hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity (current method)
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in descending order. Sort in ascending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
United States (United States) 1,170 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 573 1 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 566 0 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 532 0 Browse Search
Texas (Texas, United States) 482 0 Browse Search
Charleston (South Carolina, United States) 470 8 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 449 3 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 405 1 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 340 0 Browse Search
Maryland (Maryland, United States) 324 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume I.. Search the whole document.

Found 286 total hits in 68 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Oliver Wolcott (search for this): chapter 5
an adoption of the Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union.--The Federalist, N. Y. edition of 1802, vol. i., p. 5. The melancholy story of the Federation showed the stern necessity of a compulsory power in the General Government to execute the duties confided to it; and the history of the present government itself has, on more than one occasion, manifested that the power of the Union is barely adequate to compel the execution of its laws, when resisted even by a single State.--Oliver Wolcott, vol. II., p. 323. Our country attained under it neither dignity, consideration, security, nor even solvency. The central or national authority, left dependent on the concurrent action of the several States for the very means of existence, was exhibited often in the attitude of a genteel beggar, rather than of a sovereign. Congress attempted to impose a very moderate tariff for the payment of interest on the general or foreign debt, contracted in support of the Revolutionary armies, b
* He contended that the importation of slaves would be for the interest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more products to employ the carrying trade; the more consumption also; and the more of this, the more revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be reasonable, that slaves should be dutied, like other imports, but should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union. Mr. Baldwin has similar conceptions in the case of Georgia. Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) observed, that, if South Carolina and Georgia were thus disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time, as had been suggested, they would never refuse to unite, because the importation might be prohibited. As the section now stands, all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is, in fact, a bounty on that article. Mr. Dickinson [of Delaware] expressed his sentiments as of a similar character. And Messrs. King and Langdon [
Wilberforce (search for this): chapter 5
en.--The Federalist, vol. i., p. 276. by embodying in the Constitution a proviso that Congress might interdict the foreign Slave-Trade after the expiration of twenty years--a term which, it was generally agreed, ought fully to satisfy the craving of Carolina and Georgia. The Encyclopoedia Britannica (latest edition — Art., Slavery) states that the African Slave-Trade was abolished by Great Britain, after years of ineffectual struggle under the lead of Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, Wilberforce, etc., on the 25th of March, 1807; and most inaccurately and unjustly adds: The great measure of the British legislature was imitated, in the first instance, by the United States. To say nothing of acts prohibiting the importation of slaves by several of our States, Virginia and Maryland inclusive, prior to the framing of our Federal Constitution, and the provisions incorporated in that instrument looking to a complete suppression of the Slave-Trade after twenty years, our Congres
George Washington (search for this): chapter 5
tional jealousies and State pride, to such an extent that a Convention of delegates from a quorum of the States, called together rather to amend than to supersede the Articles of Confederation, was legally assembled at Philadelphia in 1787, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton,James Madison, Edmund Randolph, and Charles C. Pinckney, being among its most eminent members. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were absent as Embassadors in Europe. Samuel Adams, George Clinton, and Patrick Henry stood aloof, watching the movement with jealous apprehension. Franklin, then over eighty-one years of age, declined the chair on account of his increasing infirmities; and, on his motion, George Washington was unanimously elected President. The Convention sat with closed doors; and no circumstantial nor adequate report of its deliberations was made. The only accounts of them which have reached us are those of delegates who took notes at the time, or taxed their recollection i
Madison (Wisconsin, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
the United States than the slaves. He thought this could be demonstrated, if the occasion were a proper one. On the question on the motion to insert free before inhabitants, it was disagreed to; New Jersey alone voting in the affirmative.--Madison's Papers, vol. III., p. 1261. Tuesday, August 21st: Mr. Luther Martin [of Maryland] proposed to vary Article VII., Section 4, so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. In the first place, as five slaves are to beuch service or labor in consequence of any regulations existing in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor --which, after some verbal modification, was agreed to, nem. con.--Madison's Papers, vol. III., p. 145, 6. In these latter days, since the radical injustice and iniquity of slaveholding have been more profoundly realized and generally appreciated, many subtle and some able attempts have been made to explain away t
Providence, R. I. (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages the arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a country. As nations can not be punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. * * *He held it essential, in every point of view, that the General Government should have power to prevent the increase of Slavery.--Ibid., p. 1390. Their judgments condemned, and their consciences reprobated it. They would evidently have preferred to pass over the subject in silence, and frame a Constitution wherein the existence of human bondage was not impliedly or constructively recognized. Hence it may be noted, that those provisions fa
Childsburg (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
slaveholding have been more profoundly realized and generally appreciated, many subtle and some able attempts have been made to explain away this most unfortunate provision, for the reason that the Convention wisely and decorously excluded the terms Slave and Slavery from the Constitution; because, as Mr. Madison says, they did not choose to admit the right of property in man. In the debate of Tuesday, July 29, 1788, in the North Carolina ratification convention, which was organized at Hillsborough, July 21, 1788: Mr. Iredell begged leave to explain the reason of this clause (last clause, Section 2, Article IV.). In some of the Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States; and to prevent it, this clause is in
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 5
hich will render defense more difficult? Shall one part of the United States be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at libeoner submit himself to a tax, paying for all the negroes in the United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution. Mr. Dayton he Fisheries and the Western Frontier as more burdensome to the United States than the slaves. He thought this could be demonstrated, if theg resumed--Colonel Mason [George, grandfather of James M., late United States Senator, and late Confederate emissary to England] gave utteranBritish legislature was imitated, in the first instance, by the United States. To say nothing of acts prohibiting the importation of slavle XV., if any person bound — to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be dischartinued. We have a right to recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge. In short, considering all circumstances, we
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia or South Carolina, who goes to the coast of Africa, and, in ons, etc., etc. Mr. Pinckney [C. C., of South Carolina] considered the Fisheries and the Western in the Constitution. Mr. Rutledge [of. South Carolina] did not see how the importation of slaveslause as it stands, etc. Mr. Pinckney.--South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibitsaining the consent of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia can not do without slaves. * *rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union. Mr. Baldwin has similarvery, through its attorney, Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, presented its little Bill for extras. Lies. It is sheer absurdity to contend that South Carolina in the Convention was absorbingly intent oas. C. Pinckney's speech, delivered in the South Carolina ratification convention, January 17, 1788:mained one acre of swamp land uncleared in South Carolina, I would raise my voice against restrictin[8 more...]
Rhode Island (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
ained under it neither dignity, consideration, security, nor even solvency. The central or national authority, left dependent on the concurrent action of the several States for the very means of existence, was exhibited often in the attitude of a genteel beggar, rather than of a sovereign. Congress attempted to impose a very moderate tariff for the payment of interest on the general or foreign debt, contracted in support of the Revolutionary armies, but was baffled by the Legislature of Rhode Island-then a State of relatively extensive foreign commerce — which interposed its paralyzing veto. Political impotence, commercial embarrassment, and general distress, finally overbore or temporarily silenced sectional jealousies and State pride, to such an extent that a Convention of delegates from a quorum of the States, called together rather to amend than to supersede the Articles of Confederation, was legally assembled at Philadelphia in 1787, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexan
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...