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
Georgia (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
ly explained, comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia or South Carolina, who goes to the coast of Africa,nce. All this would be vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western people are alaves, if they can be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages the arts and manufactures. Ted, the African Slave-Trade; but South Carolina and Georgia were present, by their delegates, to admonish, and, consent of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia can not do without slaves. * * He contended that th 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 ought fully to satisfy the craving of Carolina and Georgia. The Encyclopoedia Britannica (latest edition — r fugitive slaves who might escape into Carolina or Georgia, or had any desire to enter into reciprocal engagem
Patrick Henry (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
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 elected President. The Convention sat with closed doors; and no circumstantial nor adequate report of its deliberations was made. The only accounts of them which have reached us are those of delegates who took notes at the time, or taxed their recollection in after
Connecticut (Connecticut, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
little persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that he was not sure that he could assent to it under any circumstances. Mr. Sherman [Roger, of Connecticut] regarded the Slave-Trade as iniquitous; but, the point of representation having been settled after much difficulty and deliberation, he did not think himself brn 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 exed by the still slave-hungry States of the extreme South was imperative, and the necessity of submitting to it was quite too easily conceded. Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, was among the first to admit it. The conscience of the North was quieted An instance of this quieting influence, as exerted by The Federalist, a series of l
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it did by tile Tories. * * * Maryland and Virginia, ho said, had already prohibited the importation of slaves. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western people are already calling for slive; Massachusetts absent.--Ibid., p. 1392. No Slave-trade, no Union! Such was the short and sharp alternative presented by the delegates from those States. North Carolina was passive; Virginia and her more northern sisters more than willing to prohibit at once the further importation of Slaves; in fact, several, if not all, of 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, S
Childsburg (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
slaveholding have been more profoundly 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 in
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 5
ng resumed--Colonel Mason [George, grandfather of James M., late United States Senator, and late Confederate emissary to England] gave utterance to the following sentiments: This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. 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 25 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, 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
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia or South Carolina, who goes to the coast of Africa, and, in ons, etc., etc. Mr. Pinckney [C. C., of South Carolina] considered the Fisheries and the Western in the Constitution. Mr. Rutledge [of. South Carolina] did not see how the importation of slaveslause as it stands, etc. Mr. Pinckney.--South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibitsaining the consent of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia can not do without slaves. * *rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union. Mr. Baldwin has similarvery, through its attorney, Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, presented its little Bill for extras. Lies. It is sheer absurdity to contend that South Carolina in the Convention was absorbingly intent oas. C. Pinckney's speech, delivered in the South Carolina ratification convention, January 17, 1788:mained one acre of swamp land uncleared in South Carolina, I would raise my voice against restrictin[8 more...]
Rhode Island (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
ained under it neither dignity, consideration, security, nor even solvency. The central or national authority, left dependent on the concurrent action of the several States for the very means of existence, was exhibited often in the attitude of a genteel beggar, rather than of a sovereign. Congress attempted to impose a very moderate tariff for the payment of interest on the general or foreign debt, contracted in support of the Revolutionary armies, 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, Alexan
Carolina City (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
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, Wilberforcevious necessity. No one could pretend that there was any thing mutual in the obligation it sought to impose — that Massachusetts or New Hampshire was either anxious to secure the privilege of reclaiming her fugitive slaves who might escape into Carolina or Georgia, or had any desire to enter into reciprocal engagements to this end. Nor could any one gravely insist that the provision for the mutual rendition of slaves was essential to the completeness of the Federal pact. The old Confederation
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 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 short time; 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 s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7