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
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 690 total hits in 93 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...
Mason, N. H. (New Hampshire, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
e strongest section, that they will thus be enabled to out vote, conquer, govern, and control the South. Hence you find that they now make speeches advocating principles and measures which cannot be defended in any slaveholding State of this Union. Is there a Republican residing in Galesburgh who can travel into Kentucky and carry his principles with him across the Ohio? What Republican from Massachusetts can visit the Old Dominion without leaving his principles behind him when he crosses Mason and Dixon's line? Permit me to say to you in perfect good humor, but in all sincerity, that no political creed is sound which cannot be proclaimed fearlessly in every State of this Union where the Federal Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. Not only is this Republican party unable to proclaim its principles alike in the North and in the South, in the free States and in the slave States, but it cannot even proclaim them in the same forms, and give them the same strength and mea
Galesburgh (Kansas, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
Fifth joint debate, at Galesburgh, October 7, 1858. Mr. Douglas's speech. Ladies and Gentlemen: Four years ago I appeared before the people of Knox county for the purpose of defending my politmy Democratic associates and myself: I could find an instance in the postmaster of the city of Galesburgh, and in every other postmaster in this vicinity, all of whom have been stricken down simply becannot be defended in any slaveholding State of this Union. Is there a Republican residing in Galesburgh who can travel into Kentucky and carry his principles with him across the Ohio? What Republic the State. He does not pretend, and no other man will, that I have one set of principles for Galesburgh and another for Charleston. He does not pretend that I hold to one doctrine in Chicago and anwould be faithful to the Constitution-what did he mean? the Constitution as he expounds it in Galesburgh, or the Constitution as he expounds it in Charleston. Mr. Lincoln has devoted considerable
Dixon, Ill. (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
t section, that they will thus be enabled to out vote, conquer, govern, and control the South. Hence you find that they now make speeches advocating principles and measures which cannot be defended in any slaveholding State of this Union. Is there a Republican residing in Galesburgh who can travel into Kentucky and carry his principles with him across the Ohio? What Republican from Massachusetts can visit the Old Dominion without leaving his principles behind him when he crosses Mason and Dixon's line? Permit me to say to you in perfect good humor, but in all sincerity, that no political creed is sound which cannot be proclaimed fearlessly in every State of this Union where the Federal Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. Not only is this Republican party unable to proclaim its principles alike in the North and in the South, in the free States and in the slave States, but it cannot even proclaim them in the same forms, and give them the same strength and meaning in al
Indiana (Indiana, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
nction a discrimination between slave and free States by voting for the English bill. But while that bill is made a test in Illinois for the purpose of breaking up the Democratic organization in this State, how is it in the other States? Go to Indiana, and there you find English himself the author of the English bill, who is a candidate for re-election to Congress, has been forced by public opinion to abandon his own darling project, and to give a promise that he will vote for the admission of Kansas: at once, whenever she forms a Constitution in pursuance of law, and ratifies it by a majority vote of her people. Not only is this the case with English himself, but I am informed that every Democratic candidate for Congress in Indiana takes the same ground. Pass to Ohio, and there you find that Groesbeck, and Pendleton, and Cox, and all the other anti-Lecompton men who stood shoulder to shoulder with me against the Lecompton Constitution, but voted for the English bill, now repudia
Nebraska (Nebraska, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
pon the Compromise measures of 1850 and the passage of the Kansas--Nebraska bill. Those of you before me, who were present then, will remembeame principle must necessarily have been right. The Kansas and Nebraska bill declared, in so many words, that it was the true intent and miple enunciated in the Compromise measures of 1850, and Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854, and therefore I led off in the fight against the Lecse bills of New Mexico and Utah ; and even when he introduced this Nebraska bill, I think you will discover that he did not exactly follow thened as patterns for future territorial legislation ; and that this Nebraska bill did not follow them as a pattern at all. The Judge tells, It turned out that although a few men calling themselves an anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at Springfield about that time, yet neith on the 16th of October, 1854, as being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention, which had sat in that same month of October, at Spring
Sangamon County (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
all this quibbling about this man and the other man-this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. [ That's right, etc.] Yes, I have no doubt that you think it is right, but the Lincoln men down in Coles, Tazewell and Sangamon counties do not think it is right. In the conclusion of the same speech, talking to the Chicago Abolitionists, he said: I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will bum in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal. [ Good, good. ] Well, you say good to that, and you are going to vote for Lincoln because he holds that doctrine. I will not blame you for supporting him on that ground, hut I will show you in immediate contrast with that doctri
Russia (Russia) (search for this): chapter 12
less it can announce its principles every where. I presume that Judge Douglas could not go into Russia and announce the doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Russia; and it may be true of this country, that in some places we may not be able to proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of Democracy, because there is a octrines throughout the length and breadth of this Republic? He said, Would Judge Douglas go to Russia and proclaim the same principles he does here? I would remind him that Russia is not under the Russia is not under the American Constitution If Russia was a part of the American Republic, under our Federal Constitution, and I was sworn to support the Constitution, I would maintain the same doctrine in Russia that I dRussia that I do in Illinois. The slaveholding States are governed by the same Federal Constitution as ourselves, and hence a man's principles, in order to be in harmony with the Constitution, must be the same in t
Mexico (Mexico) (search for this): chapter 12
ther of those acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery during the territorial existence of those Territories, while Henry Clay constantly made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old Mexican laws would control that question during the territorial existence, and that these old Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can that be used as a principle for declaring that during the territorial existence as well as at the time of framing the CMexican laws excluded slavery. How can that be used as a principle for declaring that during the territorial existence as well as at the time of framing the Constitution, the people, if you please, might have slaves if they wanted them? I am not discussing the question whether It is right or wrong ; but bow are the New Mexican and Utah laws patterns for the Nebraska bill? I maintain that the organization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general principle at all. It had no feature of establishing a general principle. The acts to which I have referred were a part of a general system of Compromises. They did not lay down what was proposed
Georgia (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
n knew better when he asserted this; he knew that one newspaper, and so far as is within my knowledge but one, ever asserted that doctrine, and that I was the first man in either House of Congress that read each article in debate, and denounced it on the floor of the Senate as revolutionary When the Washington Union, on the 17th of last November, published an article to that effect, I branded it at once, and denounced it, and hence the Union has been pursuing me ever since. Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, replied to me, and said that there was not a man in any of the slave States south of the Potomac river that held any such doctrine. Mr. Lincoln knows that there is not a member of the Supreme Court who holds that doctrine ; be knows that every one of them, as shown by their opinions, holds the reverse. Why this attempt, then, to bring the Supreme Court into disrepute among the people? It looks as if there was an effort being made to destroy public confidence in the highest judicial trib
Aurora, Ill. (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
Government of his country when he thought that he had discovered that the Mexican war was not begun in the right spot, and was therefore unjust. He tries very hard to make out that there is something very extraordinary in the place where the thing was clone, and not in the thing itself. I never believed before that Abraham Lincoln would be guilty of what he has done this day in regard to those resolutions. In the first place, the moment it was intimated to me that they had been adopted at Aurora and Rockford instead of Springfield, I did not wait for him to call my attention to the fact, but led off and explained in my first meeting after the Ottawa debate, what the mistake was, and how it had been made. I supposed that for an honest man, conscious of his own rectitude, that explanation would be sufficient. I did not wait for him, after the mistake was made, to call my attention to it, but frankly explained it at once as an honest man would. I also gave the authority on which I h
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...