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) 16,340 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 6,437 1 Browse Search
France (France) 2,462 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 2,310 0 Browse Search
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) 1,788 0 Browse Search
Europe 1,632 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 1,606 0 Browse Search
Canada (Canada) 1,474 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 1,468 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 1,404 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing). Search the whole document.

Found 73 total hits in 26 results.

1 2 3
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) (search for this): entry missouri-compromise-the
es River, thus giving up to slavery the State of Missouri and all territory south of that latitude. This partition policy was warmly opposed by a large number of members of Congress from the North and the South, declaring themselves hostile to any compromise whatever. Slavery was either right or wrong, and there could be no compromise. Taylor withdrew his motion. The proposition for a compromise which was finally agreed to was originated by a Northern member, and not by Henry Clay, of Kentucky, as is generally supposed. This Missouri bill caused one of the most exciting debates on the slavery question ever before known in the national legislature. Extreme doctrines and foolish threats were uttered on both sides. Southern members threatened a dissolution of the Union. There was much adroit management by the party leaders, who used great dexterity in trying to avoid a compromise—for one party insisted upon Missouri entering, if at all, as a free-labor State, and the other party
Des Moines River (United States) (search for this): entry missouri-compromise-the
e Territories of the United States north of lat. 36° 30′ N., the northern boundary of the proposed new Territory of Arkansas. Arthur Livermore, of New Hampshire, who had been zealous for the Missouri restrictions, conceived that this proposition had been made in the true spirit of compromise, but thought that line of division not sufficiently favorable to freedom. Gen. W. H. Harrison agreed to the necessity of some such partition. but he proposed a line due west from the mouth of the Des Moines River, thus giving up to slavery the State of Missouri and all territory south of that latitude. This partition policy was warmly opposed by a large number of members of Congress from the North and the South, declaring themselves hostile to any compromise whatever. Slavery was either right or wrong, and there could be no compromise. Taylor withdrew his motion. The proposition for a compromise which was finally agreed to was originated by a Northern member, and not by Henry Clay, of Kent
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): entry missouri-compromise-the
Missouri compromise, the In 1817 the inhabitants of the Territory of Missouri petitioned Congress for admes Moines River, thus giving up to slavery the State of Missouri and all territory south of that latitude. ThiClay, of Kentucky, as is generally supposed. This Missouri bill caused one of the most exciting debates on th to avoid a compromise—for one party insisted upon Missouri entering, if at all, as a free-labor State, and thompromise seemed to be the only door through which Missouri might enter; and, by adroit management, a compromiThere was an almost solid North against admitting Missouri as a slavelabor State. President Monroe consulted consider whether or not it was expedient to admit Missouri into the Union; and if not, what provision adaptedf lat. 36° 30′ N. (outside the boundary of the State of Missouri) slavery should not exist, but should be forev prohibited in the region north of that line. But Missouri was admitted as a slave-labor State. In the cours
Arkansas (United States) (search for this): entry missouri-compromise-the
he age of twenty-five years. This motion brought the slavery question again before Congress most conspicuously. After a three days vehement debate, it was carried, 87 to 76. As a companion to the Missouri bill, another to organize the Territory of Arkansas was introduced (Feb. 16). When it was taken up, John W. Taylor, of New York, moved to add a provision that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should hereafter be introduced into any part of the Territories of the United States north of lat. 36° 30′ N., the northern boundary of the proposed new Territory of Arkansas. Arthur Livermore, of New Hampshire, who had been zealous for the Missouri restrictions, conceived that this proposition had been made in the true spirit of compromise, but thought that line of division not sufficiently favorable to freedom. Gen. W. H. Harrison agreed to the necessity of some such partition. but he proposed a line due west from the mouth of the Des Moines River, thus giving up to slavery th
United States (United States) (search for this): entry missouri-compromise-the
attaining the age of twenty-five years. This motion brought the slavery question again before Congress most conspicuously. After a three days vehement debate, it was carried, 87 to 76. As a companion to the Missouri bill, another to organize the Territory of Arkansas was introduced (Feb. 16). When it was taken up, John W. Taylor, of New York, moved to add a provision that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should hereafter be introduced into any part of the Territories of the United States north of lat. 36° 30′ N., the northern boundary of the proposed new Territory of Arkansas. Arthur Livermore, of New Hampshire, who had been zealous for the Missouri restrictions, conceived that this proposition had been made in the true spirit of compromise, but thought that line of division not sufficiently favorable to freedom. Gen. W. H. Harrison agreed to the necessity of some such partition. but he proposed a line due west from the mouth of the Des Moines River, thus giving up to
Missouri (United States) (search for this): entry missouri-compromise-the
Missouri compromise, the In 1817 the inhabitants of the Territory of Missouri petitioned Congress for admission into the Union as a State. A bill was introduced into Congress (Feb. 13, 1819) for that purpose, when James Tallmadge, Jr., of New York, moved to insert a clause prohibiting any further introduction of slaves within its domains, and granting freedom to the children of those already there, on their attaining the age of twenty-five years. This motion brought the slavery question again before Congress most conspicuously. After a three days vehement debate, it was carried, 87 to 76. As a companion to the Missouri bill, another to organize the Territory of Arkansas was introduced (Feb. 16). When it was taken up, John W. Taylor, of New York, moved to add a provision that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should hereafter be introduced into any part of the Territories of the United States north of lat. 36° 30′ N., the northern boundary of the proposed new Territor
New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) (search for this): entry missouri-compromise-the
After a three days vehement debate, it was carried, 87 to 76. As a companion to the Missouri bill, another to organize the Territory of Arkansas was introduced (Feb. 16). When it was taken up, John W. Taylor, of New York, moved to add a provision that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should hereafter be introduced into any part of the Territories of the United States north of lat. 36° 30′ N., the northern boundary of the proposed new Territory of Arkansas. Arthur Livermore, of New Hampshire, who had been zealous for the Missouri restrictions, conceived that this proposition had been made in the true spirit of compromise, but thought that line of division not sufficiently favorable to freedom. Gen. W. H. Harrison agreed to the necessity of some such partition. but he proposed a line due west from the mouth of the Des Moines River, thus giving up to slavery the State of Missouri and all territory south of that latitude. This partition policy was warmly opposed by a large n
Georgia (Georgia, United States) (search for this): entry missouri-compromise-the
ption of a compromise, Feb. 27, 1821, substantially as proposed by Taylor, of New York, in 1819—namely, that in all territory north of lat. 36° 30′ N. (outside the boundary of the State of Missouri) slavery should not exist, but should be forever prohibited in the region north of that line. But Missouri was admitted as a slave-labor State. In the course of the later debates there was much angry feeling displayed, and unwise men, North and South, uttered the cry of disunion. A member from Georgia said. pathetically, in the course of the debate: A fire has been kindled which all the waters of the ocean cannot put out, and which only seas of blood can extinguish. The seas of blood shed in the Civil War did alone extinguish it. When President Monroe hesitated about signing the Missouri Compromise act, and laid the matter before his cabinet, he submitted two questions to his advisers: Has Congress the power to prohibit slavery in a Territory? and Was the term forever, in the prohi
er before his cabinet, he submitted two questions to his advisers: Has Congress the power to prohibit slavery in a Territory? and Was the term forever, in the prohibitive clause in the bill, to be understood as referring only to the territorial condition of the district to which it related, or was it an attempt to extend the prohibition of slavery to such States as might be erected therefrom? The cabinet was unanimous in the affirmative on the first question. On the second question, John Quincy Adams (Secretary of State) thought the term meant forever, and not to be limited to the existence of the territorial condition of the district. Others limited it to the territorial condition—a territorial forever —and not interfering with the right of any State formed from it to establish or prohibit slavery. Calhoun wished not to have this question mooted, and at his suggestion the second question was modified into the mere inquiry, Is the provision, as it stands in the bill, constituti
tude. This partition policy was warmly opposed by a large number of members of Congress from the North and the South, declaring themselves hostile to any compromise whatever. Slavery was either right or wrong, and there could be no compromise. Taylor withdrew his motion. The proposition for a compromise which was finally agreed to was originated by a Northern member, and not by Henry Clay, of Kentucky, as is generally supposed. This Missouri bill caused one of the most exciting debates onng Randolph and two or three followers, voting for it. The committee was appointed, and soon reported. The closing decision on the Missouri question was finally reached by the adoption of a compromise, Feb. 27, 1821, substantially as proposed by Taylor, of New York, in 1819—namely, that in all territory north of lat. 36° 30′ N. (outside the boundary of the State of Missouri) slavery should not exist, but should be forever prohibited in the region north of that line. But Missouri was admitted a
1 2 3