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
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 289 total hits in 83 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Louisiana (Louisiana, United States) (search for this): chapter 7
Vii. The Missouri struggle. Scott Clay Pinkney P. P. Barbour Webster John W. Taylor Thomas — the Compromise. when the State of Louisiana, previously known as the Territory of Orleans, was admitted into the Union, April 8, 1812. the remainder of the Louisiana purchase, which had formerly borne the designation of Louisiana Territory, was renamed the Territory of Missouri. The people of a portion of this Territory, stretching westward from the Mississippi on both sides of the river Missouri, petitioned Congress for admission into the Union as the State of Missouri; and their memorials On the 16th of March, 1818. were referred by the ced by him February 17, 1820. in this shape: And be it further enacted, That in all that Territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the State contemplate
North America (search for this): chapter 7
by 26 Yeas to 15 Nays. Missouri, through her legislature, complied with the condition, and thereby became an admitted State. And thus closed the memorable Missouri controversy, which had for two years disturbed the harmony, and threatened the peace of the Union. Even John Adams's faith in the Union was somewhat shaken in this stormy passage of its history. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 18, 1819, he said: The Missouri question, I hope, will follow the other waves under the ship, and do no harm. I know it is high treason to express a doubt of the perpetual duration of our vast American empire, and our free institutions; and I say as devoutly as father Paul, esto perpetua: and I am sometimes Cassandra enough to dream that another Hamilton, another Burr, may rend this mighty fabric in twain, or perhaps into a leash, and a few more choice spirits of the same stamp might produce as many nations in North America as there are in Europe.--Adams's Works, vol. x., p. 386.
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 7
ecreed their manumission. except one of the two members from Delaware--to 76 Nays, whereof ten were from Free States--Massachusetts (then including Maine) supplying three of them, New York three, with one each from New Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio, aorcible memorial from inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity, drafted by Daniel Webster, Then a recent emigrant to Massachusetts from the neighboring State of New Hampshire. and signed by the principal citizens of all parties, asserted the compleommittee of Conference was framed so as to give the anti-Restrictionists a decided preponderance; and John Holmes, of Massachusetts, reported March 2, 1820. from said Committee, that the Senate should give up its combination of Missouri with MainThe names of the fourteen members from the Free States, thus voting with the Anti-Restrictionists, are as follows: Massachusetts.--Mark Langdon Hill, John Holmes, Jonathan Mason, Henry Shaw--4. Rhode Island.--Samuel Eddy--1. Connecticut.--S
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 7
e to a Select Committee of the memorials from Missouri, including that of her Territorial Legislaturther introduction of slaves into the new State of Missouri, and to emancipate, at the age of twenty was considered in Committee the next day, Missouri impatiently awaited admission. as also on thenion, with a rider, authorizing the people of Missouri to form a State Constitution, etc.--the conneh appended to it the provision for organizing Missouri. An attempt to shake this off was defeated bority in the House to secure the admission of Missouri as a Slave State. It was first proposed in t the Senate should give up its combination of Missouri with Maine; that the House should abandon itsI., p. 451. though, at the next Session, when Missouri presented herself for admission as a State, wState, says that Mr. Scott, the Delegate from Missouri at the time of her admission, told him that Mdmitted State. And thus closed the memorable Missouri controversy, which had for two years disturbe[12 more...]
Connecticut (Connecticut, United States) (search for this): chapter 7
n Missouri; and that both Houses should concur in passing the bill to admit Missouri as a State, with Mr. Thomas's restriction or proviso, excluding Slavery from all Territory North and West of the new State. Fourteen members, in all, from the Free States The names of the fourteen members from the Free States, thus voting with the Anti-Restrictionists, are as follows: Massachusetts.--Mark Langdon Hill, John Holmes, Jonathan Mason, Henry Shaw--4. Rhode Island.--Samuel Eddy--1. Connecticut.--Samuel A. Foot, James Stephens--2. New York.--Henry Meigs, Henry R. Storrs 2. New Jersey.--Joseph Bloomfield, Charles Kinsey, Bernard Smith--3. Pennsylvania.--Henry Baldwin, David Fullerton--2. voted to adopt this Compromise, with 76 from the Slave States, making 90 in all; while 87 members from the Free States, and none from the Slave States, voted against the Compromise. So the bill passed both Houses, as did that for the admission of Maine on the same day. This virtually
New Jersey (New Jersey, United States) (search for this): chapter 7
recedes and includes the word convicted was adopted by 87 Yeas — all from the substantially Free States New York and New Jersey still held a few slaves, but the former had decreed their manumission. except one of the two members from Delaware--to were from Free States--Massachusetts (then including Maine) supplying three of them, New York three, with one each from New Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Illinois. The residue of the amendment was likewise sustained, by the close vote of 82 Yeas who killed the prophets, and thus filled up the measure of their fathers' iniquities? The Legislatures of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania unanimously adopted and transmitted resolves in favor of the proposed Restriction; and like resolves .--Samuel Eddy--1. Connecticut.--Samuel A. Foot, James Stephens--2. New York.--Henry Meigs, Henry R. Storrs 2. New Jersey.--Joseph Bloomfield, Charles Kinsey, Bernard Smith--3. Pennsylvania.--Henry Baldwin, David Fullerton--2. voted to ad
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 7
re exceedingly favorable to the Southern side. Its advocates, in accordance with their general policy of defending and promoting Slavery in the abused name of Liberty, fought their battle under the flag of State Sovereignty, State Equality, etc. The Right of the People to form and modify their institutions in accordance with their own judgment, interest, feelings, or convictions, was the burden of their strain. Said Mr. William Pinkney, Speech in the U. S. Senate, February 15, 1820. of Maryland, their most pretentious and ornate, if not their ablest champion: Slavery, we are told in many a pamphlet, memorial, and speech, with which the press has lately groaned, is a foul blot on our otherwise immaculate reputation. Let this be conceded — yet you are no nearer than before to the conclusion that you possess power which may deal with other objects as effectually as with this. Slavery, we are further told, with some pomp of metaphor, is a canker at the root of all that is excell
Niles (Michigan, United States) (search for this): chapter 7
of to the world that they know their rights, and are able to defend them. What signifies such language as this? All things considered, we wish that the Missouri question may be suffered to rest where it is, as the lesser evil; but, if Congress pleases to take it up again, and refuses to admit the Territory under the Constitution which its Convention has formed, and is without power to enforce its determination, it is high time, indeed, that a new organization of affairs should take place.--Niles' Register, August 26, 1820, vol. XVIII., p. 451. though, at the next Session, when Missouri presented herself for admission as a State, with a Constitution denying to her Legislature any power to emancipate slaves or to prevent their immigration, and requiring said Legislature to pass laws to prevent the immigration of free negroes or mulattoes at any time or under any circumstances, the Northern members for the moment revolted. They keenly felt that this was not the liberty and equality w
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 7
the power expressly given to make needful rules and regulations--to have established the principle now proposed; yet the question assumes a totally different aspect when that principle is intended to apply to a State.--Benton's Abridgment. N. Y., 1858., vol. VI., p. 341. of Virginia. But this admission, however generally made, did not gain a single Southern vote for the policy of Restriction when the bill to organize Arkansas Territory was under consideration; where — on Mr. Walker, of North Carolina, in opposing that policy, gravely, and without the least suspicion of irony, observed: Let it not be forgotten that we are legislating in a free country, and for a free people. But the champions of Restriction, though less agile and skillful of fence than their opponents, were by no means worsted in the argument. Here is a specimen of their logic, from the speech of John W. Taylor: February 15, 1819. Gentlemen have said the amendment is in violation of the treaty, because it imp
France (France) (search for this): chapter 7
n history as the Missouri Compromise was concocted. It was the work, not of the advocates, but of the opponents, of Slavery Restriction, intended solely to win votes enough from the majority in the House to secure the admission of Missouri as a Slave State. It was first proposed in the Senate by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois--a uniform opponent of Restriction on Missouri--and introduced by him February 17, 1820. in this shape: And be it further enacted, That in all that Territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, Slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited. Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully cl
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...