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
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 a specific section of Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery.. Search the whole document.

Found 764 total hits in 90 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Chicago (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 13
on or two from a speech of mine, delivered at Chicago, and then to contrast with it, he brought forgton, in which he commented upon my speech at Chicago, and said that I had used language ingeniouslted him of double-dealing. I quoted from his Chicago speech to prove that he held one set of princnswer to this charge, he ignores entirely his Chicago speech, and merely argues that he said the saand a different creed in another part. Up at Chicago, in the opening of the campaign, he reviewed nd that Mr. Lincoln told the Abolitionists of Chicago that if the Declaration of Independence did ntion. I will now read to you what he said at Chicago on that point. In concluding his speech at thing else, omitting to quote this part of his Chicago speech which contained the enormity of his pr--is afraid to advocate it in the latitude of Chicago, where he hopes to get his votes. It is good Abolition principles, as he declared them at Chicago, with him. This Republican organization a[9 more...]
California (California, United States) (search for this): chapter 13
inciple was never thought of or advocated as applicable to territorial bills, in 1850 ; that, from that session until the present, nobody ever thought of incorporating this principle in all new territorial organizations, etc., etc. I will begin with the Compromises of 1850. Any Senator who will take the trouble to examine our journals will find that on the 25th of March of that year I reported from the Committee on Territories two bills, including the following measures : the admission of California, a territorial government for Utah, a territorial government for New Mexico, and the adjustment of the Texas boundary. These bills proposed to leave the people of Utah and New Mexico free to decide the slavery question for themselves, in the precise language of the Nebraska bill now under discussion. A few weeks afterward the committee of thirteen took those bills and put a wafer between them and reported them back to the Senate as one bill, with some slight amendments. One of these am
America (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 13
could not possibly be true, for the reason that at the time specified, Mr. Buchanan was not in America, but was three thousand miles off, representing the United States at the Court of St. James, aning slavery, then how would he vote? His answer at Freeport does not apply to any territory in America. I ask you [turning to Lincoln], will you vote to admit Kansas into the Union, with just such in devising language to conceal his thoughts. I ask you whether there is an intelligent man in America who does not believe, that that answer was made for the purpose of concealing what he intended nd he preached good Abolition doctrine, because his proviso would not apply to any territory in America, and therefore there was no chance of his being governed by it. It would have been quite easy fwould not answer such a question. I told him that there was not a man possessing any brains in America, lawyer or not, who ever dreamed that such a thing could be done. I told him then, as I do now
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 13
edged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, not only all that we then had, but all that we should ica, but was three thousand miles off, representing the United States at the Court of St. James, and had been there for a yexas, in pursuance of the contract between Texas and the United States, and he will not answer. He will not answer these questhe power or calls for the action or interference of an United States Senator? He is going to discuss the rightfulness of sl an appeal could be taken from the Supreme Court of the United States! The Dred Scott decision was pronounced by the highest keeps appealing each day from the Supreme Court of the United States to political meetings in the country. He wants me to aan has a right to take his slaves into territory of the United States under the Constitution, that then a member of Congress ent one ocean-bound republic. Under that principle the United States can perform that great mission, that destiny, which Pro
Galesburgh (Kansas, United States) (search for this): chapter 13
dition to that, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, last week, undertakes to establish that I ais was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had an opportunity, as I had the middle s to do on that topic, I pass over it. At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott deciuglas had the privilege of replying to me at Galesburgh, and again he gave me no direct answer as toas offered to the Nebraska Bill. Also at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfsposed to treat me. Even after that time, at Galesburgh, when he brings forward an extract from a sp. The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was pushing this matter to a peomplains that, in my speech the other day at Galesburgh, I read an extract from a speech delivered bsubject. Before this I reminded him that at Galesburgh he said the Judges had expressly declared thsay they proved a forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh that the publication of these resolutions in
Cincinnati (Ohio, United States) (search for this): chapter 13
dance with them has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. Thus you see that James Buchanan accepted the nomination at Cincinnati, on the conditions that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, should be left to decide for themselves whether slavery should or should not exist within their limits. I sustained James Buchanan for the Presidency on that platform as adopted at Cincinnati, and Buchanan by himself. He was elected President on that platform, and now we are told by the Washington Union that no man is a true Democrat who stands on the platform on which Mr. Buchanan was nominated, and which he has explained and expounded himself. We are told that a man is not a Democrat who stands by Clay, Webster, and Cass, and the Compromise measures of 1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854. Whether a man be a Democrat or not on that platform, I in
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 13
that while the owner of a slave has a right to go into a Territory, and carry his slaves with him, that he cannot hold them one day or hour unless there is a slave code to protect him. He tells you that slavery would not exist a day in South Carolina, or any other State, unless there was a friendly people and friendly legislation. Read the speeches of that giant in intellect, Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, and you will find them to the same effect. Read the speeches of Sam Smith, of Tennessee, and of all Southern men, and you will find that they all understood this doctrine then as we understand it now. Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to understand it, however. Down at Jonesboro, he went on to argue that if it be the law that a man has a right to take his slaves into territory of the United States under the Constitution, that then a member of Congress was perjured if he did not vote for a slave code. I ask him whether the decision of the Supreme Court is not binding upon him as we
Nelson (search for this): chapter 13
a good deal of care, as a lawyer examines a decision, and so far as I have been able to do so, the court has no where in its opinions said that the States have the power to exclude slavery, nor have they used other language substantially that. I also say, so far as I can find, not one of the concurring Judges has said that the States can exclude slavery, nor said any thing that was substantially that. The nearest approach that any one of them has made to it, so far as I can find, was by Judge Nelson, and the approach he made to it, was exactly, in substance, the Nebraska Bill — that the States had the exclusive power over the question of slavery, so far as they are not limited by the Constitution of the United States. I asked the question therefore: if the non-concurring Judges, McLean or Curtis,had asked to get an express declaration that, the States could absolutely exclude slavery from their limits, what, reason have we to believe that it would not have been voted down by the maj
Lynch (search for this): chapter 13
cial decisions, and that is by appealing from the inferior to the superior court. But I have never yet learned how or where an appeal could be taken from the Supreme Court of the United States! The Dred Scott decision was pronounced by the highest tribunal on earth. From that decision there is no appeal this side of Heaven. Yet, Mr. Lincoln says he is going to reverse that decision. By what tribunal will he reverse it? Will he appeal to a mob? Does he intend to appeal to violence, to Lynch law? Will he stir up strife and rebellion in the land and overthrow the court by violence? He does not deign to tell you how he will reverse the Dred Scott decision, but keeps appealing each day from the Supreme Court of the United States to political meetings in the country. He wants me to argue with you the merits of each point of that decision before this political meeting. I say to you, with all due respect, that I choose to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court as they are pro
Squatter Sovereignty (search for this): chapter 13
t you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? Does he mean that? The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas has sung paeans to his Popular Sovereignty doctrine until his Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented this sort of do-nothing Sovereignty --that the people may exclude slavery by a sort of Sovereignty that is exercised by doing nothing Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented this sort of do-nothing Sovereignty --that the people may exclude slavery by a sort of Sovereignty that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not got down as thin as the homoeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death? But at last, when it is brought to the test, of close reasoning, there is not even that thin decoction of it left; It is a presumption impossible in the domain of thought. It is precisely no other than the putting of that most unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same space at th
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9