hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
John F. Hume, The abolitionists together with personal memories of the struggle for human rights 11 1 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Your search returned 11 results in 5 document sections:

some respects, the most important victory of the great conflict was won on the plains of Kansas by John Brown of Ossawattomie and his Abolition associates. The most sagacious Southern leaders saw in that result conclusive proof that the scale was turned. They realized that they were beaten within the lines of the Union, and they began to arrange for going out of it. They helped to elect a Republican President by dividing the Democratic party in 1860 between two candidates-Douglas and Breckenridge — in order that they might have a plausible pretext for secession. But the slaveholders had not abandoned the other policy to which reference has been made — that of carrying their institution, by main force, as it were, into some, if not all, of the free States. To that end they had, in sporting parlance, a card up their sleeves which they proceeded to play. That card was the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, upon which they relied to give them the
her they voted slavery up or voted it down. That was a practical, although indirect declaration in favor of free soil. The outcome of the contests in Kansas and California showed that at that game the free States with their superior resources were certain to win. The shrewder slaveholders recognized that fact, and their antagonism to Douglas grew accordingly. They deliberately defeated him for the Presidency in 1860, when he was the regular candidate of the Democratic party, by running Breckenridge as an independent candidate. Otherwise Mr. Douglas would have become President of the United States. Out of a total of 4,680, 93 votes, Mr. Lincoln had only 1,866,631. The rest were divided between his three antagonists. As between Lincoln and Douglas, who together held the controlling hand, the slaveholders preferred Lincoln, against whom they had no personal feeling, while they knew that his policy was no more dangerous to their interests than the other man's, if faithfully adhere
gacious to discard the principal round in the ladder by which he had climbed to eminence. He managed to keep in touch with the Anti-Slavery movement through all its steady advancement, but, as elsewhere stated, it was as a follower rather than as a leader. While a resident of the slave State of Missouri, I twice voted for Mr. Lincoln, which was some evidence of my personal feeling toward him. Both times I did it somewhat reluctantly. On the first occasion there were four candidates. Breckenridge and Bell were Southern men — both by residence and principle-and had no claim on Anti-Slavery support. But with Douglas the case was different. He had quarreled with the pro-slavery leaders, although of his own party. He had defied President Buchanan in denouncing border-ruffianism in Kansas. He had refused to give up his popular sovereignty dogma, although it clearly meant ultimate free soil. The slave-masters hated him far more than they did Lincoln. I heard them freely discuss t
be they whom they may. I will read the resolution adopted by the convention that sent us here. [Here resolution of instruction was read.] Mr. President, in the spirit of that resolution I cast the twenty-two votes of Missouri for them an who stands at the head of the fighting Radicals of the nation --General U. S. Grant. The contention between the Missouri Radical and Conservative delegations was thrashed out before the committee on delegates, at an evening session. Judge Samuel M. Breckenridge, of St. Louis, sustained the cause of the Conservatives in a very ingenious argument, while the writer spoke for the Radicals. The result was very satisfactory to the latter, being, with the exception of one vote for compromise, a unanimous decision in their favor. That decision was sustained by the convention in its next day's session by a vote of four hundred and forty to four. Anticipating that the subject would be discussed on the floor of the convention,--which was not t
, 189; and capture of Camp Jackson, 189-1911; threats against, 190. Blair, Montgomery, 158, 161. Bonner, Hon. Benjamin R., 155. Border-ruffianism, 153. Border Slave-State message, text of, 213-214. Boyle, James, 205. Bradley, John, 135. Breckenridge, 152; factions, 11. Breckenridge, Judge Samuel M., 175. Brodburn, George, 205. Brown, B. Gratz, 155. Brown, John, 45, 113. Brown, William Wells, 205. Buchanan, James 153. Buffum, Arnold, 201, 202. Buffum, James N., 205. Bull Run, 192. Breckenridge, Judge Samuel M., 175. Brodburn, George, 205. Brown, B. Gratz, 155. Brown, John, 45, 113. Brown, William Wells, 205. Buchanan, James 153. Buffum, Arnold, 201, 202. Buffum, James N., 205. Bull Run, 192. Burleigh, Charles C., 205. Buxton, Sir Thomas, 132. C Camp Jackson(St. Louis), 183; affair at, 186-188; effect of capture, 191-194. Campbell, David, 202. Campbell, John R., 202. Capron, Effingham C., 202. Carlisle, Earl of, 18. Chapman, Mrs. Henry, 33. Charcoals, Missouri, 159; delegation to President, 162, 166; fight for Free Missouri, 162; appeal to President for protection, 166-168. Chase, Salmon P., 10, 13, 14, 59-61, 148, 205; financial policy, 60; espousal of Abolitionism, 61