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
Frederick H. Dyer, Compendium of the War of the Rebellion: Regimental Histories 273 273 Browse Search
The Daily Dispatch: October 28, 1861., [Electronic resource] 14 14 Browse Search
Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Massachusetts in the Army and Navy during the war of 1861-1865, vol. 1, Condensed history of regiments. 10 10 Browse Search
Rev. James K. Ewer , Company 3, Third Mass. Cav., Roster of the Third Massachusetts Cavalry Regiment in the war for the Union 8 8 Browse Search
Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing) 7 7 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 11. (ed. Frank Moore) 7 7 Browse Search
John D. Billings, The history of the Tenth Massachusetts battery of light artillery in the war of the rebellion 5 5 Browse Search
Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Massachusetts in the Army and Navy during the war of 1861-1865, vol. 2 5 5 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 II. 5 5 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events, Diary from December 17, 1860 - April 30, 1864 (ed. Frank Moore) 5 5 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4. You can also browse the collection for October 19th or search for October 19th in all documents.

Your search returned 5 results in 5 document sections:

Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 45: an antislavery policy.—the Trent case.—Theories of reconstruction.—confiscation.—the session of 1861-1862. (search)
ded both Sumner's and Dr. Clarke's action as untimely. The Boston Advertiser, October 4, called Sumner's an unfortunate speech. Sumner's citations from Greek and Roman history underwent criticism in newspaper articles, the tone of which disclosed that the writers were less interested in historical verity than in weakening his position as a public man. Boston Advertiser, October 3 and 10. Charles C. Hazewell came to Sumner's defence in his Review of the Week in the Boston Traveller, October 19. In a note to the speech (Works, vol. VI. pp. 30-64) Sumner printed a large number of extracts from newspapers and letters addressed to him, showing the conflict of opinion at the time. The letters which warmly approved the speech were generally from Free Soilers and others who had been long identified with the antislavery movements. Indeed, the unwelcome reception which the speech met with in conservative quarters revealed the purpose to replace him in the following year with a senator
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 50: last months of the Civil War.—Chase and Taney, chief-justices.—the first colored attorney in the supreme court —reciprocity with Canada.—the New Jersey monopoly.— retaliation in war.—reconstruction.—debate on Louisiana.—Lincoln and Sumner.—visit to Richmond.—the president's death by assassination.—Sumner's eulogy upon him. —President Johnson; his method of reconstruction.—Sumner's protests against race distinctions.—death of friends. —French visitors and correspondents.—1864-1865. (search)
for the sake of harmony with the vast political army of which he had been a conscientious and courageous leader. Sumner's chief sympathizers at this time were the old Abolitionists and Free Soilers, with here and there men of radical ways of thinking, like Wayne MacVeagh and Horace Greeley. The latter advocated during the summer and autumn in the Tribune, in able and earnest leaders, June 14, 15. 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29; July 8, 10,11, 31; August 1, 26; September 18, 20, 30: October 7, 19. the admission of the negroes to suffrage as a just and politic measure, though disclaiming the purpose to make such admission an inexorable condition in reconstruction, and avoiding any reflection on the President's proceedings. George L. Stearns, of Massachusetts, distinguished for his services for the colored people, who had while raising negro troops in Tennessee become acquainted with Mr. Johnson, was at this time his apologist. New York Tribune, October 23. Not overlooking voices
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 52: Tenure-of-office act.—equal suffrage in the District of Columbia, in new states, in territories, and in reconstructed states.—schools and homesteads for the Freedmen.—purchase of Alaska and of St. Thomas.—death of Sir Frederick Bruce.—Sumner on Fessenden and Edmunds.—the prophetic voices.—lecture tour in the West.—are we a nation?1866-1867. (search)
se coming was a mystery. Beaumont was probably with Tocqueville. His lecturing tour extended as far west as St. Louis and Dubuque, and as far north as Milwaukee. The appointments which he filled were as follows: Pontiac, Mich., October 7; Grand Rapids, October 8; Lansing, October 9; Detroit, October 10; Ann Arbor, October 11; Battle Creek, October 12: Milwaukee, Wis., October 14; Ripon, October 15; Janesville, October 16; Belvidere, Ill.. October 17; Rockford, October 18; Dubuque, la., October 19; Bloomington, Il., October 21; Peoria, October 22: Galesburg, October 25; Chicago, October 29; St. Louis, Mo., November 1; Jacksonville, Ill., November 2; Quincy, November 4. Aurora, November 5; La Porte, Ind., November 6: Toledo, O., November 7. A severe cold, accompanied with hoarseness and exhaustion, obliged him to give up his engagements in Iowa (except at Dubuque), and to rest a few days in Chicago. At Dubuque his welcome was from Hon. William B. Allison, then a member of the House
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 57: attempts to reconcile the President and the senator.—ineligibility of the President for a second term.—the Civil-rights Bill.—sale of arms to France.—the liberal Republican party: Horace Greeley its candidate adopted by the Democrats.—Sumner's reserve.—his relations with Republican friends and his colleague.—speech against the President.—support of Greeley.—last journey to Europe.—a meeting with Motley.—a night with John Bright.—the President's re-election.—1871-1872. (search)
. Cowdin assisted in forwarding. He wrote from Paris, October 17, to E. L. Pierce:— I have had much occasion latterly to meditate on the justice and friendship of this world, especially when crossed by the mandate of political power. I know the integrity of my conduct and the motives of my life. Never were they more clear or absolutely blameless than now. But never in the worst days of slavery have I been more vindictively pursued or more falsely misrepresented. Leaving Paris October 19, Sumner stopped at Brussels and Antwerp, and passed two days with Motley at the Hague,— missing the queen of Holland, then in England, who had wished much to make his acquaintance. Correspondence of J. L. Motley, vol. II. pp. 354, 355. Henry Reeve, meeting him at the station there, was much struck by the change which time and illness had wrought upon his manly form and lofty stature. On the 26th he was again in London, lodging this time at Fenton's, in St. James's Street. His friends
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 19 (search)
en, or whenever after the causes of the removal were canvassed by senators, proves that it never existed, that it never had any place in their minds, that it was never communicated to them. It was not mentioned by Mr. Conkling when he defended the removal in his speech at Cooper Institute, July 23, 1872; nor in the debate in the Senate, April 28, 1874, when it was explained or defended by Howe, Hamlin, Anthony, and Cameron; nor by Mr. Fish himself in his interviews and letters of October 19, October 29, and November 10, 1877; nor by any one except Mr. Davis, and by him only after the pretext of unreported treaties had been disproved. Mr. Howe, writing so recently as in the last number of the North American Review, gives only the non-intercourse reason, thus lending no sanction to Mr. Davis's latest invention. The memorandum, as a justification of the removal, was thus an after-thought, taking the place of another afterthought, which had failed. The statement, then, that any posit