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) 1 1 Browse Search
Hon. J. L. M. Curry , LL.D., William Robertson Garrett , A. M. , Ph.D., Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 1.1, Legal Justification of the South in secession, The South as a factor in the territorial expansion of the United States (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) 1 1 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Hon. J. L. M. Curry , LL.D., William Robertson Garrett , A. M. , Ph.D., Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 1.1, Legal Justification of the South in secession, The South as a factor in the territorial expansion of the United States (ed. Clement Anselm Evans). You can also browse the collection for April 11th, 1860 AD or search for April 11th, 1860 AD in all documents.

Your search returned 1 result in 1 document section:

Hon. J. L. M. Curry , LL.D., William Robertson Garrett , A. M. , Ph.D., Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 1.1, Legal Justification of the South in secession, The South as a factor in the territorial expansion of the United States (ed. Clement Anselm Evans), The civil history of the Confederate States (search)
y one leader, Mr. Greeley, whose facilities for gathering information were so peculiarly great as to authorize him to say that the South cannot be kicked out of the Union. Without designing to speak offensively he thus flatly ridiculed the warnings of 1860 uttered by Northern conservative statesmen. Another event which familiarized yet more the public mind with the idea of division of the States was the disruption of the Democratic national convention, which met in Charleston, S. C., April 11, 1860. There were present at this convention complete delegations from all the States, South as well as North, representing the nationality of the great party then in power, and harmonious on all questions, except on the application of the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the territories. The power to legislate against slave property by the territorial legislature was affirmed by a close majority vote in somewhat evasive language, thus endorsing the doctrine of Mr. Do