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
Charles Sumner 1,590 8 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 850 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 692 0 Browse Search
Kansas (Kansas, United States) 400 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 360 0 Browse Search
Europe 232 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 206 0 Browse Search
John Lothrop Motley 200 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 188 0 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 188 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874.. Search the whole document.

Found 120 total hits in 21 results.

1 2 3
Concord (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 71
the venerable Senator err when he presumes to vouch Massachusetts for Slavery, and to associate this odious institution with the names of her great patriots. But the venerable Senator errs yet more, if possible, when he attributes to slaveholding communities a leading part in those contributions of arms and treasure by which independence was secured. Here are his exact words, as I find them in the Globe, revised by himself: Sir, when blood was shed upon the plains of Lexington and Concord, in an issue made by Boston, to whom was an appeal made, and from whom was it answered? The answer is found in the acts of slaveholding States—animis opibusque parati. Yes, sir, the independence of America, to maintain republican liberty, was won by the arms and treasure, by the patriotism and good faith of slaveholding communities. Mark the language, sir, as emphasized by himself. Surely, the Senator with his silver-white locks, all fresh from the outrage of the Nebraska Bill, cannot
Africa (search for this): chapter 71
s. This, of itself, is a response to the imputation of the Senator. A benign and brilliant Act of her Legislature, as far back as 1646, shows her sensibility on this subject. A Boston ship had brought home two negroes, seized on the coast of Guinea. Thus spoke Massachusetts: The General Court, conceiving themselves bound by the first opportunity to bear witness against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing, also to prescribe such timely redress for what is past, and such a law f vile and most odious conduct, justly abhorred of all good and just men, do order that the negro interpreter, with others unlawfully taken, be, by the first opportunity, at the charge of the country, for the present, sent to his native country of Guinea, and a letter with him of the indignation of the Court thereabout and justice thereof. The Colony that could issue this noble decree was inconsistent with itself, when it allowed its rocky face to be pressed by the footsteps of a single slave
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 71
here is another incident in the history of South Carolina, which as a loyal son of Massachusetts, I ts provisions that an eminent character of South Carolina, a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Uniteposed that this would yet be recognized by South Carolina. But she was mistaken. Her venerable rep And yet, sir, the excitable Senator from South Carolina is fired by the fancied delinquencies of M echoes of liberty which resounded even to South Carolina, and the very stones in the streets of Bosne is to sixty-five; while in slaveholding South Carolina the number of negro slaves, at that time, question which the venerable Senator from South Carolina here opens, by his vaunt, I have no desire especially have I shunned all allusion to South Carolina. But the venerable Senator, to whose disc God forbid that I should do injustice to South Carolina. I know well the gallantry of many of herleasure in dwelling on the humiliations of South Carolina; I do not desire to expose her sores; I wo
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 71
of South Carolina, which as a loyal son of Massachusetts, I cannot forget, and which rises now in judgment against the venerable Senator. Massachusetts had commissioned a distinguished gentleman, o for the sake of truth, in just defence of Massachusetts, and in honor of Freedom, shall not be lefavery, broke forth in the ejaculation that Massachusetts was then slaveholding; and he presumed to as representatives of hardy, slaveholding Massachusetts. Sir, I repel the imputation. It is true that Massachusetts was hardy; but she was not, in any just sense, slaveholding. And had she been present. Sir, Slavery never flourished in Massachusetts; nor did it ever prevail there at any timeseized on the coast of Guinea. Thus spoke Massachusetts: The General Court, conceiving themsat, as early as 1769, one of the courts of Massachusetts, anticipating, by several years, the renowry within her borders. All hail, then, to Massachusetts, the just and generous Commonwealth in who[7 more...]
Lanesborough (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 71
e, which I would willingly present. Sir, Slavery never flourished in Massachusetts; nor did it ever prevail there at any time, even in early Colonial days, to such a degree as to be a distinctive feature in her powerful civilization. Her few slaves were merely for a term of years, or for life. If, in point of fact, their issue was sometimes held in bondage, it was never by sanction of any statute or law of Colony or Commonwealth. Such has been the solemn judgment of her Supreme Court. Lanesboro v. Westfield, 16 Mass. 74. In all her annals, no person was ever born a slave on the soil of Massachusetts. This, of itself, is a response to the imputation of the Senator. A benign and brilliant Act of her Legislature, as far back as 1646, shows her sensibility on this subject. A Boston ship had brought home two negroes, seized on the coast of Guinea. Thus spoke Massachusetts: The General Court, conceiving themselves bound by the first opportunity to bear witness against the
Yorktown (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 71
man. Similar decisions followed in other places. In 1776, the whole number of blacks, both free and slave, sprinkled thinly over hardy Massachusetts, was five thousand two hundred and forty-nine, being to the whites as one is to sixty-five; while in slaveholding South Carolina the number of negro slaves, at that time, was not far from one hundred thousand, being nearly one slave for every freeman, thus rendering that Colony anything but hardy. At last, in 1780, even before the triumph of Yorktown had led the way to that peace which set its seal upon our National Independence, Massachusetts, animated by the struggles of the Revolution, and filled by the sentiments of Freedom, placed in front of her Bill of Rights the emphatic words, that all men are born free and equal, and by this declaration exterminated every vestige of Slavery within her borders. All hail, then, to Massachusetts, the just and generous Commonwealth in whose behalf I have the honor to speak. Thus, sir, does the
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 71
sailed on arrival there by an inhospitable statute, so gross in its provisions that an eminent character of South Carolina, a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States [Hon. William Johnson] had characterized it as trampling on the Constitution, and a direct attack upon the sovereignty of the United States. Massachusetts hadUnited States. Massachusetts had read in the Constitution a clause closely associated with that touching fugitives from service, to the following effect: The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and supposed that this would yet be recognized by South Carolina. But she was mistaken. Her vene was an appeal made, and from whom was it answered? The answer is found in the acts of slaveholding States—animis opibusque parati. Yes, sir, the independence of America, to maintain republican liberty, was won by the arms and treasure, by the patriotism and good faith of slaveholding communities. Mark the language, sir, as em
William Johnson (search for this): chapter 71
ent against the venerable Senator. Massachusetts had commissioned a distinguished gentleman, of blameless life and eminent professional qualities, who served with honor in the other House [Hon. Samuel Hoar], to reside at Charleston for a brief period, in order to guard the rights of her free colored citizens, assailed on arrival there by an inhospitable statute, so gross in its provisions that an eminent character of South Carolina, a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States [Hon. William Johnson] had characterized it as trampling on the Constitution, and a direct attack upon the sovereignty of the United States. Massachusetts had read in the Constitution a clause closely associated with that touching fugitives from service, to the following effect: The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and supposed that this would yet be recognized by South Carolina. But she was mistaken. Her venerable representativ
Boston (search for this): chapter 71
n those contributions of arms and treasure by which independence was secured. Here are his exact words, as I find them in the Globe, revised by himself: Sir, when blood was shed upon the plains of Lexington and Concord, in an issue made by Boston, to whom was an appeal made, and from whom was it answered? The answer is found in the acts of slaveholding States—animis opibusque parati. Yes, sir, the independence of America, to maintain republican liberty, was won by the arms and treasure, iscretion that State has intrusted its interests here, will not allow me to be still. God forbid that I should do injustice to South Carolina. I know well the gallantry of many of her sons. I know the response which she made to the appeal of Boston for union against the Stamp Act—the Fugitive Slave Act of that day—by the pen of Christopher Gadsden. And I remember with sorrow that this patriot was obliged to confess, at the time, her weakness in having such a number of slaves, though it is <
James Otis (search for this): chapter 71
all over with the scars of nullification, and first lecture there. Ay, sir, let him look into his own heart, and lecture to himself. But enough for the present on the extent of my constitutional obligations to become a Slave-hunter. There are, however, yet other things in the assault of the venerable Senator, which, for the sake of truth, in just defence of Massachusetts, and in honor of Freedom, shall not be left unanswered. Alluding to those days when Massachusetts was illustrated by Otis, Hancock, and the brace of Adamses; when Faneuil Hall sent forth echoes of liberty which resounded even to South Carolina, and the very stones in the streets of Boston rose in mutiny against tyranny, the Senator with the silver-white locks, in the very ecstasy of Slavery, broke forth in the ejaculation that Massachusetts was then slaveholding; and he presumed to hail these patriots as representatives of hardy, slaveholding Massachusetts. Sir, I repel the imputation. It is true that Massachu
1 2 3