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) 242 242 Browse Search
Knight's Mechanical Encyclopedia (ed. Knight) 35 35 Browse Search
George P. Rowell and Company's American Newspaper Directory, containing accurate lists of all the newspapers and periodicals published in the United States and territories, and the dominion of Canada, and British Colonies of North America., together with a description of the towns and cities in which they are published. (ed. George P. Rowell and company) 28 28 Browse Search
Lucius R. Paige, History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, with a genealogical register 26 26 Browse Search
HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF MEDFORD, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT, IN 1630, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1855. (ed. Charles Brooks) 21 21 Browse Search
Cambridge History of American Literature: volume 3 (ed. Trent, William Peterfield, 1862-1939., Erskine, John, 1879-1951., Sherman, Stuart Pratt, 1881-1926., Van Doren, Carl, 1885-1950.) 18 18 Browse Search
Edward H. Savage, author of Police Recollections; Or Boston by Daylight and Gas-Light ., Boston events: a brief mention and the date of more than 5,000 events that transpired in Boston from 1630 to 1880, covering a period of 250 years, together with other occurrences of interest, arranged in alphabetical order 15 15 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. 13 13 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 13 13 Browse Search
Cambridge History of American Literature: volume 2 (ed. Trent, William Peterfield, 1862-1939., Erskine, John, 1879-1951., Sherman, Stuart Pratt, 1881-1926., Van Doren, Carl, 1885-1950.) 10 10 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 1820 AD or search for 1820 AD in all documents.

Your search returned 13 results in 6 document sections:

Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Chapter 1: (search)
e claim of a power in Congress to determine the question of the admission of slaves into the territories, and in justification of the prohibitory clause applied in 1820 to a portion of the Louisiana Territory. The difference between the Congress of the Confederation and that of the federal Constitution is so broad that the actilusive that the action of the Congress of the Confederation in 1787 could not constitute a precedent to justify the action of the Congress of the United States in 1820, and that the prohibitory clause of the Missouri Compromise was without constitutional authority, in violation of the rights of a part of the joint owners of the t. Cabot to Pickering, who was then Senator from Massachusetts. (See Life and Letters of George Cabot, by H. C. Lodge, p. 334.) Some years afterward (in 1819-20) occurred the memorable contest with regard to the admission into the Union of Missouri, the second state carved out of the Louisiana Territory. The controversy ar
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Chapter 2: (search)
hern states, the vote of the two sections was exactly equal. The yeas were all cast by Southern Senators; the nays were all Northern except two from Delaware, one from Missouri, and one from Kentucky. However objectionable it may have been in 1820 to adopt that political line as expressing a geographical definition of different sectional interests, and however it may be condemned as the assumption by Congress of a function not delegated to it, it is to be remembered that the act had receivetter than he did. He then suggested that I should join the compromise men, saying that it was a measure which he thought would probably give peace to the country for thirty years—the period that had elapsed since the adoption of the compromise of 1820. Then, turning to Berrien, he said, You and I will be under ground before that time, but our young friend here may have trouble to meet. I somewhat impatiently declared my unwillingness to transfer to posterity a trial which they would be relati
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Chapter 5: (search)
d constitutional principles, and recognized in it only a return to that rule which had been infringed by the compromise of 1820, and the restoration of which had been foreshadowed by the legislation of 1850. This bill was not, therefore, as has beens it the first step taken toward the repeal of the conditions or obligations expressed or implied by the establishment, in 1820, of the politico-sectional line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes. That compact had been virtually abrogated, in 18rn indignation was aroused on the absurd accusation that the South had destroyed that sacred instrument, the compromise of 1820. The internecine war which raged in Kansas for several years was substituted for the promised peace under the operation o use them with sectional discrimination against the minority. The resistance to the admission of Missouri as a state in 1820 was evidently not owing to any moral or constitutional considerations, but merely to political motives; the compensation e
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Chapter 7: (search)
n the Northern colonies. Those of the South had no material cause of complaint; actuated by sympathy for their Northern brethren, however, and a devotion to the principles of civil liberty and community independence, which they had inherited from their Anglo-Saxon ancestry, and which were set forth in the Declaration of Independence, they made common cause with their neighbors, and may, at least, claim to have done their full share in the war that ensued. By the exclusion of the South, in 1820, from all that part of the Louisiana purchase lying north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, and not included in the state of Missouri; by the extension of that line of exclusion to embrace the territory acquired from Texas; and by the appropriation of all the territory obtained from Mexico under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, both north and south of that line, it may be stated with approximate accuracy that the North had monopolized to herself more than three-fourths of
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Chapter 10: (search)
, 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 fug their negro servants, as any other property, into any part of the common territory, and that they were entitled to claim its protection therein; 3. Finally, as a consequence of the principle just above stated, that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 insofar as it prohibited the existence of African servitude north of a designated line, was unconstitutional and void. The Supreme Court of the United States in stating (through Chief Justice Taney) their decision in the Dred Scott case, in 18
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Chapter 13: (search)
nd the agriculture of one section and the manufacturing of another were properly regarded as handmaids, and not infrequently referred to as the means of strengthening and perpetuating the bonds by which the states were united. When duties were imposed, not for revenue, but as a bounty to a particular industry, it was regarded both as unjust and without warrant, expressed or implied, in the Constitution. Then arose the controversy, quadrennially renewed and with increasing provocation, in 1820, in 1824, and in 1828—each stage intensifying the discontent, arising more from the injustice than the weight of the burden borne. It was not the twenty-shilling ship-money tax, but the violation of Magna Charta, which Hampden and his associates resisted. It was not the stamp duty nor the tea tax, but the principle involved in taxation without representation, against which our colonial fathers took up arms. So the tariff act in 1828, known at the time as the bill of abominations, was resis