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 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 ...
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
evolutionary era, were adverse to Slavery. In the debate of Wednesday, August 8, on the adoption of the report of the Committee, Mr. Rufus King [then of Massachusetts, afterward an eminent Senator from New York] wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant to have on the succeeding part of the report concernisine qua non. On the question for committing the remaining part of Sections 4 and 5, of Article VII., the vote was 7 in the affirmative; 3 in the negative; Massachusetts absent.--Ibid., p. 1392. No Slave-trade, no Union! Such was the short and sharp alternative presented by the delegates from those States. North Carolina was , was entirely outside of any general and obvious necessity. No one could pretend that there was any thing mutual in the obligation it sought to impose — that Massachusetts or New Hampshire was either anxious to secure the privilege of reclaiming her fugitive slaves who might escape into Carolina or Georgia, or had any desire to e
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
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellowcreatures from their dearest connections, and dooms them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a government instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice. He would add, that Domestic Slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. * * * Let it not be said that Direct Taxao 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 no
Delaware (Delaware, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
a 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 [of New Hampshire] were also in favor of giving the power to the General Government. General Pinckney thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any short time; but only stop them occasionally, as she now does. He moved to commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax with other imports; which he thought ri
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
, with the misery and poverty which overspreads the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and the other States having slaves. Travel through the whole continent, and apers, 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 taxrolina may, perhaps, by degrees, do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland have already done. Adjourned. --Ibid., p. 1388. Again: in the debate ofeir hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it did by tile Tories. * * * Maryland and Virginia, ho said, had already prohibited the importation of slaves. Nort Slaves; in fact, several, if not all, of these States, including Virginia and Maryland, had already expressly forbidden it. But the ultimatum presented by the still s prohibiting the importation of slaves by several of our States, Virginia and Maryland inclusive, prior to the framing of our Federal Constitution, and the provision
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
New Jersey (New Jersey, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a government instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice. He would add, that Domestic Slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance ofde? He would sooner submit himself to a tax, paying for all the negroes in the United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution. Mr. Dayton [of New Jersey] seconded the motion. He did it, he said, that his sentiments on the subject might appear, whatever might be the fate of the amendment. Mr. Sherman did not 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 V
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
New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
ion 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 [of New Hampshire] were also in favor of giving the power to the General Government. General Pinckney thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any short time; but only stop them followed and legally reclaimed. This requirement, be it observed, was entirely outside of any general and obvious necessity. No one could pretend that there was any thing mutual in the obligation it sought to impose — that Massachusetts or New Hampshire was either anxious to secure the privilege of reclaiming her fugitive slaves who might escape into Carolina or Georgia, or had any desire to enter into reciprocal engagements to this end. Nor could any one gravely insist that the provision fo
embled 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 ich continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which is given by so large a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppression of their European brethren.--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
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...