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
New Bern (North Carolina, United States) 35 1 Browse Search
United States (United States) 18 0 Browse Search
Fernandina, Fla. (Florida, United States) 15 1 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 14 0 Browse Search
Maryland (Maryland, United States) 14 0 Browse Search
John Letcher 12 0 Browse Search
Robert Y. Conrad 10 0 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 10 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 10 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 8 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: March 18, 1862., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 105 total hits in 46 results.

1 2 3 4 5
John H. Richardson (search for this): article 2
nd deliberately to consider as to what their action shall be. He was thankful to the House for refusing the second demand for the previous question, and suggested a postponement of the subject till Monday next, for further consideration. Mr. Richardson said he intended to make a similar motion. This matter was entitled to the gravest consideration. It was one committing them to a policy on, which their constituents had not reflected. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Roscoe Conkling) had negroes are not capable of becoming the repositories of the freedom of this Government. When the President, in his annual message, declared himself in favor of procuring some place on side of the limits of this Republic for colonization, he (Mr. Richardson) thought he saw some light breaking upon him, showing him the way by which they might get rid of this institution as soon as possible. Mr. Kellogg (Ill.) was in favor of the postponement of the resolution, so that the true spirit and pur
Carille (search for this): article 2
the bill from the House, providing a new "Article of War," was taken up. It provides that no officer or soldier shall return fugitives, &c. Mr. Davis (Ky.) offered an amendment that such officers, &c., shall neither detain, harbor or conceal any such fugitive. Disagreed to. Mr. Saulsbury (Del.) offered an amendment that the articles shall not apply to Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, or wherever the Federal authority is recognized Disagreed to — yeas 7; nays 30. Mr. Carille asked, if in case the President should at any time call out the militia to enforce the law for returning fugitive slaves, which constitutional provision would this bill interfere with! Mr. Wilson (Mass.) replied, that that would be for judicial decision. The question of returning slaves was a judicial and not a military one. Mr. Saulsbury offered an amendment so as to prevent officers, &c. from enticing or decoying any person held to labor or service from the service of loyal m
Rebecca Chandler (search for this): article 2
Michigan regiments to induce them to leave their colors. All the fighting had, so far, been done by volunteers. Mr. Wilson (Mass.) did not consider that the measure would have any bad effect on the army, or the volunteers in any way. There were men in the volunteer ranks who wished to go into the regular army. But if the Senate was of the opinion that the effect would he bad, he would move to strike out the provision giving a bounty for enlistments from the volunteers. Adopted. Mr. Chandler moved to strike out the section providing for enlistments from the volunteers to the regular army. Adopted. The bill was then passed. The Confiscation bill was taken up. Mr. Browning (Ill.) said he assumed that every Senator agreed in the wish that the war should be brought to a speedy and successful conclusion. He also assumed that all wished to keep within the limits of the Constitution, and preserve it in all its parts, for our protection, and for the benefit of posterit
Thomas (search for this): article 2
h could only result in antagonisms. Mr. Wickliffe (Ky.) while advocating a full chance for the discussion of this measure, said he must have a better commentator than Mr. Bingham to satisfy him of the constitutional power of the Government to purchase the slaves of rebels or any other parties. Mr. Diven (N. Y.) was in favor of a postponement. Congress should consider such subjects as these like patriots and not partisans. He called the message as a bow of hope and promise. Mr. Thomas (Mass.) said he was in favor of the resolution, but would vote for the motion to postpone. It was but justice to the gentlemen who were situated very differently from those who came from the North. Mr. Biddle (Pt.) briefly advocated the postponement of the resolution. Mr. Roscoe Conkling, while explaining why he had urged the immediate action of Congress on the measure, said he had moved the previous question after consultation with his friends. His purpose had been, from the c
Blake (search for this): article 2
e service of loyal masters. Disagreed to — yeas 10; nays 27. The bill was then passed — yeas 29; nays 9; being the same relative vote as that on Mr. Davis's motion. The Senate then adjourned. House of Representatives. The House considered the Senate bill providing for the appointment of sutlers in the volunteer service, and defining their duties. Mr. Blake (Ohio) made an unsuccessful motion to abolish such sutlerships. Mr. Aldrich (Minn.) favored the motion of Mr. Blake, alluding to what he had heard of the sutlers swindling the soldiers. Mr. Blair (Mo.) was opposed to legislating against any class of men. If there had been swindling practiced, the fault was with those who had appointed the sutlers, and whose business it was to prevent such practices. The sutler system was discussed at length. The bill was then passed, after being amended. It requires the schedule of the articles permitted to be sold, together, with the prices thereof,
Browning (search for this): article 2
be to make peace and reunion impossible. He contended that if the rebels were public enemies, we could not confiscate their property by the laws of nations; and if they were not enemies, but insurrectionary citizens, then the Constitution forbids such confiscation.--The bill was as inexpedient as it was unconstitutional. It would only serve to consolidate our enemies and make them desperate. Mr. Grimes here read a dispatch, announcing the capture of St. Mary's, Fernancina, &c. Mr. Browning said he thought he could go on with more energy. He was willing, on their return to their allegiance, to grant an amnesty to the deluded masses of the people; but he would have the leaders suffer the extreme penalty of the law on the gallows. He said that slavery was the sole cause of the war — that is, if there had been no slavery there would have been no rebellion or war; and if, by some miracle, slavery was wiped out, the war would not last thirty days. But neither the President nor
Morrill (search for this): article 2
ity forever. We would prosecute the war to a bad end if we only succeeded in conquering the States by the overthrow of the Constitution. Unless we can save the Constitution with the Union, we had better let both go. All the evils the rebels are now enduring are the legitimate fruits of a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution says: "No bill of attainder shall be passed." But it seems to be admitted that this bill is practically a bill of attainder. The Senator from Maine (Mr. Morrill) seems to place the authority of Congress to pass this bill on the "war power;" but all the powers Congress possesses are granted by the Constitution, and they were the same yesterday as they are to day, and will remain so forever. The unlimited power of Congress, as advocated by the Senator from Maine, is only a foundation for despotism. The functions of Congress are civil and legislative, and it cannot control unlimited war power. He contended that the supreme Court had settled this
Trumbull (search for this): article 2
his bill. The fact was the bill reduced the force by 37 colonels, 37 lieutenant-colonels, 111 majors 450 captains, and 940 lieutenants, making a saving of $2,900,000 to the treasury. Mr. Fessenden (Me.) moved to amend so that no further enlistments shall be made until the whole number of the army has been reduced to 500,000 rank and file; and the army shall not be increased beyond that number. After some discussion, Mr. Fessenden withdrew his amendment. Messrs. Doclittle and Trumbull objected to the provision of the bill which allows a bounty for enlistment from the volunteer to the regular army. Mr. Chandler (Mich.) said he also was opposed to any recruiting officer going to the Michigan regiments to induce them to leave their colors. All the fighting had, so far, been done by volunteers. Mr. Wilson (Mass.) did not consider that the measure would have any bad effect on the army, or the volunteers in any way. There were men in the volunteer ranks who wished t
Bingham (search for this): article 2
vor of the postponement of the resolution, so that the true spirit and purpose of the President's recommendation might be known. It should be considered calmly. In this view he believed that it would meet with the approbation of three-fourths of the members of the Ubuse. There was no occasion for raising questions which could only result in antagonisms. Mr. Wickliffe (Ky.) while advocating a full chance for the discussion of this measure, said he must have a better commentator than Mr. Bingham to satisfy him of the constitutional power of the Government to purchase the slaves of rebels or any other parties. Mr. Diven (N. Y.) was in favor of a postponement. Congress should consider such subjects as these like patriots and not partisans. He called the message as a bow of hope and promise. Mr. Thomas (Mass.) said he was in favor of the resolution, but would vote for the motion to postpone. It was but justice to the gentlemen who were situated very differently from tho
Wheatley (search for this): article 2
ere the same yesterday as they are to day, and will remain so forever. The unlimited power of Congress, as advocated by the Senator from Maine, is only a foundation for despotism. The functions of Congress are civil and legislative, and it cannot control unlimited war power. He contended that the supreme Court had settled this question, and decided that the power was in the President. He cited from the case of Luther vs. Borden, 7th Howard, pp. 43 and 46; also, Martin vs. Mott, 12th Wheatley. If the President abuses the power there is a remedy in Congress, but if Congress usurps the war power there is absolutely no remedy. He cites further the case of Cross vs. Harrolson, growing out of the state of things in California. California was conquered in 1848, but Congress had no power to legislate for it at all, and yet the President instituted a form of Government for it. But this bill relates to property not captured or expected to be captured, and is not restricted to property
1 2 3 4 5