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) 1,170 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 573 1 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 566 0 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 532 0 Browse Search
Texas (Texas, United States) 482 0 Browse Search
Charleston (South Carolina, United States) 470 8 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 449 3 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 405 1 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 340 0 Browse Search
Maryland (Maryland, United States) 324 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume I.. Search the whole document.

Found 286 total hits in 68 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rufus King (search for this): chapter 5
Human Slavery. A majority of the framers of the Constitution, like nearly all their compatriots of our Revolutionary era, were adverse to Slavery. In the debate of Wednesday, August 8, on the adoption of the report of the Committee, Mr. Rufus King [then of Massachusetts, afterward an eminent Senator from New York] wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant to have on the succeeding part of the report concerning the admission of slaves into the rule of representation. ht be prohibited. As the section now stands, all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is, in fact, a bounty on that article. Mr. Dickinson [of Delaware] expressed his sentiments as of a similar character. And Messrs. King and Langdon [of New Hampshire] were also in favor of giving the power to the General Government. General Pinckney thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any s
Roger S. Baldwin (search for this): chapter 5
nts. South Carolina and Georgia can not do without slaves. * * He contended that the importation of slaves would be for the interest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more products to employ the carrying trade; the more consumption also; and the more of this, the more revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be reasonable, that slaves should be dutied, like other imports, but should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union. Mr. Baldwin has similar conceptions in the case of Georgia. Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) observed, that, if South Carolina and Georgia were thus disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time, as had been suggested, they would never refuse to unite, because the importation might be prohibited. As the section now stands, all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is, in fact, a bounty on that article. Mr. Dickinson [of Delaware] expressed his sentim
Rutledge (search for this): chapter 5
to protect. The privilege of importing was therefore unreasonable. And in the third place, it was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution. Mr. Rutledge [of. South Carolina] did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections, and would readily exempt the other States from the obligation to protect the Southern against them. ime; but only stop them occasionally, as she now does. He moved to commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax with other imports; which he thought right, and which would remove one difficulty that had been started. Mr. Rutledge seconded the motion of General Pinckney. Mr. Gouverneur Morris wished the whole subject to be committed, including the clause relating to taxes on exports, and the navigation act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and South
James Madison (search for this): chapter 5
onfederation, was legally assembled at Philadelphia in 1787, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton,James Madison, Edmund Randolph, and Charles C. Pinckney, being among its most eminent members. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson werthe present article, as amended, did not preclude any arrangement whatever on that point in another place reported. Mr. Madison objected to one for every forty thousand inhabitants as a perpetual rule. The future increase of population, if the Union should be permanent, will render the number of representatives excessive. Mr. Sherman and Mr. Madison moved to insert the words not exceeding before the words one for every forty thousand inhabitants. which was agreed to nem. con. Mr. Gason that the Convention wisely and decorously excluded the terms Slave and Slavery from the Constitution; because, as Mr. Madison says, they did not choose to admit the right of property in man. In the debate of Tuesday, July 29, 1788, in the No
Wilberforce (search for this): chapter 5
en.--The Federalist, vol. i., p. 276. by embodying in the Constitution a proviso that Congress might interdict the foreign Slave-Trade after the expiration of twenty years--a term which, it was generally agreed, ought fully to satisfy the craving of Carolina and Georgia. The Encyclopoedia Britannica (latest edition — Art., Slavery) states that the African Slave-Trade was abolished by Great Britain, after years of ineffectual struggle under the lead of Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, Wilberforce, etc., on the 25th of March, 1807; and most inaccurately and unjustly adds: The great measure of the British legislature was imitated, in the first instance, by the United States. To say nothing of acts prohibiting the importation of slaves by several of our States, Virginia and Maryland inclusive, prior to the framing of our Federal Constitution, and the provisions incorporated in that instrument looking to a complete suppression of the Slave-Trade after twenty years, our Congres
Ellsworth (search for this): chapter 5
of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution. Mr. Rutledge [of. South Carolina] did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections, and would readily exempt the other States from the obligation to protect the Southern against them. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations, etc. Mr. Ellsworth [of Connecticut] was for leaving the clause as it stands, etc. Mr. Pinckney.--South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the Slave-Trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that State expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of negroes. If the States should be all left at liberty on this subject, South Carolina may, perhaps, by degrees, do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland have already done. Adjou
Iredell (search for this): chapter 5
undly realized and generally appreciated, many subtle and some able attempts have been made to explain away this most unfortunate provision, for the reason that the Convention wisely and decorously excluded the terms Slave and Slavery from the Constitution; because, as Mr. Madison says, they did not choose to admit the right of property in man. In the debate of Tuesday, July 29, 1788, in the North Carolina ratification convention, which was organized at Hillsborough, July 21, 1788: Mr. Iredell begged leave to explain the reason of this clause (last clause, Section 2, Article IV.). In some of the Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States; and to prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Tho
Pitt (search for this): chapter 5
n aforesaid; but we submit that this does not invalidate our claim for our country and her Revolutionary Statesmen of the honor of having pioneered thus far the advance of Justice and Humanity, to the overthrow of a giant iniquity. The Encyclopoedia aforesaid, in noting the fact that the African Slave-Trade was abolished by Great Britain under the brief Whig ministry of Fox and Grenville, after such abolition had been boldly urged for twenty years under the all but dictatorial Tory rule of Pitt, who was professedly its friend, forcibly and truly adds: The proud son of Chatham loved truth and justice not a little, but he loved power and place greatly more; and he was resolved that Negro Emancipation should not lose him either a shred of political influence or a beam of [royal] favor. The particular individual of whom this is said is now some sixty years dead; but the breed was not extinct, in either hemisphere, at the date of our latest advices. The modified proposition to pr
Charles C. Pinckney (search for this): chapter 5
exander Hamilton,James Madison, Edmund Randolph, and Charles C. Pinckney, being among its most eminent members. John Adams aas liable to such insuperable objections, etc., etc. Mr. Pinckney [C. C., of South Carolina] considered the Fisheries andticut] was for leaving the clause as it stands, etc. Mr. Pinckney.--South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohiis must not be. In the debate of the same day, General Pinckney declared it to be his firm conviction that, if himselvor of giving the power to the General Government. General Pinckney thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he di been started. Mr. Rutledge seconded the motion of General Pinckney. Mr. Gouverneur Morris wished the whole subject toourselves.--Seward's Works, vol. i., p. 66. General Charles C. Pinckney, in laying the Federal Constitution before the CConstitution; The following is an extract from General Chas. C. Pinckney's speech, delivered in the South Carolina ratific
Chatham (search for this): chapter 5
her Revolutionary Statesmen of the honor of having pioneered thus far the advance of Justice and Humanity, to the overthrow of a giant iniquity. The Encyclopoedia aforesaid, in noting the fact that the African Slave-Trade was abolished by Great Britain under the brief Whig ministry of Fox and Grenville, after such abolition had been boldly urged for twenty years under the all but dictatorial Tory rule of Pitt, who was professedly its friend, forcibly and truly adds: The proud son of Chatham loved truth and justice not a little, but he loved power and place greatly more; and he was resolved that Negro Emancipation should not lose him either a shred of political influence or a beam of [royal] favor. The particular individual of whom this is said is now some sixty years dead; but the breed was not extinct, in either hemisphere, at the date of our latest advices. The modified proposition to prohibit the Slave-Trade now encountering no opposition, the recognition of slaves, as
1 2 3 4 5 6 7