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 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
Robert E. Lee 270 4 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 180 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 174 0 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 159 1 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 145 1 Browse Search
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) 128 0 Browse Search
James Longstreet 119 1 Browse Search
John Sherman 113 1 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 108 0 Browse Search
Ambrose Powell Hill 99 11 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 20. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 514 total hits in 193 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
9th (search for this): chapter 1.19
sustained, and Judge Leigh was appointed commissioner to transport and settle the negroes as provided therein. The State selected for the settlement was Ohio; but when the commissioner landed, his first interview was with a mob formed to resist and repel the negro settlement. The clearest glimpse of the State of feeling is derived from the newspapers of the time. Newspapers on the situation. [from the National Intelligencer, July 15, 1846.] The Cincinnati (Ohio) Chronicle of the 9th instant says that the emancipated slaves of John Randolph, who recently passed up the Miami Canal to their settlement in Mercer county, Ohio, met with a warm reception at Bremen. The citizens of Mercer county turned out en masse and called a meeting, or rather formed themselves into one immediately, and passed resolutions to the effect that said slaves should leave in twenty-four hours, which they did, in other boats than the ones which conveyed them there. They came back some twenty three mile
1705 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
ntially a degraded caste of inferior rank and condition in society. Marriages are forbidden between them and the whites in some of the States, and when not absolutely contrary to law, they are revolting and regarded as an offence against public decorum. By the Revised Statutes of Illinois, published in 1829, marriages between whites and negroes or mulattoes are declared void, and the persons so married are liable to be whipped, fined, and imprisoned. By an old statute of Massachusetts, of 1705, such marriages were declared void, and are so still. [This summary was cited and corroborated by the Chief-Justice of Connecticut as late as 1834.] The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided in 1837 that a negro or mulatto was not entitled to exercise the right of suffrage. It was not until July 4, 1827, that New York was ranked among the free States, and when the Constitution of 1846 was adopted negro suffrage was negatived by a vote of four to one. As late, certainly, as the date of the
1713 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
ed in the realization of the era, which displaced Caesar's tribute. This is the movement, much retarded, oft reversed, but inevitable, and on the whole invincible movement toward the reign of commerce. But the retirement and disappearance of the old supremacy has been a very slow retreat—inch by inch stubbornly contested. Not until the memory of men now living did the sceptre decisively pass from the agricultural dominion, and slavery was not doubtful until that sceptre began to waver. In 1713 the twelve judges of England, headed by Chief-Justice Holt, replied to the crown: In pursuance of his Majesty's order in council, hereunto annexed, we do humbly certify your opinion to be that negroes are merchandise. During the whole of the eighteenth century England reserved to herself by the treaty of Utrecht the monopoly of importing negroes to all the Spanish colonies—that is to say, to nearly all South America. The fact is noted by the annotator of Talleyrand's Memoirs that when the
1776 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
invective: They sold us these slaves—they assumed a vendor's responsibility—and it is not for them to question the validity of our title. And it was equally relevant to say to some others: Your position involves the right of a grantor to revoke a grant without the consent of the grantee for value and the right of one party to a compact to retain the whole consideration moving to him while repudiating every other. A scheme of gradual emancipation had been proposed by Jefferson as early as 1776 and the general scheme of it approved by the convention which framed Virginia's Constitution in that year, but no action was taken, because the public mind would not bear it. Nothing, wrote Jefferson, is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free, nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion, have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. Here plainly was a difficult air fo
October, 1778 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
the power it could wield. That country was Virginia, the patriarch of the colonies. Slavery had been forced upon Virginia, and in the teeth of her remonstrance, by the arbitrary power of Great Britain. Twentythree statutes were passed by the House of Burgesses to prevent the importation of slaves, and all were negatived by the British King. She was the first State not only to prohibit the slave-trade, but to make it punishable with death. In the midst of the Revolution, as early as October, 1778, her law went forth that thereafter no slave should be imported by sea or land into the jurisdiction of her Commonwealth. One of her first acts when she had shaken from her the power of the throne was to write that edict of emancipation for territory of her own which she ever denied it was in the power of any one to write for her. She wrote it for the territory which her enterprise and valor had wrested from the grasp of France. Whatever she might choose to do herself, it were hard to
1783 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
it for the territory which her enterprise and valor had wrested from the grasp of France. Whatever she might choose to do herself, it were hard to conceive a more arrogant claim than that the North could deprive her of an equal right in the territory of her own donation. Even in respect to this territory the agreement of Virginia was without any equivalent whatever, and the ordinary principle of nudum paclum might have been applied to it. The treaty of independence with Great Britain in 1783 carefully stipulated that the British should not carry away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, as afterwards the treaty of Ghent, in 1814, spoke of slaves or other private property. At the former period certainly no authoritative expression of the thirteen colonies would have denied that there was property in man. It is true that in those States where negro labor was unfriended by the climate, and therefore unprofitable to the master, the slaves were few, and at the d
1784 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
ent had nearly succeeded. It was the aggression of the Abolitionists which arrested the movement in all these States. The problem at the North. Connecticut will serve to illustrate the simplicity of the problem encountered at the North. In 1784 a scheme of gradual emancipation was enacted for the slaves, some three thousand in number, then in the State. It was not until 1848 that the emancipation of this small number was completed. Down to 1848 by the law of the State slaves were chattels, which could be sold by legal process, and which were assets in the hands of an executor. Gradual as this emancipation was, the preamble to the act of 1784 declares that it was, as soon as it could be done consistent with the rights of individuals and the public safety. What individual right, what public safety was ever cared for by the inimical commonwealths which banded with such zeal for the reproof and edification of the South? Having no longer any sins of their own to repent of, the
1803 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
elves, which preceded, or was contemporaneous with, the legislation of Congress in 1807. Antecedent to the adoption of the Constitution, South Carolina passed an act prohibiting, under severe penalties, the importation of negroes from Africa. In 1803 this act was repealed for the reason, assigned in Congress by Mr. Lowndes, that it was impossible, without aid from the general government, to prevent our Eastern brethren from introducing them into the country. Had we received, he said, the nece Alaska alone excepted (and in some sense this, too, is no exception) all the additions to Federal territory have been made under Southern administrations; and now, as the result of the war with Mexico, there was another not inferior to that of 1803, but which was, nevertheless, in the language of the South's great statesman, the forbidden fruit. At the time of the Missouri compromise the prophetic mind of this New World had read the result of that much-vaunted business in the foundations on
1807 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
ina and Georgia. But, adds Jefferson, our Northern, brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under these censures; for, though their people had few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others. The importation of slaves into the South was continued by Northern merchants and Northern ships until it was prohibited by the spontaneous action of the Southern States themselves, which preceded, or was contemporaneous with, the legislation of Congress in 1807. Antecedent to the adoption of the Constitution, South Carolina passed an act prohibiting, under severe penalties, the importation of negroes from Africa. In 1803 this act was repealed for the reason, assigned in Congress by Mr. Lowndes, that it was impossible, without aid from the general government, to prevent our Eastern brethren from introducing them into the country. Had we received, he said, the necessary aid from Congress, the repeal would never, in my opinion, have taken place. * *
January 11th, 1811 AD (search for this): chapter 1.19
eparation—amicably if they can, violently if they must. * * * Have the three branches of this government a right at will to weaken and outweigh the influence respectively secured to each State in this compact by introducing at pleasure new partners, situate beyond the old limits of the United States? * * * The proportion of the political weight of each sovereign State constituting this Union depends upon the number of States which have a voice under the compact.—Speech of Josiah Quincy, January 11, 1811, on the Bill for the Admission of Louisiana. And what were the invasions which she could not stand without the threat and preparation of disunion? The measures which doubled the continent of free government and gave the Mississippi to us to be our inland sea and Mediterranean of commerce. And Virginia! When for the first time did she recoil with just and natural horror from the fate which was prepared for her? Not until she had no other alternative than to make good her right to
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...