Browsing named entities in Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4. You can also browse the collection for April 13th or search for April 13th in all documents.

Your search returned 6 results in 6 document sections:

Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 44: Secession.—schemes of compromise.—Civil War.—Chairman of foreign relations Committee.—Dr. Lieber.—November, 1860April, 1861. (search)
ul at Cardiff; H. R. Helper, consul at Buenos Ayres; Seth Webb, consul at Port-au-Prince, William S. Thayer, consul in Egypt; and Anson Burlingame, minister to China. His influence secured a place on the Sanitary Commission for Dr. Samuel G. Howe; but though exerted from the beginning, it failed to make him minister to Greece,—a country with which Dr. Howe was identified in his youth. Sumner, as was his habit, lingered at Washington after the close of the session; and he was still there April 13 (the day Fort Sumter was surrendered), and even later, on the 15th, when the President issued his proclamation calling for seventy-five thousand troops. He left the capital on the 18th, and stopped in Baltimore, taking a room at Barnum's Hotel. His presence in the city becoming known, a riotous crowd gathered in search of him; and the proprietor insisted that he should leave at once, as his longer stay would be perilous to his property as well as to the guest. The latter, however, claimi
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 48: Seward.—emancipation.—peace with France.—letters of marque and reprisal.—foreign mediation.—action on certain military appointments.—personal relations with foreigners at Washington.—letters to Bright, Cobden, and the Duchess of Argyll.—English opinion on the Civil War.—Earl Russell and Gladstone.—foreign relations.—1862-1863. (search)
ated the escape of the Alabama as an accident, and giving no case of quarrel. He claimed that a neutral could sell unarmed ships to a belligerent, and that such was the case of the Alabama. He regarded with astonishment Sumner's undying confidence in our success, though he should rejoice to see it justified by the event. The duchess replied also on the 29th in much the same vein, though now, as always, with the greatest personal sympathy with and interest in her correspondent. Again, April 13— Yours of the 26th, my dear duchess, has come this morning, and I make haste to report the feeling of to-day in season for the bag, which will leave in an hour. I have just come from the President. He had expected a repulse at Charleston. Some weeks ago he revealed to me his want of confidence in the expedition, although the navy department were always most confident. To-day the President is more hopeful. The Keokuk, which was sunk, was the feeblest of all. The other vessels stoo
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 51: reconstruction under Johnson's policy.—the fourteenth amendment to the constitution.—defeat of equal suffrage for the District of Columbia, and for Colorado, Nebraska, and Tennessee.—fundamental conditions.— proposed trial of Jefferson Davis.—the neutrality acts. —Stockton's claim as a senator.—tributes to public men. —consolidation of the statutes.—excessive labor.— address on Johnson's Policy.—his mother's death.—his marriage.—1865-1866. (search)
ebel States on their readmission. The Territory of Colorado, seeking admission at this time, contained less than one hundred colored inhabitants. Its entire population was very small, and the proceedings for forming a constitution had been quite irregular. Sumner in several speeches opposed the application on the ground of irregularity and insufficient numbers, but chiefly because the constitution of the proposed State expressly confined suffrage to white male citizens. March 12 and 13, April 17, 19, and 24, May 21, 1866. Works, vol. x. pp. 346-374. He proposed as a fundamental condition, framed after the model of the Missouri restriction of slavery, that there should be no denial of the elective franchise, or of any other rights, on account of race or color in the proposed State; and in his view the condition when accepted would be perpetually obligatory. Sumner proposed. Feb. 25, 1865, to apply the same fundamental condition to Louisiana, following the Missouri Compromi
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 54: President Grant's cabinet.—A. T. Stewart's disability.—Mr. Fish, Secretary of State.—Motley, minister to England.—the Alabama claims.—the Johnson-Clarendon convention.— the senator's speech: its reception in this country and in England.—the British proclamation of belligerency.— national claims.—instructions to Motley.—consultations with Fish.—political address in the autumn.— lecture on caste.—1869. (search)
his opposition in 1868 to the retaliation bill; and his constant suppression of Mr. Chandler's bills and resolutions aimed against Great Britain. The New York Tribune, April 21, 1869, contrasts Sumner and Chandler in their treatment of international questions. It became now his duty, as chairman of the committee on foreign relations, in reporting adversely upon the convention, to state the reasons for its rejection when it was under consideration at the special session of the Senate, April 13. This he did in a speech somewhat brief for him,—occupying, perhaps, an hour in delivery. Works, vol. XIII. pp. 53-93. He avoided matters of aggravation, like the Trent case and the St. Albans raid, and maintained a tone as conciliatory as his statement admitted. He showed the inadequacy of the convention; how it belittled the work to be done by its very form, in taking for a model the claims-convention of 1853, which was for the settlement of purely individual claims, and in choosing
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 56: San Domingo again.—the senator's first speech.—return of the angina pectoris.—Fish's insult in the Motley Papers.— the senator's removal from the foreign relations committee.—pretexts for the remioval.—second speech against the San Domingo scheme.—the treaty of Washington.—Sumner and Wilson against Butler for governor.—1870-1871. (search)
ot apply to San Domingo, which it was not proposed to admit as a State. In Senate, Dec. 20 and 21, 1870. Thurman, Congressional Globe, pp. 193, 250; Davis, Ibid., p. 195; Bayard, Ibid., p. 226. This idea of recurring to an act which had been repudiated as a precedent in the change of American opinion on the extension of slavery came from General Butler, who at the last session, when the approval of the treaty by the Senate seemed improbable, tried on nine different days April 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 20; May 12; June 1, 14. The New York Herald approved the method, April 8 and July 1, 1870. without success to introduce a joint resolution for the acquisition of San Domingo. Such a measure from such a quarter was no occasion of surprise, as its author was in full accord with the pro-slavery policy of the Democratic party at the time of the annexation of Texas, and had so recently as 1860 supported the nomination of Jefferson Davis and the candidacy of Breckinridge. During the recess of
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 18 (search)
en the treaty and necessary papers were ripe for the consideration of the Senate. The. intervening period was occupied with inaction on both sides, principally the Danish; more or less skirmishing between the parties as to the government from which the first offer of amount should come; prolonged silence and inattention of the Cabinet at Copenhagen after Mr. Seward's first offer, which our minister at that court was unable to break; Mr. Yeaman's letters to Mr. Seward, January 21, March 13, April 27 and 30, and May 2, 1867. finally, instead of an acceptance of Mr. Seward's offers, one counter proposition and then another; the Danish minister at Washington going home and leaving no successor; the insistence of Denmark after the price had been fixed on a vote of the islanders, which in view of what they were could be of no significance, and which involved vexatious questions and postponements, so that the treaty was not signed till Oct. 24, 1867, and not submitted to the Senate till