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 223 total hits in 43 results.

1 2 3 4 5
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 15
excluded from almost all the territory the United States then owned. This was the condition of theery from going into the Territories of the United States was repealed. In connection with the law I understand that this Government of the United States, under which we live, is based upon this pthis question, that the Territories of the United States and the States of this Union are exactly as. He selects parts of the history of the United States upon the subject of slavery, and treats itay, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits, prior toey could lawfully exclude slavery from the United States Territories, notwithstanding the Dred Scotision expressly gives every citizen of the United States a right to carry his slaves into the UniteUnited States Territories. And now there was some inconsistency in saying that the decision was right, it as property — the Supreme Court of the United States will say, God speed you and amen. But I u[3 more...]
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 15
-right essay. I do not now enter upon this for the purpose of making an elaborate argument to show that me were right in the expression of that sentiment. In other words, I shall not stop to say all that might properly be said upon this point; but I only ask your attention to it for the purpose of making one or two point upon it. If you will read the copy-right essay, you will discover that Judge Douglas himself says a controversy between the American Colonies and the Government of Great Britain began on the slavery question in 1699, and continued from that time until the Revolution; and, while he did not say so, we all know that it has continued with more or less violence ever since the Revolution. Then we need not appeal to history, to the declarations of the framers of the Government, but me know from Judge Douglas himself that slavery began to be an clement of discord among the white people of this country as far back as 1699, or one hundred and sixty years ago, or five
Ottawa, Ill. (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 15
t it is not entirely safe, when one is misrepresented under his very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontradicted. I therefore propose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is a misrepresentation, but to show conclusively that it is so ; and you will bear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that very memorable debate with Judge Douglas last year, to which this newspaper refers. In the first pitched battle which Senator Douglas and myself had, at the town of Ottawa, I used the language which I will now read. Having been previously reading an extract, I continued as follows : Now, gentlemen, I dont want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and any thing that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can p
Wisconsin (Wisconsin, United States) (search for this): chapter 15
or rather a frame or draft of an ordinance for the government of this country, here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, us who live in Illinois, our neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan. In that ordinance, drawn up not only for the government of that Territory, but for the Territories south of the Ohio River, Mr. Jefferson expresslg with the original States. The same process in a few years was gone through with in Indiana, and so with Illinois, and the same substantially with Michigan and Wisconsin. Not only did that ordinance prevail, but it was constantly looked to whenever a step was taken by a new Territory to become a State. Congress always turned Begin with the men of the Revolution, and go down for sixty entire years, and until the last scrap of that Territory comes into the Union in the form of the State of Wisconsin-every thing was made to conform with the Ordinance of ‘87, excluding slavery from that vast extent of country. I omitted to mention in the right place t
Northwest (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 15
Judge Douglas says, and perhaps is right, that that provision was lost from that ordinance. I believe that is true. When the vote was taken upon it, a majority of all present in the Congress of the Confederation voted for it; but there were so many absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear majority necessary, and it was lost. But three years after that the Congress of the Confederation were together again, and they adopted a new ordinance for the government of this Northwest Territory, not contemplating territory south of the river, for the States owning that territory had hitherto refrained from giving it to the General Government; hence they made the ordinance to apply only to what the Government owned. In that, the provision excluding slavery was inserted and passed unanimously, or at any rate it passed and became a part of the law of the land. Under that ordinance we live. First here in Ohio you were a Territory, then an enabling act was passed, authorizing
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 15
of that subject, and dealt with it, we can see for ourselves how they dealt with it. It is not a matter of argument or inference, but we know what they thought about it. It is precisely upon that part of the history of the country, that one important omission is made by Judge Douglas. He selects parts of the history of the United States upon the subject of slavery, and treats it as the whole, omitting from his historical sketch the legislation of Congress in regard to the admission of Missouri, by which the Missouri Compromise was established, and slavery excluded from a country half as large as the present United States. All this is left out of his history, and in nowise alluded to by him, so far as I can remember, save once, when he makes a remark, that upon his principle the Supreme Court were authorized to pronounce a decision that the act called the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. All that history has been left out. But this part of the history of the country was
Illinois (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 15
y upon which we now stand ; or rather a frame or draft of an ordinance for the government of this country, here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, us who live in Illinois, our neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan. In that ordinance, drawn up not only for the government of that Territory, but for the Territories south of the Ohio Re of 87, therefore, you were admitted upon equal footing with the original States. The same process in a few years was gone through with in Indiana, and so with Illinois, and the same substantially with Michigan and Wisconsin. Not only did that ordinance prevail, but it was constantly looked to whenever a step was taken by a nd a man in an audience who would declare that he had ever known of any body saying so five years ago. But last year there was not a Douglas popular sovereign in Illinois who did not say it. Is there one in Ohio but declares his firm belief that the Declaration of Independence did not mean negroes at all? I do not know how this i
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 15
to say whether that fifteen months have belied or corroborated my words. While I am here upon this subject, I cannot but express gratitude that this true view of this element of discord among us — as I believe it is — is attracting more and more attention. I do not believe that Gov. Seward uttered that sentiment because I had done so before, but because he reflected upon this subject and saw the truth of it. Nor do I believe, because Gov. Seward or I uttered it, that, Mr. Hickman of Pennsylvania, in different language since that time, has declared his belief in the utter antagonism which exists between. the principles of liberty and slavery. You see we are multiplying. Now, while I am speaking of Hickman, let me say, I know but little about him. I have never seen him, and know scarcely any thing about the man ; but I will say this much of him : Of all the anti-Lecompton Democracy that have been brought to my notice, he alone has the true, genuine ring of the metal. And now, w
Freeport (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 15
w. I wish to say something now in regard to the Dred Scott decision, as dealt with by Judge Douglas. In that memorable debate between Judge Douglas and myself, last year, the Judge thought fit to commence a process of catechising me, and at Freeport I answered his questions, and propounded some to him. Among others propounded to him was one that I have here now. The substance, as I remember it, is, Can the people of a United States Territory, under the Dred Scott decision, in any lawful way not any longer say that the people can exclude slavery. He does not say so in the copy-right essay ; he did not say so in the speech that he made here; and, so far as I know, since his re-election to the Senate, he has never said, as he did at Freeport, that the people of the Territories can exclude slavery. He desires that you, who wish the Territories to remain free, should believe that he stands by that position, but he does not say it himself. He escapes to some extent the absurd positio
Kansas (Kansas, United States) (search for this): chapter 15
rd about ; that it affects nobody save the few men who are there. Take these two things and consider them together, present the question of planting a State with the institution of slavery by the side of a question of who shall be Governor of Kansas for a year or two, and is there a man here,--is there a man on earth, who would not say the Governor question is the little one, and the slavery question is the great one? I ask any honest Democrat if the small, the local, and the trivial and ter of treating the Territories and States alike in all things, to which I ask your attention, and I shall leave this branch of the case. If there is no difference between them, why not make the Territories States at once? What is the reason that Kansas was not fit to come into the Union when it was organized into a Territory, in Judge Douglas's view? Can any of you tell any reason why it should not have come into the Union at once? They are fit, as he thinks, to decide upon the slavery questi
1 2 3 4 5