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
Charles Sumner 1,590 8 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 850 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 692 0 Browse Search
Kansas (Kansas, United States) 400 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 360 0 Browse Search
Europe 232 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 206 0 Browse Search
John Lothrop Motley 200 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 188 0 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 188 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874.. Search the whole document.

Found 20 total hits in 7 results.

United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 39
arrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; and secondly, from special grants in other parts of the Constitution. As t question does not appear in the catalogue of powers, and does not purport to vest any power in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, no power to legislate on this subject can be derived from the general grantwered to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies, throughout the United States. Without this provision, these two subjects would have been within the control of the States, and the Nation would hcies, and to empower Congress to establish an Uniform rule for the surrender of fugitives from service throughout the United States. Then, of course, whenever Congress undertook to exercise the power, all State control of the subject would have bee
Algerine (California, United States) (search for this): chapter 39
. It will be remembered, that, among the members of the Convention, were Gouverneur Morris, who had said that he never would concur in upholding domestic slavery; Elbridge Gerry, who thought we ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it; Roger Sherman, who was opposed to any clause acknowledging men to be property; James Madison, who thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man; and Benjamin Franklin, who likened American slaveholders to Algerine corsairs. In the face of these unequivocal statements, it is absurd to suppose that they consented unanimously to any provision by which the National Government, the work of their hands, dedicated to Freedom, could be made the most offensive instrument of Slavery. Thus much for the evidence from the history of the Convention. But the true principles of our Political System are in harmony with this conclusion of history; and here let me say a word of State Rights. It was the purpose
Elbridge Gerry (search for this): chapter 39
roposition. Had it been distinctly made, it would have been distinctly denied. The fact that the provision on this subject was adopted unanimously, while showing the little importance attached to it in the shape it finally assumed, testifies also that it could not have been regarded as a source of National power over Slavery. It will be remembered, that, among the members of the Convention, were Gouverneur Morris, who had said that he never would concur in upholding domestic slavery; Elbridge Gerry, who thought we ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it; Roger Sherman, who was opposed to any clause acknowledging men to be property; James Madison, who thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man; and Benjamin Franklin, who likened American slaveholders to Algerine corsairs. In the face of these unequivocal statements, it is absurd to suppose that they consented unanimously to any provision by which the National Government, th
Benjamin Franklin (search for this): chapter 39
regarded as a source of National power over Slavery. It will be remembered, that, among the members of the Convention, were Gouverneur Morris, who had said that he never would concur in upholding domestic slavery; Elbridge Gerry, who thought we ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it; Roger Sherman, who was opposed to any clause acknowledging men to be property; James Madison, who thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man; and Benjamin Franklin, who likened American slaveholders to Algerine corsairs. In the face of these unequivocal statements, it is absurd to suppose that they consented unanimously to any provision by which the National Government, the work of their hands, dedicated to Freedom, could be made the most offensive instrument of Slavery. Thus much for the evidence from the history of the Convention. But the true principles of our Political System are in harmony with this conclusion of history; and here let
James Madison (search for this): chapter 39
ing the little importance attached to it in the shape it finally assumed, testifies also that it could not have been regarded as a source of National power over Slavery. It will be remembered, that, among the members of the Convention, were Gouverneur Morris, who had said that he never would concur in upholding domestic slavery; Elbridge Gerry, who thought we ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it; Roger Sherman, who was opposed to any clause acknowledging men to be property; James Madison, who thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man; and Benjamin Franklin, who likened American slaveholders to Algerine corsairs. In the face of these unequivocal statements, it is absurd to suppose that they consented unanimously to any provision by which the National Government, the work of their hands, dedicated to Freedom, could be made the most offensive instrument of Slavery. Thus much for the evidence from the history of the Conven
Gouverneur Morris (search for this): chapter 39
ention, not one of the reckless partisans of slavery, was so audacious as to make this proposition. Had it been distinctly made, it would have been distinctly denied. The fact that the provision on this subject was adopted unanimously, while showing the little importance attached to it in the shape it finally assumed, testifies also that it could not have been regarded as a source of National power over Slavery. It will be remembered, that, among the members of the Convention, were Gouverneur Morris, who had said that he never would concur in upholding domestic slavery; Elbridge Gerry, who thought we ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it; Roger Sherman, who was opposed to any clause acknowledging men to be property; James Madison, who thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man; and Benjamin Franklin, who likened American slaveholders to Algerine corsairs. In the face of these unequivocal statements, it is absurd to supp
Roger Sherman (search for this): chapter 39
The fact that the provision on this subject was adopted unanimously, while showing the little importance attached to it in the shape it finally assumed, testifies also that it could not have been regarded as a source of National power over Slavery. It will be remembered, that, among the members of the Convention, were Gouverneur Morris, who had said that he never would concur in upholding domestic slavery; Elbridge Gerry, who thought we ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it; Roger Sherman, who was opposed to any clause acknowledging men to be property; James Madison, who thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man; and Benjamin Franklin, who likened American slaveholders to Algerine corsairs. In the face of these unequivocal statements, it is absurd to suppose that they consented unanimously to any provision by which the National Government, the work of their hands, dedicated to Freedom, could be made the most offensive inst