hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing) 682 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery. 358 0 Browse Search
William H. Herndon, Jesse William Weik, Herndon's Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life, Etiam in minimis major, The History and Personal Recollections of Abraham Lincoln by William H. Herndon, for twenty years his friend and Jesse William Weik 258 0 Browse Search
Mrs. John A. Logan, Reminiscences of a Soldier's Wife: An Autobiography 208 0 Browse Search
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. 204 0 Browse Search
John G. Nicolay, A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, condensed from Nicolay and Hayes' Abraham Lincoln: A History 182 0 Browse Search
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 1. 104 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events, Diary from December 17, 1860 - April 30, 1864 (ed. Frank Moore) 102 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 10. (ed. Frank Moore) 86 0 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 3, 15th edition. 72 0 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. You can also browse the collection for Illinois (Illinois, United States) or search for Illinois (Illinois, United States) in all documents.

Your search returned 17 results in 11 document sections:

er notice. Virginia, it is well known, in the year 1784, ceded to the United States—then united only by the original Articles of Confederation—her vast possessions northwest of the Ohio, from which the great states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota, have since been formed. In 1787—before the adoption of the federal Constitution—the celebrated ordinance for the government of this Northwestern Territory was adopted by the Congress, with the full consent, anent of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. In December, 1805, a petition of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Indiana territory—then comprising all the area now occupied by the states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin —was presented to Congress. It appears from the proceedings of the House of Representatives that several petitions of the same purport from inhabitants of the territory, accompanied by a letter from William Henry H
for California in 1850, the theory was more distinctly advanced, but it was not until after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, in 1854, that it was fully developed under the plastic and constructive genius of the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. The leading part which that distinguished Senator had borne in the authorship and advocacy of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which affirmed the right of the people of the territories to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own wayy State of the Union; and, though elections may be lost by their assertion, they constitute the only foundation on which we can maintain power, on which we can again rise to the dignity the Democracy once possessed. Does not the Senator from Illinois see in the sectional character of the vote he received, In the Democratic Convention, which had been recently held in Charleston. See the ensuing chapter. that his opinions are not acceptable to every portion of the country? Is not the fa
es thirty minutes. It had been the invariable usage with nominating conventions of all parties to select candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, one from the North and the other from the South, but this assemblage nominated Lincoln of Illinois for the first office, and for the second, Hamlin of Maine—both Northerners. Lincoln, its nominee for the presidency, had publicly announced that the Union could not permanently endure, half slave and half free. The resolutions adopted containh rendered a nomination impracticable. Both divisions of the convention adjourned, and met again in Baltimore in June. Then, having finally failed to come to an agreement, they separated and made their respective nominations apart. Douglas of Illinois was nominated by the friends of the doctrine of popular sovereignty, with Fitzpatrick of Alabama for the vice presidency. Both these gentlemen at that time were Senators from their respective states. Fitzpatrick promptly declined the nominatio
ajority section it depends to restore peace and perpetuate the Union of equal States; upon us of the minority section rests the duty to maintain our equality and community rights; and the means in one case or the other must be such as each can control. The resolution of Powell was eventually adopted on the 18th of December, and on the 20th the Committee was appointed, consisting of Powell and Crittenden of Kentucky, Hunter of Virginia, Toombs of Georgia, Davis of Mississippi, Douglas of Illinois, Bigler of Pennsylvania, Rice of Minnesota, Collamer of Vermont, Seward of New York, Wade of Ohio, Doolittle of Wisconsin, and Grimes of Iowa. The first five of the list, as here enumerated, were Southern men; the next three were Northern Democrats, or Conservatives; the last five, Northern Republicans, so called. The supposition was that any measure agreed upon by the representatives of the three principal divisions of public opinion would be approved by the Senate and afterward ratifi
d and earnestly debated in the Virginia legislature, and its advocates were so near the accomplishment of their purpose, that a declaration in its favor was defeated by only a small majority, and that on the ground of expediency. At a still later period, abolitionist lecturers and teachers were mobbed, assaulted, and threatened with tar and feathers in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and other states. One of them (Lovejoy) was actually killed by a mob in Illinois as late as 1837. These facts prove incontestably that the sectional hostility which exhibited itself in 1820, on the application of Missouri for admission into the Union, which again broke out on the proposition for the annexation of Texas in 1844, and which reappeared after the Mexican war, never again to be suppressed until its fell results had been fully accomplished, was not the consequence of any difference on the abstract question of slavery. It was the offspring of sectional riv
called Republicans of the period, it may be inserted entire: Washington, February 11, 1861. my dear Governor: Governor Bingham and myself telegraphed you on Saturday, at the request of Massachusetts and New York, to send delegates to the Peace or Compromise Congress. They admit that we were right, and that they were wrong; that no Republican State should have sent delegates; but they are here, and can not get away; Ohio, Indiana, and Rhode Island are caving in, and there is danger of Illinois; and now they beg us, for God's sake, to come to their rescue, and save the Republican party from rupture. I hope you will send stiff-backed men, or none. The whole thing was gotten up against my judgment and advice, and will end in thin smoke. Still, I hope, as a matter of courtesy to some of our erring brethren, that you will send the delegates. Truly your friend, (Signed) Z. Chandler. His Excellency Austin Blair. P. S.—Some of the manufacturing States think that a fight woul
to proposed evacuation of the Fort a crisis. The course pursued by the government of the United States with regard to the forts had not passed without earnest remonstrance from the most intelligent and patriotic of its own friends during the period of the events which constitute the subject of the preceding chapter. In the Senate of the United States, which continued in executive session for several weeks after the inauguration of Lincoln, it was the subject of discussion. Douglass of Illinois—who was certainly not suspected of sympathy with secession, or lack of devotion to the Union—on March 15th offered a resolution recommending the withdrawal of the garrisons from all forts within the limits of the states which had seceded, except those at Key West and the Dry Tortugas. In support of this resolution he said: We certainly can not justify the holding of forts there, much less the recapturing of those which have been taken, unless we intend to reduce those States themselves
se of being armed and used in offensive warfare against the Confederate States. At Camp Robinson, in the county of Garrard, there are now ten thousand troops, if the newspapers can be relied upon, in which men from Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois are mustered with Kentuckians into the service of the United States, and armed by that Government for the avowed purpose of giving aid to the disaffected in one of the Confederate States, and of carrying out the designs of that Government for tvastly the vantage-ground to the enemy. It is manifest that the Northern generals appreciate this; and, by withdrawing their forces from western Virginia and east Kentucky, they have managed to add them to the new levies from Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and to concentrate a force in front of me variously estimated at from sixty to one hundred thousand men, and which I believe will number seventy-five thousand. To maintain my position, I have only about seventeen thousand men in this neighborh
airly be considered as having decided the question of his removal from that command. The principal United States arsenal at the West was that near to St. Louis. To it had been transferred a large number of the altered muskets sent from Springfield, Massachusetts, so that in 1861 the arms in that arsenal were, perhaps, numerically second only to those of Springfield. These arms, by a conjunction of deceptive and bold measures, were removed from the arsenal in Missouri and transported to Illinois. To whom did those arms belong? Certainly to those whose money had made or purchased them. That is, to the states in common, not to their agent the general government, or to a portion of the states which might be in a condition to appropriate them to their special use, and in disregard of the rights of their partners. Not satisfied with removing the public arms from the limits of Missouri, the next step was that, in total disrespect of the constitutional right of the citizens to bear
ciple, and insisted on what they termed non-intervention, must have stood with very poor grace in the same Chamber when, at a subsequent period, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas], bound by his honor on account of his previous course, moved the repeal of that line to throw open Kansas; they must have stood with very bad grace, in this presence, to argue that that line was now sacred, and must be kept for ever. The Senator from Illinois stood foremost as one who was willing, at an early period, to sacrifice his own prejudices and his own interests (if, indeed, his interests be girt and bounded by the limits of a State) by proposing to extend that lion that I say, he was in honor bound to wipe out that line and throw Kansas open, like any other Territory. But, sir, was it then understood by the Senator from Illinois, or anybody else, that throwing open the Territory of Kansas to free emigration was to be the signal for the marching of cohorts from one section or another to f