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) 16,340 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 6,437 1 Browse Search
France (France) 2,462 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 2,310 0 Browse Search
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) 1,788 0 Browse Search
Europe 1,632 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 1,606 0 Browse Search
Canada (Canada) 1,474 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 1,468 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 1,404 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing). Search the whole document.

Found 31 total hits in 16 results.

1 2
United States (United States) (search for this): entry fugitive-slave-laws
Fugitive slave laws. In 1793 an act was passed by Congress for the rendition of fugitive slaves. It provided that the owner of the slave, or servant. as it was termed in the act, his agent or attorney, might seize the fugitive and carry him before any United States judge, or before any magistrate of the city, town, or county in which tile arrest was made; such magistrate, on being satisfied that the charges against the fugitive were true, should give a certificate to that effect, which was a sufficient warrant for remanding the person seized back to slavery. Any person in any way obstructing such seizure or removal, or harboring or concealing such fugitive, was liable to a penalty of $500. For some time the law attracted very little attention, but finally this summary violation of the right of personal liberty without a trial by jury, or any appeal on points of law, was denounced as dangerous and unconstitutional; and most of the free-labor States passed acts forbidding thei
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): entry fugitive-slave-laws
members from the free-labor States as going entirely beyond the constitutional provision on the subject of fugitives from labor. They contended that the personal rights of one class of citizens were not to be trampled upon to secure the rights of property of other citizens. The bill was supported by the Southern members and a few Northern ones; also by Speaker Henry Clay: and it passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 84 to 69. Among the yeas were ten from New York, five from Massachusetts, four from Pennsylvania, and one front New Jersey. It passed the Senate, after several important amendments, by a vote of 17 to 13. Meanwhile some of its Northern supporters seem to have been alarmed bv thunders of indignation from their constituents, and when it reached the House it was laid on the table, and was there allowed to die. One of the acts contemplated by Mr. Clay's omnibus bill (q. v.) was for the rendition of fugitive slaves to their owners, under the provision of cl
New Jersey (New Jersey, United States) (search for this): entry fugitive-slave-laws
y beyond the constitutional provision on the subject of fugitives from labor. They contended that the personal rights of one class of citizens were not to be trampled upon to secure the rights of property of other citizens. The bill was supported by the Southern members and a few Northern ones; also by Speaker Henry Clay: and it passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 84 to 69. Among the yeas were ten from New York, five from Massachusetts, four from Pennsylvania, and one front New Jersey. It passed the Senate, after several important amendments, by a vote of 17 to 13. Meanwhile some of its Northern supporters seem to have been alarmed bv thunders of indignation from their constituents, and when it reached the House it was laid on the table, and was there allowed to die. One of the acts contemplated by Mr. Clay's omnibus bill (q. v.) was for the rendition of fugitive slaves to their owners, under the provision of clause 3, section 2, article 4, of the national Consti
Baltimore, Md. (Maryland, United States) (search for this): entry fugitive-slave-laws
ints of law, was denounced as dangerous and unconstitutional; and most of the free-labor States passed acts forbidding their magistrates, under severe penalties, to take any part in carrying this law into effect. It became a dead letter until revived in 1850. The domestic slave-trade increased the liability of free persons of color being kidnapped, under the provisions of the fugitive slave act of 1793. A petition was presented to Congress in 1818 from the yearly meeting of Friends at Baltimore, praying for further provisions for protecting free persons of color. This had followed a bill brought in by a committee at the instigation of Pindall, a member from Virginia, for giving new stringency to the fugitive slave act. While this bill was pending, a member from Rhode Island (Burritt) moved to instruct the committee on the Quaker memorial to inquire into the expediency of additional provisions for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade. Pindall's bill was warmly opposed by m
Rhode Island (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): entry fugitive-slave-laws
rade increased the liability of free persons of color being kidnapped, under the provisions of the fugitive slave act of 1793. A petition was presented to Congress in 1818 from the yearly meeting of Friends at Baltimore, praying for further provisions for protecting free persons of color. This had followed a bill brought in by a committee at the instigation of Pindall, a member from Virginia, for giving new stringency to the fugitive slave act. While this bill was pending, a member from Rhode Island (Burritt) moved to instruct the committee on the Quaker memorial to inquire into the expediency of additional provisions for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade. Pindall's bill was warmly opposed by members from the free-labor States as going entirely beyond the constitutional provision on the subject of fugitives from labor. They contended that the personal rights of one class of citizens were not to be trampled upon to secure the rights of property of other citizens. The bill
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): entry fugitive-slave-laws
bor States as going entirely beyond the constitutional provision on the subject of fugitives from labor. They contended that the personal rights of one class of citizens were not to be trampled upon to secure the rights of property of other citizens. The bill was supported by the Southern members and a few Northern ones; also by Speaker Henry Clay: and it passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 84 to 69. Among the yeas were ten from New York, five from Massachusetts, four from Pennsylvania, and one front New Jersey. It passed the Senate, after several important amendments, by a vote of 17 to 13. Meanwhile some of its Northern supporters seem to have been alarmed bv thunders of indignation from their constituents, and when it reached the House it was laid on the table, and was there allowed to die. One of the acts contemplated by Mr. Clay's omnibus bill (q. v.) was for the rendition of fugitive slaves to their owners, under the provision of clause 3, section 2, articl
Elihu Burritt (search for this): entry fugitive-slave-laws
ed the liability of free persons of color being kidnapped, under the provisions of the fugitive slave act of 1793. A petition was presented to Congress in 1818 from the yearly meeting of Friends at Baltimore, praying for further provisions for protecting free persons of color. This had followed a bill brought in by a committee at the instigation of Pindall, a member from Virginia, for giving new stringency to the fugitive slave act. While this bill was pending, a member from Rhode Island (Burritt) moved to instruct the committee on the Quaker memorial to inquire into the expediency of additional provisions for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade. Pindall's bill was warmly opposed by members from the free-labor States as going entirely beyond the constitutional provision on the subject of fugitives from labor. They contended that the personal rights of one class of citizens were not to be trampled upon to secure the rights of property of other citizens. The bill was support
Pindall (search for this): entry fugitive-slave-laws
f 1793. A petition was presented to Congress in 1818 from the yearly meeting of Friends at Baltimore, praying for further provisions for protecting free persons of color. This had followed a bill brought in by a committee at the instigation of Pindall, a member from Virginia, for giving new stringency to the fugitive slave act. While this bill was pending, a member from Rhode Island (Burritt) moved to instruct the committee on the Quaker memorial to inquire into the expediency of additional provisions for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade. Pindall's bill was warmly opposed by members from the free-labor States as going entirely beyond the constitutional provision on the subject of fugitives from labor. They contended that the personal rights of one class of citizens were not to be trampled upon to secure the rights of property of other citizens. The bill was supported by the Southern members and a few Northern ones; also by Speaker Henry Clay: and it passed the House of
James Murray Mason (search for this): entry fugitive-slave-laws
bv thunders of indignation from their constituents, and when it reached the House it was laid on the table, and was there allowed to die. One of the acts contemplated by Mr. Clay's omnibus bill (q. v.) was for the rendition of fugitive slaves to their owners, under the provision of clause 3, section 2, article 4, of the national Constitution. In September, 1850, a bill to that effect was passed, and became a law by the signature of President Fillmore. The bill was drawn up by Senator James M. Mason, of Virginia, and in some of its features was made very offensive to the sentiments and feelings of the people of the free-labor States. It provided that the master of a fugitive slave, or his agent, might go into any State or Territory of the republic, and, with or without legal warrant there obtained, seize such fugitive, and take him forthwith before any judge or commissioner, whose duty it should be to hear and determine the case. On satisfactory proof being furnished the judge
Henry Clay (search for this): entry fugitive-slave-laws
from labor. They contended that the personal rights of one class of citizens were not to be trampled upon to secure the rights of property of other citizens. The bill was supported by the Southern members and a few Northern ones; also by Speaker Henry Clay: and it passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 84 to 69. Among the yeas were ten from New York, five from Massachusetts, four from Pennsylvania, and one front New Jersey. It passed the Senate, after several important amendments,. Meanwhile some of its Northern supporters seem to have been alarmed bv thunders of indignation from their constituents, and when it reached the House it was laid on the table, and was there allowed to die. One of the acts contemplated by Mr. Clay's omnibus bill (q. v.) was for the rendition of fugitive slaves to their owners, under the provision of clause 3, section 2, article 4, of the national Constitution. In September, 1850, a bill to that effect was passed, and became a law by the
1 2