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.

... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...
ure introduced by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs], and recommended by the Committee, I regard it, in many respects, as a most excellent, bill ; but we must look at it in the light of surrounding circumstances. In the condition of things now existing in the country, I do not consider it as a safe measure, nor one which will give peace, and I will give my reasons. First, it affords no immediate relief. It provides for taking a census of the voters in the Territory, for an election in November, and the assembling of a Convention in December, to form, if it thinks proper, a Constitution for Kansas, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State. It is not until December that the Convention is to meet. It would take some time to form a Constitution. I suppose that Constitution would have to be ratified by the people before it becomes valid. He there expressly declared that he supposed, under the bill, the Constitution would have to be submitted to the people before i
n favor of, and would sanction the doctrine that would allow slaves to be brought here and held as slaves contrary to our Constitution and laws. Mr. Lincoln knew better when he asserted this; he knew that one newspaper, and so far as is within my knowledge but one, ever asserted that doctrine, and that I was the first man in either House of Congress that read each article in debate, and denounced it on the floor of the Senate as revolutionary When the Washington Union, on the 17th of last November, published an article to that effect, I branded it at once, and denounced it, and hence the Union has been pursuing me ever since. Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, replied to me, and said that there was not a man in any of the slave States south of the Potomac river that held any such doctrine. Mr. Lincoln knows that there is not a member of the Supreme Court who holds that doctrine ; be knows that every one of them, as shown by their opinions, holds the reverse. Why this attempt, then, to bring
November 17th (search for this): chapter 8
ourth, that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage of the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner. Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th of November, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesion of the Union to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words: Kansas and her Constitution.-The vexed question is settled. The problem is solved. The dead point of some portions of the speech, and I hope that any one who feels interested in this matter will read the entire section of the speech, and see whether I do the Judge injustice.. He proceeds : When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal bl
November 17th (search for this): chapter 9
e on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner. Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th of November, and on, the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesion of the Union to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words : Kansas and her Cois authoritative article in the Washington Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution. When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a Statedoes not use the word conspiring, but what other construction can you put upon it? He winds up with this: When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that, a Stat
November 18th (search for this): chapter 8
hat they are identical in spirit with the authoritative article in the Washington Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution. I pass over some portions of the speech, and I hope that any one who feels interested in this matter will read the entire section of the speech, and see whether I do the Judge injustice.. He proceeds : When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union. I stop the quotation there, again requesting that it may all be read. I have read all of the portion I desire to comment upon. What is this charge that the Judge thinks I must have a very corrupt heart to make? It was a purpose on the part of certain high function
November 18th (search for this): chapter 9
s authoritative article in the Washington Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution. When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union. Here he says, Mr.oes not use the word conspiring, but what other construction can you put upon it? He winds up with this: When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that, a State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union. I ask him if all
this Union cannot exclude slavery from its own limits, will I submit to it? I am amazed that Lincoln should ask such a question. [ A school-boy knows better. ] Yes, a school-boy does know better. Mr. Lincoln's object is to cast an imputation upon the Supreme Court. He knows that there never was but one man America, claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, who ever for a moment pretended such a thing. It is true that the Washington Union in an article published on the 17th of last December, did put forth that doctrine, and I denounced the article on the floor of the Senate, in a speech which Mr. Lincoln now pretends was against the President. The Union had claimed that slavery had a right to go into the free States, and that any provision in the Constitution or laws of the free States to the contrary were null and void. I denounced it in the Senate, as I said before, and I was the first man who did. Lincoln's friends, Trumbull, and Seward, and Hale, and Wilson, and the whol
safe measure, nor one which will give peace, and I will give my reasons. First, it affords no immediate relief. It provides for taking a census of the voters in the Territory, for an election in November, and the assembling of a Convention in December, to form, if it thinks proper, a Constitution for Kansas, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State. It is not until December that the Convention is to meet. It would take some time to form a Constitution. I suppose that ConstituDecember that the Convention is to meet. It would take some time to form a Constitution. I suppose that Constitution would have to be ratified by the people before it becomes valid. He there expressly declared that he supposed, under the bill, the Constitution would have to be submitted to the people before it became valid. He went on to say: No provision is made in this bill for such a religion. This is objectionable to my mind. I do not think the people should be bound by a Constitution, without passing upon it directly, themselves. Why did he not offer an amendment providing for such
December 9th (search for this): chapter 2
ion with it. I will be entirely frank with you. My object was to secure the right of the people of each State and of each Territory, North or South, to decide the question for themselves, to have slavery or not, just as they chose ; and my opposition to the Lecompton Constitution was not predicated upon the ground that it was a pro-slavery Constitution, nor would my action have been different had it been a Freesoil Constitution. My speech against the Lecompton fraud was made on the 9th of December, while the vote on the slavery clause in that Constitution was not taken until the 21st of the same month, nearly two weeks after. I made my speech against the Lecompton monstrosity solely on the ground that it was a violation of the fundamental principles of free government ; on the ground that it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas ; that it did not embody their will ; that they were averse to it ; and hence I denied the right of Congress to force it upon them, either as
December 9th (search for this): chapter 5
My opposition to the Lecompton Constitution rested solely upon the fact that it was not the act and deed of that people, and that it did not embody their will. I did not object to it upon the ground of the slavery clause contained in it. I should have resisted it with the same energy and determination even if it had been a free State instead of a slaveholding State ; and as an evidence of this fact I wish you to bear in mind that my speech against that Lecompton act was made on the 9th day of December, nearly two weeks before the vote was taken on the acceptance or rejection of the slavery clause. I did not then know, I could not have known, whether the slavery clause would be accepted or rejected ; the general impression was that it would be rejected, and in my speech I assumed that impression to be true ; that probably it would be voted down ; and then I said to the U, S. Senate, as I now proclaim to you, my constituents, that you have no more right to force a free State upon an
... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...