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) 1,668 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 7 8 9 10 11 ...
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
hich ceded and those which received that extensive domain. In the other case, Missouri and the whole region affected by the Missouri Compromise were parts of the ter 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 arosxisting slaves would not be affected by their removal from the older states to Missouri; and moreover, that the proposed restriction would be contrary to the spirit, ight be permitted to reside in the proposed new State; and whether Congress or Missouri possessed the power to decide. Notwithstanding all this the restriction was ady lying north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, north latitude, except Missouri—by implication leaving the portion south of that line open to settlement eithet, under the conviction that it was unauthorized by the Constitution, and that Missouri was entitled to determine the question for herself, as a matter of right, not
New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
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, that the five dissentients were divided as equally as possible between the two sections, two of them being from Northern and three from Southern states. One was from New Hampshire, one from Vermont, two from Virginia, and one from South Carolina.—Benton's Abridgment, Vol. III, p. 519. No division on the final vote in the Senate. The slave trade had thus been finally abolished some months before the birth of the author of these pages, and has never since had legal existence in any of the United States. The question of the maintenance or extinction of the system of negro servitude already existing in any state was one exclusively belonging to such state. I
Ohio (Ohio, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
ection which justify a fuller notice. Virginia, it is well known, in the year 1784, ceded to the United States—then united only by the original Articles of Confederation—her vast possessions northwest of the Ohio, from which the great states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota, have since been formed. In 1787—before the adoption of the federal Constitution—the celebrated ordinance for the government of this Northwestern Territory was adopted by the Congresstitions 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 suspens
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
ween the two sections—Delaware being 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 ch<
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
the same purport from inhabitants of the territory, accompanied by a letter from William Henry Harrison, 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 t
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
oceeded to enact, laws forbidding the importation of slaves. South Carolina subsequently (in 1803) repealed her law forbidding the importat The geographical situation of our country, said Mr. Lowndes of South Carolina in the House of Representatives on February 14, 1804, is not unect 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 ew Hampshire, one from Vermont, two from Virginia, and one from South Carolina.—Benton's Abridgment, Vol. III, p. 519. No division on the onsisting of representatives from Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky, and New York, and the delegate from the Indiana terriel 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 o
Vermont (Vermont, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
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, that the five dissentients were divided as equally as possible between the two sections, two of them being from Northern and three from Southern states. One was from New Hampshire, one from Vermont, two from Virginia, and one from South Carolina.—Benton's Abridgment, Vol. III, p. 519. No division on the final vote in the Senate. The slave trade had thus been finally abolished some months before the birth of the author of these pages, and has never since had legal existence in any of the United States. The question of the maintenance or extinction of the system of negro servitude already existing in any state was one exclusively belonging to such state. It is obvious, therefo
Wisconsin (Wisconsin, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
Virginia, it is well known, in the year 1784, ceded to the United States—then united only by the original Articles of Confederation—her vast possessions northwest of the Ohio, from which the great states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota, have since been formed. In 1787—before the adoption of the federal Constitution—the celebrated ordinance for the government of this Northwestern Territory was adopted by the Congress, with the full consent, and indeed a party shall have been duly convicted. In December, 1805, a petition of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Indiana territory—then comprising all the area now occupied by the states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin —was presented to Congress. It appears from the proceedings of the House of Representatives that several petitions of the same purport from inhabitants of the territory, accompanied by a letter from William Henry Harrison, the governor (a
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
he institution itself has ceased to exist in the United States; the generation, comprising all who took part in the importation of slaves into any part of the United States from and after the first day of January, 1808. as never since had legal existence in any of the United States. The question of the maintenance or extinction controversies respecting the territories of the United States, it does not, never did, and never could, imply it is well known, in the year 1784, ceded to the United States—then united only by the original Articles of Conrrison, the governor (afterward President of the United States), had been under consideration nearly two years article, inasmuch as the number of slaves in the United States would not be augmented by this measure. Resolamend a treaty, France and the government of the United States should have cooperated in any amendment of the ts, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and the free enjoyment of their liberty, proper
Indiana (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
December, 1805, a petition of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Indiana territory—then comprising all the area now occupied by the states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, annia, 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 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 desirn country might then indulge any preference which they might feel for a settlement in the Indiana Territory, instead of seeking, as they are now compelled to do, settlements in other States or countlly and unanimously adopted by the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Indiana territory, in favor of the suspension of the sixth article of the ordinance and the introduction of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...