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
Abraham Lincoln 1,301 9 Browse Search
Stephen A. Douglas 838 2 Browse Search
Lyman Trumbull 603 3 Browse Search
Kansas (Kansas, United States) 390 0 Browse Search
Illinois (Illinois, United States) 358 0 Browse Search
Fred Douglas 332 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 308 0 Browse Search
Springfield (Illinois, United States) 214 4 Browse Search
S. A. Douglas 176 0 Browse Search
Henry Clay 164 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery.. Search the whole document.

Found 223 total hits in 43 results.

1 2 3 4 5
Columbus Ohio (search for this): chapter 15
Speech of Hon. Abraham Lincoln, at Columbus Ohio, September, 1859. Fellow-Citizens of the State of Ohio: I cannot fail to remember that I appear for the first time before an audience in this now great State--an audience that is accustomed to hear such speakers as Corwin, and Chase, and Wade, and many other renowned men ; and, remembering this, I feel that it will be well for you, as for me, that you should not raise your expectations to that standard to which you would have been justified in raising them had one of these distinguished men appeared before you. You would perhaps be only preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, as a consequence of your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, therefore, that you will commence with very moderate expectations ; and perhaps, if you will give me your attention, I shall be able to interest you to a moderate degree. Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been somewhat embarrassed for a topic by way of introdu
Randolph (search for this): chapter 15
w Constitution itself, was to give force to that ordinance by putting power to carry it out in the hands of the new officers under the Constitution, in the place of the old ones, who had been legislated out of existence by the change in the Government from the Confederation to the Constitution. Not only so, but I believe Indiana once or twice, if not Ohio, petitioned the General Government for the privilege of suspending that provision and allowing them to have slaves. A report made by Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, himself a slaveholder, was directly against it, and the action was to refuse them the privilege of violating the Ordinance of ‘87. This period of history, which I have run over briefly, is, I presume, as familiar to most of this assembly as any other part of the history of our country. I suppose that few of my hearers are not as familiar with that part. of history as I am, and I only mention it to recall your attention to it at this time. And hence I ask how extraordinar
Dred Scott (search for this): chapter 15
essional slave code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott decision, making slavery lawful in all the Statese, nor to pass a slave code, nor to make a second Dred Scott decision, it is preparing the onslaught and chargfree by territorial legislation. What is that Dred Scott decision? Judge Douglas labors to show that it ilaw, and is unconstitutional. There is the whole Dred Scott decision. They add that if Congress cannot do so its benefit as property, would be hailed by this Dred Scott Supreme Court, and fully sustained; but any legis any State to the contrary notwithstanding. This Dred Scott decision says that the right of property in a slaor the revival of the slave-trade, for the second Dred Scott decision, for the flood of slavery to be poured orade, for the territorial slave code, and the new Dred Scott decision that is to carry slavery into the free Sslave code enforced in our Territories, and a new Dred Scott decision to bring slavery up into the very heart
Seward (search for this): chapter 15
from two persons as belonging to the Republican party, without naming them, but who can readily be recognized as being Gov. Seward of New York and myself: It is true, that exactly fifteen months ago this day, I believe, I for the first time expresset no great distance of time, perhaps in different language, and in connection with some collateral ideas, expressed by Gov. Seward. Judge Douglas has been so much annoyed by the expression of that sentiment that he has constantly, I believe, in almo this element of discord among us — as I believe it is — is attracting more and more attention. I do not believe that Gov. Seward uttered that sentiment because I had done so before, but because he reflected upon this subject and saw the truth of it. Nor do I believe, because Gov. Seward or I uttered it, that, Mr. Hickman of Pennsylvania, in different language since that time, has declared his belief in the utter antagonism which exists between. the principles of liberty and slavery. You se
Alexander H. Stephens (search for this): chapter 15
lars and cents, a sort of question as to how they shall deal with brutes, that between us and the negro here there is no sort of question, but that at the South the question is between the negro and the crocodile. That is all. It is a mere matter of policy; there is a perfect right according to interest to do just as you please-when this is done, where this doctrine prevails, the miners and sappers will have formed public opinion for the slave-trade. They will be ready for Jeff. Davis and Stephens and other leaders of that company, to sound the bugle for the revival of the slave-trade, for the second Dred Scott decision, for the flood of slavery to be poured over the free States, while we shall be here tied down and helpless and run over like sheep. It is to be a part and parcel of this same idea, to say to men who want to adhere to the Democratic party, who have always belonged to that party, and are only looking about for some excuse to stick to it, but nevertheless hate slaver
Freeport (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 15
w. I wish to say something now in regard to the Dred Scott decision, as dealt with by Judge Douglas. In that memorable debate between Judge Douglas and myself, last year, the Judge thought fit to commence a process of catechising me, and at Freeport I answered his questions, and propounded some to him. Among others propounded to him was one that I have here now. The substance, as I remember it, is, Can the people of a United States Territory, under the Dred Scott decision, in any lawful way not any longer say that the people can exclude slavery. He does not say so in the copy-right essay ; he did not say so in the speech that he made here; and, so far as I know, since his re-election to the Senate, he has never said, as he did at Freeport, that the people of the Territories can exclude slavery. He desires that you, who wish the Territories to remain free, should believe that he stands by that position, but he does not say it himself. He escapes to some extent the absurd positio
Ottawa, Ill. (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 15
t it is not entirely safe, when one is misrepresented under his very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontradicted. I therefore propose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is a misrepresentation, but to show conclusively that it is so ; and you will bear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that very memorable debate with Judge Douglas last year, to which this newspaper refers. In the first pitched battle which Senator Douglas and myself had, at the town of Ottawa, I used the language which I will now read. Having been previously reading an extract, I continued as follows : Now, gentlemen, I dont want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and any thing that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can p
Northwest (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 15
Judge Douglas says, and perhaps is right, that that provision was lost from that ordinance. I believe that is true. When the vote was taken upon it, a majority of all present in the Congress of the Confederation voted for it; but there were so many absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear majority necessary, and it was lost. But three years after that the Congress of the Confederation were together again, and they adopted a new ordinance for the government of this Northwest Territory, not contemplating territory south of the river, for the States owning that territory had hitherto refrained from giving it to the General Government; hence they made the ordinance to apply only to what the Government owned. In that, the provision excluding slavery was inserted and passed unanimously, or at any rate it passed and became a part of the law of the land. Under that ordinance we live. First here in Ohio you were a Territory, then an enabling act was passed, authorizing
Africa (search for this): chapter 15
ief report of his speech. If it were otherwise unpleasant to me to introduce the subject of the negro as a topic for discussion, I might be somewhat relieved by the fact that he dealt exclusively in that subject while he was here. I shall, therefore, without much hesitation or diffidence, enter upon this subject. The American people, on the first day of January, 1854, found the African slave-trade prohibited by a law of Congress. In a majority of the States of this Union, they found African slavery, or any other sort of slavery, prohibited by State Constitutions. They also found a law existing, supposed to be valid, by which slavery was excluded from almost all the territory the United States then owned. This was the condition of the country, with reference to the institution of slavery, on the first of January, 1854. A few days after that, a bill was introduced into Congress, which ran through its regular course in the two branches of the National Legislature, and finally
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 15
-right essay. I do not now enter upon this for the purpose of making an elaborate argument to show that me were right in the expression of that sentiment. In other words, I shall not stop to say all that might properly be said upon this point; but I only ask your attention to it for the purpose of making one or two point upon it. If you will read the copy-right essay, you will discover that Judge Douglas himself says a controversy between the American Colonies and the Government of Great Britain began on the slavery question in 1699, and continued from that time until the Revolution; and, while he did not say so, we all know that it has continued with more or less violence ever since the Revolution. Then we need not appeal to history, to the declarations of the framers of the Government, but me know from Judge Douglas himself that slavery began to be an clement of discord among the white people of this country as far back as 1699, or one hundred and sixty years ago, or five
1 2 3 4 5