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.

... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Giddings (search for this): chapter 13
t when addressing the Chicago Abolitionists he declared that all distinctions of race must be discarded and blotted out, because the negro stood on an equal footing with the white man ; that if one man said the Declaration of Independence did not mean a negro when it declared all men created equal, that another man would say that it did not mean another man ; and hence we ought to discard all difference between the negro race and all other races, and declare them all created equal. Did old Giddings, when he came down among you four years ago, preach more radical Abolitionism than this? Did Lovejoy, or Lloyd Garrison, or Wendell Phillips, or Fred Douglass, ever take higher Abolition grounds than that? Lincoln told you that I had charged him with getting up these personal attacks to conceal the enormity of his principles, and then commenced talking about something else, omitting to quote this part of his Chicago speech which contained the enormity of his principles to which I alluded
Thomas L. Harris (search for this): chapter 13
Republican party. I had noticed that Major Thomas L. Harris, a member of Congress from the Springfto use the fact in this canvass, I wrote to Major Harris to know on what day that Convention was helharge a forgery on Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. Harris. No man on earth, who knows them, and knof tone, as gentlemen, than Mr. Lanphier and Mr. Harris. Any man who attempts to make such charges as been traced up so that it lies between him, Harris and Lanphier. There is little room for escapen what he states in his newspaper. He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility, and med that he learned about these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against Norton on theself attempted it upon Trumbull a month before Harris tried them on Norton — that Harris had the oppHarris had the opportunity of learning it from him, rather than he from Harris. I now ask his attention to that part Harris. I now ask his attention to that part of the record on the case. My friends, I am not disposed to detain you longer in regard to that mat[1 more...]
Coles (search for this): chapter 13
bolition 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 for him to have said, that he would let, the people of a State do just as they pleased, if he desired to convey such an idea. Why did he not do it? He would not answer my question directly, because up north, the Abolition creed declares that there shall be no more slave States, while down south, in Adams county, in Coles, and in Sangamon, he and his friends are afraid to advance that doctrine. Therefore, he gives an evasive and equivocal answer, to be construed one way in the south and another way in the north, which, when analyzed, it is apparent is not an answer at all with reference to any territory now in existence. Mr. Lincoln complains that, in my speech the other day at Galesburgh, I read an extract from a speech delivered by him at Chicago, and then another from his speech at Charleston, and com
March 25th (search for this): chapter 13
will those Senators who have arraigned me, or any one of them, have the assurance to rise in his place and declare that this great principle 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 th
May, 1856 AD (search for this): chapter 13
Sixth joint debate, at Quincy, October 13, 1858. Mr. Lincoln's speech. Ladies and Gentlemen: I have had no immediate conference with Judge Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will be most agreeable to us. In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois, which have since been consolidated into the Republican party, assembled together in a State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted at that time, what, in political language, is called a platform. In June of the same year, the elements of the Republican party in the nation assembled together in a National Convention at Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the National Platform. In June, 1858--the present year — the Republicans of Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again their platform, as I suppose, not differing in any essential particular from either of the former o
1850 AD (search for this): chapter 13
that he would and by the Compromise measures of 1850, which declared that the States might come into propose to show that Judge Douglas's action in 1850 and 1854 was taken with especial reference to t stump, the same doctrine that I carried out in 1850, by supporting Clay's Compromise measures. Thehocked that I should now stand where I stood in 1850, when I was supported by Clay, Webster, Cass, ase taken by Judge Douglas on the Compromises of 1850. The record shows, beyond the possibility of cdvocated as applicable to territorial bills, in 1850 ; that, from that session until the present, noetc., etc. I will begin with the Compromises of 1850. Any Senator who will take the trouble to examic, and that I was not a Democrat in 1854 or in 1850! Now is not that funny? Think that the authort. The Union says I was not a sound Democrat in 1850, nor in 1854, nor in 1856, nor am I in 1858, bebster, and Cass, and the Compromise measures of 1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854. Whe[1 more...]
October 13th (search for this): chapter 13
platform, as I suppose, not differing in any essential particular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding something in relation to the new developments of political progress in the country. The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the United States Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms. We are now met together on the 13th of October of the same year, only four months from the adoption of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this canvass: from the beginning until to-day, any one of our adversaries has taken hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon any thing that he calls wrong in them. In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator Douglas and myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these platforms, or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to hold me respon
October 13th, 1858 AD (search for this): chapter 13
Sixth joint debate, at Quincy, October 13, 1858. Mr. Lincoln's speech. Ladies and Gentlemen: I have had no immediate conference with Judge Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree that your entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will be most agreeable to us. In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois, which have since been consolidated into the Republican party, assembled together in a State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted at that time, what, in political language, is called a platform. In June of the same year, the elements of the Republican party in the nation assembled together in a National Convention at Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the National Platform. In June, 1858--the present year — the Republicans of Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again their platform, as I suppose, not differing in any essential particular from either of the former on
August (search for this): chapter 13
ot be opposed in the slave States, because it is there ; it must not be opposed in politics, because that will make a fuss ; it must not be opposed in the pulpit, because it is not religion. Then where is the place to oppose it? There is no suitable place to oppose it. There is no plan in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent, which you say yourself is coming. Frank Blair and Gratz Brown tried to get up a system of gradual emancipation in Missouri, had an election in August and got beat, and you, Mr. Democrat, threw up your hat, and hallooed hurra for Democracy. So I say again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down, whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see any thing wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he
1860 AD (search for this): chapter 13
ject of slavery in the bills of 1850, in order to give the same meaning force, and effect to the Nebraska-Kansas bill on this subject as had been given to those of Utah and New Mexico. The Union proves the following propositions: First, that I sustained Clay's Compromise measures on the ground that they established the principle of self-government in the Territories. Secondly, that I brought in the Kansas and Nebraska bill founded upon the same principles as Clay's Compromise measures of 1860; and thirdly, that my Freeport speech is in exact accordance with those principles. And what do you think is the imputation that the Union casts upon me for all this? It says that my Freeport speech is not Democratic, and that I was not a Democrat in 1854 or in 1850! Now is not that funny? Think that the author of the Kansas and Nebraska bill was not a Democrat when he introduced it. The Union says I was not a sound Democrat in 1850, nor in 1854, nor in 1856, nor am I in 1858, because I h
... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9