Browsing named entities in The Daily Dispatch: April 1, 1861., [Electronic resource]. You can also browse the collection for Lincoln or search for Lincoln in all documents.

Your search returned 4 results in 4 document sections:

The Daily Dispatch: April 1, 1861., [Electronic resource], Can't pass. (search)
Can't pass. --The Lynchburg (Va.) Republican, of yesterday, has the following paragraph: Mr. Crook, Lincoln's Mail Agent on the Alexandria Road, made his first trip up Saturday, and in passing Charlottesville was waited on by a committee of citizens, who informed him, in the politest manner possible, that he had better throw up his commission and retire from the public service, or he would be dealt with according to his deserts as a Black Republican, who would never be permitted to scatter his foul teachings over Virginia soil. Mr. C., thinking "discretion the better part of valor," consented to resign on his return to Alexandria, and he was permitted to pass. It is also stated that the said gentleman, upon reaching this city, Saturday evening, made a castle of his mail-car, from which he was afraid to budge and come out in the city, but remained safely ensconced in it until his departure yesterday morning, sending the mail up by a substitute.
The Daily Dispatch: April 1, 1861., [Electronic resource], A Bostonian's view of affairs in Charleston. (search)
with peculiar emphasis, to call them, have themselves surrendered, given up the Wilmot Proviso. And had the Cotton States remained in the Union, could this Black Republican party, with its minority of twenty-one in one house and eight in the other, have ever applied the Wilmot Proviso to the Territories that belong to us all,"share and share alike? " 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 the slave trade between the States? Not at all; such a doctrine is not even in the Chicago platform; and at the late session of Congress, in which, by the secession of the Gulf States, (as already said,) the Republicans have the majority, a resolution was adopted by the necessary constitutional
The Daily Dispatch: April 1, 1861., [Electronic resource], Great snow Storm at Boston (search)
ngly claims our sympathies on one all-essential point, is committed to the nonsensical dogmas of compulsion and exploded political economy. ""It is certain that either protectionists tariffs or the Federal Union will have to give way. It is unfortunate for the North that the advocacy of sound economical principles should be almost exclusively confined to slave-owners and their sympathizers, and that Mr. Jefferson Davis should talk like a statesman and a man of sense on a subject on which Mr.Lincoln discourses like an Essex squire of the corn law and top-boot epoch." The London Times adds its deep-toned sayings to the general thunders of denunciation from Europe. It openly advocates the policy of President Davis, and avows its belief that the commerce of the North will be destroyed by the Morrill tariff. It says: "If Americans wish to know with what feelings this measure has been regarded in England, they have only to turn to the Trade Reports of The Times, and their curio
The Daily Dispatch: April 1, 1861., [Electronic resource], Richmond Dispatch. (search)
with peculiar emphasis, to call them, have themselves surrendered, given up the Wilmot Proviso. And had the Cotton States remained in the Union, could this Black Republican party, with its minority of twenty-one in one house and eight in the other, have ever applied the Wilmot Proviso to the Territories that belong to us all,"share and share alike? " 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 the slave trade between the States? Not at all; such a doctrine is not even in the Chicago platform; and at the late session of Congress, in which, by the secession of the Gulf States, (as already said,) the Republicans have the majority, a resolution was adopted by the necessary constitutional