hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
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) 1,668 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 440 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 256 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 239 3 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 172 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 168 0 Browse Search
J. E. Johnston 166 0 Browse Search
P. G. T. Beauregard 158 6 Browse Search
Robert Anderson 136 6 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 124 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

Found 12,063 total hits in 2,794 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
1807 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
f the states; and, with regard to the other, that no authority existed to prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as the states might think proper to admit, prior to the year 1808. So distinct and final was this statement of the limitations of the authority of Congress considered to be that, when a similar petition was presented two or three years afterward, the clerk of the House was instructed to return it to the petitioner. See Benton's Abridgment, Vol. I, p. 397. In 1807 Congress, availing itself of the very earliest moment at which the constitutional restriction ceased to be operative, passed an act prohibiting the importation of slaves into any part of the United States from and after the first day of January, 1808. This act was passed with great unanimity. In the House of Representatives there were one hundred thirteen (113) yeas to five (5) nays; it is a significant fact, as showing the absence of any sectional division of sentiment at that period, tha
1820 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
e claim of a power in Congress to determine the question of the admission of slaves into the territories, and in justification of the prohibitory clause applied in 1820 to a portion of the Louisiana Territory. The difference between the Congress of the Confederation and that of the federal Constitution is so broad that the actilusive that the action of the Congress of the Confederation in 1787 could not constitute a precedent to justify the action of the Congress of the United States in 1820, and that the prohibitory clause of the Missouri Compromise was without constitutional authority, in violation of the rights of a part of the joint owners of the t. Cabot to Pickering, who was then Senator from Massachusetts. (See Life and Letters of George Cabot, by H. C. Lodge, p. 334.) Some years afterward (in 1819-20) occurred the memorable contest with regard to the admission into the Union of Missouri, the second state carved out of the Louisiana Territory. The controversy ar
February (search for this): chapter 1.1
d President of the United States), had been under consideration nearly two years earlier. The prayer of these petitions was for a suspension of the sixth article of the ordinance, so as to permit the introduction of slaves into the territory. The whole subject was referred to a select committee of seven members, consisting of representatives from Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky, and New York, and the delegate from the Indiana territory. On the 14th of the ensuing February (1806), this committee made a report favorable to the prayer of the petitioners, and recommending a suspension of the prohibitory article for ten years. In their report the committee, after stating their opinion that a qualified suspension of the article in question would be beneficial to the people of the Indiana territory, proceeded to say: The suspension of this article is an object almost universally desired in that Territory. It appears to your committee to be a question entirely
1806 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
ent of the United States), had been under consideration nearly two years earlier. The prayer of these petitions was for a suspension of the sixth article of the ordinance, so as to permit the introduction of slaves into the territory. The whole subject was referred to a select committee of seven members, consisting of representatives from Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky, and New York, and the delegate from the Indiana territory. On the 14th of the ensuing February (1806), this committee made a report favorable to the prayer of the petitioners, and recommending a suspension of the prohibitory article for ten years. In their report the committee, after stating their opinion that a qualified suspension of the article in question would be beneficial to the people of the Indiana territory, proceeded to say: The suspension of this article is an object almost universally desired in that Territory. It appears to your committee to be a question entirely differen
1803 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
Southern state, without exception, either had already enacted, or proceeded to enact, laws forbidding the importation of slaves. South Carolina subsequently (in 1803) repealed her law forbidding the importation of slaves. The reason assigned for this action was the impossibility of enforcing the law without the aid of the fede spectacle of its authority being daily violated. The effect of the repeal was to permit the importation of negroes into South Carolina during the interval from 1803 to 1808. It is probable that an extensive contrabrand trade was carried on by the New England slavers with other ports, on account of the lack of means to enforcesy was the question of the balance of political power. In its earlier manifestations this was undisguised. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803, and the subsequent admission of a portion of that territory into the Union as a state, afforded one of the earliest occasions for the manifestation of sectional j
Horace Greeley (search for this): chapter 1.1
lip P. Barbour, John Randolph, John Tyler, and William S. Archer of Virginia, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina (one of the authors of the Constitution), Thomas W. Cobb of Georgia, and others of more or less note. (See speech of the Hon. D. L. Yulee of Florida in the United States Senate, on the admission of California, August 6, 1850, for a careful and correct account of the compromise. That given in the second chapter of Benton's Thirty Years View is singularly inaccurate; that of Horace Greeley, in his American Conflict, still more so.) This brief retrospect may have sufficed to show that the question of the right or wrong of the institution of slavery was in no wise involved in the earlier sectional controversies. Nor was it otherwise in those of a later period, in which it was the lot of the author of these memoirs to bear a part. They were essentially struggles for sectional equality or ascendancy—for the maintenance or the destruction of that balance of power or equip
1819 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
ugh negro slavery existed in Louisiana, no pretext was made of that as an objection to the acquisition. The ground of opposition is frankly stated in a letter of that period from one Massachusetts statesman to another—that the influence of our part of the Union must be diminished by the acquisition of more weight at the other extremity. Cabot to Pickering, who was then Senator from Massachusetts. (See Life and Letters of George Cabot, by H. C. Lodge, p. 334.) Some years afterward (in 1819-20) occurred the memorable contest with regard to the admission into the Union of Missouri, the second state carved out of the Louisiana Territory. The controversy arose out of a proposition to attach to the admission of the new state a proviso prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude therein. The vehement discussion that ensued was continued into the first session of a different Congress from that in which it originated, and agitated the whole country during the interval between the tw
1808 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
the slave trade—or, to use its own language, with the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states should think proper to admit—prior to the year 1808. During the intervening period of more than twenty years, the matter was exclusively under the control of the respective states. Nevertheless, every Southern stale of its authority being daily violated. The effect of the repeal was to permit the importation of negroes into South Carolina during the interval from 1803 to 1808. It is probable that an extensive contrabrand trade was carried on by the New England slavers with other ports, on account of the lack of means to enforce the lawegard to the other, that no authority existed to prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as the states might think proper to admit, prior to the year 1808. So distinct and final was this statement of the limitations of the authority of Congress considered to be that, when a similar petition was presented two or thre
14th (search for this): chapter 1.1
the governor (afterward President of the United States), had been under consideration nearly two years earlier. The prayer of these petitions was for a suspension of the sixth article of the ordinance, so as to permit the introduction of slaves into the territory. The whole subject was referred to a select committee of seven members, consisting of representatives from Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky, and New York, and the delegate from the Indiana territory. On the 14th of the ensuing February (1806), this committee made a report favorable to the prayer of the petitioners, and recommending a suspension of the prohibitory article for ten years. In their report the committee, after stating their opinion that a qualified suspension of the article in question would be beneficial to the people of the Indiana territory, proceeded to say: The suspension of this article is an object almost universally desired in that Territory. It appears to your committee to b
William Smith (search for this): chapter 1.1
ng classed as a Southern state. Among the yeas were all the Northern votes, except two from Indiana—being 20— and 14 Southern. The nays consisted of 2 from the North, and 8 from the South. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 134 yeas to 42 nays. Of the yeas, 95 were Northern, 39 Southern; of the nays, 5 Northern, and 37 Southern. Among the nays in the Senate were Messrs. James Barbour and James Pleasants of Virginia, Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, John Gaillard and William Smith of South Carolina. In the House Philip P. Barbour, John Randolph, John Tyler, and William S. Archer of Virginia, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina (one of the authors of the Constitution), Thomas W. Cobb of Georgia, and others of more or less note. (See speech of the Hon. D. L. Yulee of Florida in the United States Senate, on the admission of California, August 6, 1850, for a careful and correct account of the compromise. That given in the second chapter of Benton's Thirty Years Vi
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...