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.

... 2 3 4 5 6 7
August 21st (search for this): chapter 5
s into the ratio of representation as liable to such insuperable objections, etc., etc. Mr. Pinckney [C. C., of South Carolina] considered the Fisheries and the Western Frontier as more burdensome to the United States than the slaves. He thought this could be demonstrated, if the occasion were a proper one. On the question on the motion to insert free before inhabitants, it was disagreed to; New Jersey alone voting in the affirmative.--Madison's Papers, vol. III., p. 1261. Tuesday, August 21st: Mr. Luther Martin [of Maryland] proposed to vary Article VII., Section 4, so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. In the first place, as five slaves are to be counted as three freemen in the apportionment of representatives, such a clause would leave an encouragement to this traffic. In the second place, slaves weakened one part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect. The privilege of importing was therefore unreasonable. And in th
1787 AD (search for this): chapter 5
es, but was baffled by the Legislature of Rhode Island-then a State of relatively extensive foreign commerce — which interposed its paralyzing veto. Political impotence, commercial embarrassment, and general distress, finally overbore or temporarily silenced sectional jealousies and State pride, to such an extent that a Convention of delegates from a quorum of the States, called together rather to amend than to supersede the Articles of Confederation, 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 were absent as Embassadors in Europe. Samuel Adams, George Clinton, and Patrick Henry stood aloof, watching the movement with jealous apprehension. Franklin, then over eighty-one years of age, declined the chair on account of his increasing infirmities; and, on his motion, George Washington was unanimously e
January 1st (search for this): chapter 5
sly pursued and protected by Great Britain as a large and lucrative branch of her foreign commerce and navigation. In 1800, our Congress passed a further act, to the same effect, but more sweeping in its provisions and severe in its penalties. On the 2d of March, 1807--twenty-three days before the passage of the British act — Congress passed one which prohibits the African Slave-Trade utterly — to our own country as well as to foreign lands. True, this act did not take effect till the 1st of January ensuing, because of the constitutional inhibition 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 tw
1800 AD (search for this): chapter 5
and 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 Congress, on the 22d day of March, 1794, passed an act forbidding and punishing any participation by our citizens in the Slave-Trade to foreign countries, which had long been very zealously pursued and protected by Great Britain as a large and lucrative branch of her foreign commerce and navigation. In 1800, our Congress passed a further act, to the same effect, but more sweeping in its provisions and severe in its penalties. On the 2d of March, 1807--twenty-three days before the passage of the British act — Congress passed one which prohibits the African Slave-Trade utterly — to our own country as well as to foreign lands. True, this act did not take effect till the 1st of January ensuing, because of the constitutional inhibition aforesaid; but we submit that this does not invalidate our clai
1802 AD (search for this): chapter 5
States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance its open avowal. For nothing can be more evident to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union.--The Federalist, N. Y. edition of 1802, vol. i., p. 5. The melancholy story of the Federation showed the stern necessity of a compulsory power in the General Government to execute the duties confided to it; and the history of the present government itself has, on more than one occasion, manifested that the power of the Union is barely adequate to compel the execution of its laws, when resisted even by a single State.--Oliver Wolcott, vol. II., p. 323. Our country attained under it neither dignity, consideration, security, no
March 11th, 1850 AD (search for this): chapter 5
that we have deprived you of what the Constitution recognizes as your property, and have failed to make recompense therefor. But you surely can not blame us, that, having been enlightened as to the immoral nature of acts consented to, or stipulated for, by our fathers, we are unable longer to commit them. Take our property, if you think yourselves entitled to it; but allow us to be faithful to our convictions of duty and the promptings of humanity. Governor Seward, in his speech of March 11, 1850, on Freedom in the Territories, forcibly set forth the true and manly Northern ground on this subject, as follows: The law of nations disavows such compacts; the law of nature, written on the hearts and consciences of freemen, repudiates them. I know that there are laws, of various sorts, which regulate the conduct of men. There are constitutions and statutes, codes mercantile and codes civil; but when we are legislating for States, especially when we are founding States, all these
March 22nd, 1794 AD (search for this): chapter 5
5th 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 Congress, on the 22d day of March, 1794, passed an act forbidding and punishing any participation by our citizens in the Slave-Trade to foreign countries, which had long been very zealously pursued and protected by Great Britain as a large and lucrative branch of her foreign commerce and navigation. In 1800, our Congress passed a further act, to the same effect, but more sweeping in its provisions and severe in its penalties. On the 2d of March, 1807--twenty-three days before the passage of the British act — Congress pas
March 2nd, 1807 AD (search for this): chapter 5
pression of the Slave-Trade after twenty years, our Congress, on the 22d day of March, 1794, passed an act forbidding and punishing any participation by our citizens in the Slave-Trade to foreign countries, which had long been very zealously pursued and protected by Great Britain as a large and lucrative branch of her foreign commerce and navigation. In 1800, our Congress passed a further act, to the same effect, but more sweeping in its provisions and severe in its penalties. On the 2d of March, 1807--twenty-three days before the passage of the British act — Congress passed one which prohibits the African Slave-Trade utterly — to our own country as well as to foreign lands. True, this act did not take effect till the 1st of January ensuing, because of the constitutional inhibition 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 over
... 2 3 4 5 6 7