hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity (current method)
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
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
Abraham Lincoln 1,301 9 Browse Search
Stephen A. Douglas 838 2 Browse Search
Lyman Trumbull 603 3 Browse Search
Kansas (Kansas, United States) 390 0 Browse Search
Illinois (Illinois, United States) 358 0 Browse Search
Fred Douglas 332 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 308 0 Browse Search
Springfield (Illinois, United States) 214 4 Browse Search
S. A. Douglas 176 0 Browse Search
Henry Clay 164 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery..

Found 7,746 total hits in 1,082 results.

... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ...
e free upon his great principle of Popular Sovereignty, because the people of those several States have chosen to make them so. At Columbus, and probably here, he undertook to compliment the people that they themselves have made the State of Ohio free, and that the Ordinance of 87 was not entitled in any degree to divide the honor with them. I have no doubt that the people of the State of Ohio did make her free according to their own will and judgment, but let the facts be remembered. In 1802, I believe, it was you who made your first Constitution, with the clause prohibiting slavery, and you did it I suppose very nearly unanimously ; but you should bear in mind that you — speaking of you as one people — that you did so unembarrassed by the actual presence of the institution amongst you ; that you made it a Free State, not with the embarrassment upon you of already having among you many slaves, which if they had been here, and you had sought to make a Free State, you would not kno
rritory, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, was acquired first, I believe, by the British Government, in part at least, from the French. Before the establishment of our independence, it becomes a part of Virginia; enabling Virginia afterward to transfer it to the General Government. There were French settlement in what is now Illinois, and at the same time there were French settlements in what is now Missouri--in the tract of country that was not purchased till about 1803. In these French settlements negro slavery had existed for many years-perhaps more than a hundred if not as much as two hundred years--at Kaskaskia, in Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, in Missouri. The number of slaves was not, very great, but there was about the same number in each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory. There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave, and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to
ver assembled in council — a fraud upon the Confederacy of the Revolution — a fraud upon the union of those States whose Constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808. This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that somebody previous to three years ago had said the negro was not included in the term all men in the Declaration. How does it do so? In what way has it a tendency to prove that? Mr.rohibition of the African slave-trade? It runs in about this way The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of slavery and the black race, is on the subject of the basis of representation, and there the language used is, Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among
laves was not, very great, but there was about the same number in each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory. There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave, and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slavery in Illinois ; nor did the ordinance apply to Missouri at all. What I want to ask your attention to, at this point, is that Illinois and Missouri came into the Union about the same time, Illinois in the latter part of 1818, and, Missouri, after a struggle, I believe sometime in 1820. They had been filling up with American people about the same period of time ; their progress enabling them to come into the Union about the same. At the end of that ten years, in which they had been so preparing (for it was about that period of time), the number of slaves in Illinois had actually decreased ; while in Missouri, beginning with very few, at the end of that ten years, there were about ten thousand. This being so, an
es, that Dred Scott, a slave in Missouri, was taken by his master to Fort Snelling in the present State of Minnesota situated on the West branch of the Mississippi river, and consequently in the Territory where slavery was prohibited by the Act of 1820, and that when Dred Scott appealed for his freedom in consequence of having been taken into a free Territory, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that Dred Scott did not become free by being taken into that Territory, but that having bel introduce and pass a law just like the Missouri Compromise, prohibiting slavery again in all the Territories. Suppose he does reenact the same law which the Court has pronounced unconstitutional, will that make it constitutional? If the Act of 1820 was unconstitutional in consequence of Congress having no power to pass it, will Mr. Lincoln make it constitutional by passing it again? What clause of the Constitution of the United States provides for an appeal from the decision of the Supreme
that heretofore presented. I do not expect to convince the Judge. It is part of the plan of his campaign, and he will cling to it with a desperate gripe. Even; turn it upon him — the sharp point against him, and gaff him through — he will still cling to it till he can invent some new dodge to take the place of it. In public speaking it is tedious reading from documents ; but I must beg to indulge the practice to a limited extent. I shall read from a letter writted by Mr. Jefferson in 1820, and now to be found in the seventh volume of his correspondence, at page 177. It seems ho had been presented by a gentleman of the name of Jarvis with a book, or essay, or periodical, called the Republican, and he was writing in acknowledgment of the present, and noting some of its contents. After expressing the hope that the work will produce a favorable effect upon the minds of the young, he proceeds to say: That it will have this tendency may be expected, and for that reason I fee
n with the annexation of Texas ; so with the territory acquired by the Mexican war, and it is so now. Whenever there has been an effort to spread it there has been agitation and resistance. Now, I appeal to this audience (very few of whom are my political friends), as national men, whether we have reason to expect that the agitation in regard to this subject will cease while the causes that tend to reproduce agitation are actively at work? Will not the same cause that produced agitation in 1820, when the Missouri Compromise was formed --that which produced the agitation upon the annexation of Texas, and at other times-work out the same results always? Do you think that the nature of man will be changed — that the same causes that produced agitation at one time will not have the same effect at another? This has been the result so far as my observation of the slavery question and my reading in history extends. What right have we then to hope that the trouble will cease — that th
untry as far back as 1699, or one hundred and sixty years ago, or five generations of men-counting thirty years to a generation. Now it would seem to me that it might have occurred to Judge Douglas, or any body who had turned his attention to these facts, that there was something in the nature of that thing, slavery, somewhat durable for mischief and discord. There is another point I desire to make in regard to this matter, before I leave it. From the adoption of the Constitution down to 1820 is the precise period of our history when we had comparative peace upon this question — the precise period of time when we came nearer to having peace about it than any other time of that entire one hundred and sixty years, in which he says it began, or of the eighty years of our own Constitution. Then it would be worth our while to stop and examine into the probable reason of our coming nearer to having peace then than at any other time. This was the precise period of time in which our fat
r in each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory. There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave, and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slavery in Illinois ; nor did the ordinance apply to Missouri at all. What I want to ask your attention to, at this point, is that Illinois and Missouri came into the Union about the same time, Illinois in the latter part of 1818, and, Missouri, after a struggle, I believe sometime in 1820. They had been filling up with American people about the same period of time ; their progress enabling them to come into the Union about the same. At the end of that ten years, in which they had been so preparing (for it was about that period of time), the number of slaves in Illinois had actually decreased ; while in Missouri, beginning with very few, at the end of that ten years, there were about ten thousand. This being so, and it being remembered that Missouri and Illinois are, to a ce
March 8th, 1820 AD (search for this): chapter 4
? I never got beat in a law suit in my life that I was not opposed to the decision, and if I had it before the Circuit Court I took it up to the Supreme Court, where, if I got beat again, I thought it better to say no more about it, as I did not know of any lawful mode of reversing the decision of the highest tribunal on earth. To whom is Mr. Lincoln going to appeal? Why, he says he is going to appeal to Congress. Let us see how he will appeal to Congress. He tells us that on the 8th of March, 1820, Congress passed a law called the Missouri Compromise, prohibiting slavery forever in all the territory West. of the Mississippi and North of the Missouri line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, that Dred Scott, a slave in Missouri, was taken by his master to Fort Snelling in the present State of Minnesota situated on the West branch of the Mississippi river, and consequently in the Territory where slavery was prohibited by the Act of 1820, and that when Dred Scott appealed for
... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ...