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) 1,628 0 Browse Search
Centreville (Virginia, United States) 530 0 Browse Search
Doc 458 0 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 427 7 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 406 0 Browse Search
Bull Run, Va. (Virginia, United States) 347 1 Browse Search
Irwin McDowell 314 2 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 272 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 258 0 Browse Search
Daniel Tyler 252 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 2. (ed. Frank Moore). Search the whole document.

Found 251 total hits in 88 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
W. S. Wilson (search for this): chapter 70
has been passed applying the Wilmot Proviso. Has any been enacted abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia? No. Even Mr. Lincoln assures us that he will approve no such law, except with the consent of the slaveholders of the District, and then not without compensation to the owners. Has any law been passed interfering with slavery in the States? Not at all. Such a doctrine is not even in the Chicago platform. Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Seward, Mr. Caleb B. Smith, Attorney-General Bates, Senator Wilson, and all the chief men of the Republican party repudiate it — none maintain it but professed and extreme Abolitionists, such as Gerritt Smith, Henry Ward Beecher, Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Arthur Tappan, Charles Sumner, and Wendell Phillips, whose fanatical and wicked efforts, backed by all the aid they can enlist from the rank and file of pure Abolitionism, can never any more disturb or harm the institution of slavery in the States than the zephyr's breath can unseat the everlasting hills, an
J. F. Bates (search for this): chapter 70
ike ? No law, then, has been passed applying the Wilmot Proviso. Has any been enacted abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia? No. Even Mr. Lincoln assures us that he will approve no such law, except with the consent of the slaveholders of the District, and then not without compensation to the owners. Has any law been passed interfering with slavery in the States? Not at all. Such a doctrine is not even in the Chicago platform. Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Seward, Mr. Caleb B. Smith, Attorney-General Bates, Senator Wilson, and all the chief men of the Republican party repudiate it — none maintain it but professed and extreme Abolitionists, such as Gerritt Smith, Henry Ward Beecher, Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Arthur Tappan, Charles Sumner, and Wendell Phillips, whose fanatical and wicked efforts, backed by all the aid they can enlist from the rank and file of pure Abolitionism, can never any more disturb or harm the institution of slavery in the States than the zephyr's breath can unseat the e
Joseph Holt (search for this): chapter 70
reason to the United States; the decisions of some of the most enlightened of the State judiciaries in repudiation of the dangerous dogma; the concurrent disavowal of it by the Marshalls, and Kents, and Storys, and McLeans, and Waynes, and Catrons, and Reverdy Johnsons, and Guthries, and all the really great jurists of the land; the brand of absurdity and wickedness which has been stamped upon it by Andrew Jackson, and Webster, and Clay, and Crittenden, and Everett, and Douglas, and Cass, and Holt, and Andrew Johnson, and Wickliffe, and Dickinson, and the great body of our truly eminent statesmen: these considerations and authorities present the doctrine of secession to me with one side only. But I do wish to inquire of my colleagues, if they have seriously reflected on the consequences of secession, should it come? Do you expect (as I have heard some of you declare) that the power and influence of Virginia are such that you will have peaceable secession, through an immediate rec
Reverdy Johnsons (search for this): chapter 70
lding through the columns of the Richmond Enquirer, the impregnable maxims that no association of men, no State or set of States has a right to withdraw from the Union of its own accord, and that the first act of resistance to the law is treason to the United States; the decisions of some of the most enlightened of the State judiciaries in repudiation of the dangerous dogma; the concurrent disavowal of it by the Marshalls, and Kents, and Storys, and McLeans, and Waynes, and Catrons, and Reverdy Johnsons, and Guthries, and all the really great jurists of the land; the brand of absurdity and wickedness which has been stamped upon it by Andrew Jackson, and Webster, and Clay, and Crittenden, and Everett, and Douglas, and Cass, and Holt, and Andrew Johnson, and Wickliffe, and Dickinson, and the great body of our truly eminent statesmen: these considerations and authorities present the doctrine of secession to me with one side only. But I do wish to inquire of my colleagues, if they have
Arthur Tappan (search for this): chapter 70
consent of the slaveholders of the District, and then not without compensation to the owners. Has any law been passed interfering with slavery in the States? Not at all. Such a doctrine is not even in the Chicago platform. Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Seward, Mr. Caleb B. Smith, Attorney-General Bates, Senator Wilson, and all the chief men of the Republican party repudiate it — none maintain it but professed and extreme Abolitionists, such as Gerritt Smith, Henry Ward Beecher, Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Arthur Tappan, Charles Sumner, and Wendell Phillips, whose fanatical and wicked efforts, backed by all the aid they can enlist from the rank and file of pure Abolitionism, can never any more disturb or harm the institution of slavery in the States than the zephyr's breath can unseat the everlasting hills, and whose impotent assaults upon the constitutional rights of the South, and on the Constitution and the Union, not sympathized in by the great mass of the Northern people — on the contrary, expressl
McCue (search for this): chapter 70
to my friend Mr. A. M. Barbour, a member of the convention, which is in these words:--Col. Craig wishes me to say that Dr. Archer will be directed to-day not to remove the guns at present. The movement has been commenced, in order that the citizens of Virginia might receive their dues from the United States; and as the contract was completed, it seemed a fitting time to send forward the guns. The Secretary of War, as stated by him in letters to myself, and another member of the House, (Col. McCue,) made no order in the premises, but whatever was done, was the independent action of the Ordnance Bureau, in its ordinary course of business, and that action was nothing more nor less than the taking of proper steps, by the proper bureau, to liquidate a debt due by the Government to a citizen — a transaction of daily occurrence in the business operations of the various bureaus in the several chief departments of the Government. Gentlemen evidently confound the action of Col. Craig and th
Andrew Johnson (search for this): chapter 70
nited States; the decisions of some of the most enlightened of the State judiciaries in repudiation of the dangerous dogma; the concurrent disavowal of it by the Marshalls, and Kents, and Storys, and McLeans, and Waynes, and Catrons, and Reverdy Johnsons, and Guthries, and all the really great jurists of the land; the brand of absurdity and wickedness which has been stamped upon it by Andrew Jackson, and Webster, and Clay, and Crittenden, and Everett, and Douglas, and Cass, and Holt, and Andrew Johnson, and Wickliffe, and Dickinson, and the great body of our truly eminent statesmen: these considerations and authorities present the doctrine of secession to me with one side only. But I do wish to inquire of my colleagues, if they have seriously reflected on the consequences of secession, should it come? Do you expect (as I have heard some of you declare) that the power and influence of Virginia are such that you will have peaceable secession, through an immediate recognition of the
Stephen A. Douglas (search for this): chapter 70
tance to the law is treason to the United States; the decisions of some of the most enlightened of the State judiciaries in repudiation of the dangerous dogma; the concurrent disavowal of it by the Marshalls, and Kents, and Storys, and McLeans, and Waynes, and Catrons, and Reverdy Johnsons, and Guthries, and all the really great jurists of the land; the brand of absurdity and wickedness which has been stamped upon it by Andrew Jackson, and Webster, and Clay, and Crittenden, and Everett, and Douglas, and Cass, and Holt, and Andrew Johnson, and Wickliffe, and Dickinson, and the great body of our truly eminent statesmen: these considerations and authorities present the doctrine of secession to me with one side only. But I do wish to inquire of my colleagues, if they have seriously reflected on the consequences of secession, should it come? Do you expect (as I have heard some of you declare) that the power and influence of Virginia are such that you will have peaceable secession, th
Robert E. Scott (search for this): chapter 70
nment designed to employ the guns against Virginia, or for menace, or for any improper use. And it is conclusive against any unfriendly or warlike intent, that the Ordnance Department, on being apprised that the removal of the guns had provoked excitement, forthwith notified Dr. Archer not to move them at all. What cause, then, is there for the panic that sounds its busy din in this hall, and in the streets of this city? or for the passage of these harsh and illegal resolutions? Besides, Gen. Scott has said that there is no need for the guns at Fortress Monroe, there being a large number of supernumerary guns already there. The simple truth is, that the guns were to be sent to Fortress Monroe because it is the only convenient depot to receive them. It is not only the most natural and proper place to send them to, but the only one in the State within convenient reach. The panic, therefore, which has arisen from these simple circumstances is totally groundless, and is, I must say,
Lewis Cass (search for this): chapter 70
e law is treason to the United States; the decisions of some of the most enlightened of the State judiciaries in repudiation of the dangerous dogma; the concurrent disavowal of it by the Marshalls, and Kents, and Storys, and McLeans, and Waynes, and Catrons, and Reverdy Johnsons, and Guthries, and all the really great jurists of the land; the brand of absurdity and wickedness which has been stamped upon it by Andrew Jackson, and Webster, and Clay, and Crittenden, and Everett, and Douglas, and Cass, and Holt, and Andrew Johnson, and Wickliffe, and Dickinson, and the great body of our truly eminent statesmen: these considerations and authorities present the doctrine of secession to me with one side only. But I do wish to inquire of my colleagues, if they have seriously reflected on the consequences of secession, should it come? Do you expect (as I have heard some of you declare) that the power and influence of Virginia are such that you will have peaceable secession, through an imm
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9