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 434 total hits in 49 results.

1 2 3 4 5
Michigan (Michigan, United States) (search for this): chapter 16
ant that, but there was something very important said about it by the same generation of men in the adoption of the old Ordinance of ‘87, through the influence of which you here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, we in Illinois, our neighbors in Michigan and Wisconsin are happy, prosperous, teeming millions of free men. That generation of men, though not to the full extent members of the Convention that framed the Constitution, were to some extent members of that Convention, holding seats at the ‘87 had nothing to do with making Indiana a free state, when we find some men chafing against and only restrained by that barrier. Come down again to our State of Illinois. The great North-west Territory, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, was acquired first, I believe, by the British Government, in part at least, from the French. Before the establishment of our independence, it becomes a part of Virginia; enabling Virginia afterward to transfer it to the General G
Washington (United States) (search for this): chapter 16
also, it never occurred to him to breathe a word against Pryor. I don't think that you can discover that Douglas ever talked of going to Virginia to squelch out that idea there. No. More than that. That same Roger A. Pryor was brought to Washington City and made the editor of the par excellence Douglas paper, after making use of that expression, which, in us, is so unpatriotic and heretical. From all this, my Kentucky friends may see that this opinion is heretical in his view only when it be. When we do as we say, beat you, you perhaps want to know what we will do with you. I will tell you, so far as I am authorized to speak for the opposition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you, as near as we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson and Madison treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way to interfere with your institution ; to abide by all and every compromise of the Constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the original proposition, to treat you,
Cape Girardeau (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 16
pendence, it becomes a part of Virginia; enabling Virginia afterward to transfer it to the General Government. There were French settlement in what is now Illinois, and at the same time there were French settlements in what is now Missouri--in the tract of country that was not purchased till about 1803. In these French settlements negro slavery had existed for many years-perhaps more than a hundred if not as much as two hundred years--at Kaskaskia, in Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, in Missouri. The number of slaves was not, very great, but there was about the same number in each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory. There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave, and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slavery in Illinois ; nor did the ordinance apply to Missouri at all. What I want to ask your attention to, at this point, is that Illinois and Missouri came into the Union about t
Hickman, Ky. (Kentucky, United States) (search for this): chapter 16
alf slave and half free. He has complained of Seward for using different language, and declaring that there is an irrepressible conflict between the principles of free and slave labor. [A voice--He says it is not original with Seward. That is original with Lincoln. ] I will attend to that immediately, sir. Since that time, Hickman of Pennsylvania expressed the same sentiment. He has never denounced Mr. Hickman: why? There is a little chance, notwithstanding that opinion in the mouth of Hickman, that he may yet be a Douglas man. That is the difference! It is not unpatriotic to hold that opinion, if a man is a Douglas man. But neither I nor Seward, nor Hickman, is entitled to the enviable or unenviable distinction of having first expressed that idea. That same idea was expressed by the Richmond Enquirer in Virginia, in 1856; quite two years before it was expressed by the first of us. And while Douglas was pluming himself; that in his conflict with my humble self; last year, h
Cincinnati (Ohio, United States) (search for this): chapter 16
Speech of Hon. Abraham Lincoln, at Cincinnati, Ohio, Oh September, 1859. My Fellow-Citizens of the State of Ohio: This is the first time in my life that I have appeared before an audience in so great a city as this. I therefore-though I am no longer a young man-make this appearance under some degree of embarrassment. But, I have found that when one is embarrassed, usually the shortest way to get through with it is to quit talking or thinking about it, and go at something else. I understand that you have had recently with you my very distinguished friend, Judge Douglas, of Illinois, and I understand, without having had an opportunity (not greatly sought to be sure) of seeing a report of the speech that he made here, that he did me the honor to mention my humble name. I suppose that he did so for the purpose of making some objection to some sentiment at some time expressed by me. I should expect, it is true, that Judge Douglas had reminded you, or informed you, if you had ne
Louisiana (Louisiana, United States) (search for this): chapter 16
you have Constitutions and laws against it. Let us attend to that argument for a little while and see if it be sound. You do not raise sugar-cane (except the new-fashioned sugar-cane, and you wont raise that long), but they do raise it in Louisiana. You dont raise it in Ohio because you cant raise it profitably, because the climate dont suit it. They do raise it in Louisiana because there it is profitable. Now, Douglas will tell you that is precisely the slavery question. That they do Louisiana because there it is profitable. Now, Douglas will tell you that is precisely the slavery question. That they do have slaves there because they are profitable, and you dont have them here because they are not profitable. If that is so, then it leads to dealing with the one precisely as with the other. Is there then any thing in the Constitution or laws of Ohio against raising sugar-cane? Have you found it necessary to put any such provision in your law? Surely not! No man desires to raise sugar-cane in Ohio; but, if any man did desire to do so, you would say it was a tyrannical law that forbids his d
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 16
ired of hearing any thing more about it, who is more against us than against the enemy, what will be the issue? Why, he will get no slave States after all-he has tried that already until being beat is the rule for him. If we nominate him upon that ground, he will not carry a slave State, and not only so, but that portion of our men who are high-strung upon the principle we really fight for, will not go for him, and he wont get a single electoral vote any where, except, perhaps, in the State of Maryland. There is no use in saying to us that we are stubborn and obstinate, because we wont do some such thing as this. We cannot do it. We cannot get our men to vote it. I speak by the card, that we cannot give the State of Illinois in such case by fifty thousand. We would be flatter down than the Negro Democracy themselves have the heart to wish to see us. After saying this much, let me say a little on the other side. There are plenty of men in the slave States that are altogether g
Indiana (Indiana, United States) (search for this): chapter 16
e of which you here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, we in Illinois, our neighbors in Michigan annance of 87 did not make Free States of Ohio, Indiana or Illinois. That these States are free uponstop at this illustration. I come to the State of Indiana; and what I have said as between Kentucky and Ohio. I repeat as between Indiana and Kentucky ; it is equally applicable. One additional argument is applicable also to Indiana. In her Territorial condition she more than once petitioned C imitating the men of the Revolution, refused Indiana that privilege. And so we have the evidence that Indiana supposed she could have slaves, if it were not for that ordinance ; that she besought refused to do so, and it all ended at last in Indiana being a Free State. Tell me not then that thrdinance of ‘87 had nothing to do with making Indiana a free state, when we find some men chafing ae great North-west Territory, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, was acquir
Kaskaskia (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 16
French. Before the establishment of our independence, it becomes a part of Virginia; enabling Virginia afterward to transfer it to the General Government. There were French settlement in what is now Illinois, and at the same time there were French settlements in what is now Missouri--in the tract of country that was not purchased till about 1803. In these French settlements negro slavery had existed for many years-perhaps more than a hundred if not as much as two hundred years--at Kaskaskia, in Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, in Missouri. The number of slaves was not, very great, but there was about the same number in each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory. There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave, and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slavery in Illinois ; nor did the ordinance apply to Missouri at all. What I want to ask your attention to, at this point, is that Illi
Santa Genoveva (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 16
shment of our independence, it becomes a part of Virginia; enabling Virginia afterward to transfer it to the General Government. There were French settlement in what is now Illinois, and at the same time there were French settlements in what is now Missouri--in the tract of country that was not purchased till about 1803. In these French settlements negro slavery had existed for many years-perhaps more than a hundred if not as much as two hundred years--at Kaskaskia, in Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, in Missouri. The number of slaves was not, very great, but there was about the same number in each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory. There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave, and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slavery in Illinois ; nor did the ordinance apply to Missouri at all. What I want to ask your attention to, at this point, is that Illinois and Missouri came int
1 2 3 4 5