. He concludes: For these reasons, I am of the opinion that so much of the several acts of Congress as prohibited Slavery and involuntary servitude within that part of the Territory of Missouri lying north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and west of the river Mississippi, were constitutional and valid laws. In my opinion, the judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. The majority of the Justices composing the Supreme Court, after deciding that Dred Scott had no standing in that Court, and that the case was, therefore, entirely beyond, or outside of, its jurisdiction, had proceeded to take and make j
St. Louis (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 18
ansferred 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 north of the Missouri line; Lizzie, seven years later, at Jefferson Barracks, in the State of Missouri. The doctor, with Dred, Harriet, and Eliza, returned thence to St. Louis, and he there continued to hold them as his slaves, until he sold them, several years later, to John F. A. Sanford, of the State and City of New York. Finally, Dred brought suit for his freedom, on the above state of facts, in the State Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and obtained a verdict and judgment in his favor. But this was reversed by a judgment on a writ of error to the Supreme Court of that State, from which an appeal was taken to the courts of the United States, an
New York (New York, United States) (search for this): chapter 18
ther 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 north of the Missouri line; Lizzie, seven years later, at Jefferson Barracks, in the State of Missouri. The doctor, with Dred, Harriet, and Eliza, returned thence to St. Louis, and he there continued to hold them as his slaves, until he sold them, several years later, to John F. A. Sanford, of the State and City of New York. Finally, Dred brought suit for his freedom, on the above state of facts, in the State Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and obtained a verdict and judgment in his favor. But this was reversed by a judgment on a writ of error to the Supreme Court of that State, from which an appeal was taken to the courts of the United States, and the case came to trial in May, 1854. Having been fully heard by the Supreme Court at Washington, that court was about to decide it at its term o
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...