Your search returned 56 results in 16 document sections:

1 2
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: The Opening Battles. Volume 1., chapter 12.46 (search)
ate. I felt in 1861, as I now know, that the assertion that General Johnston intended to turn over to the secessionists the defenses of California, or any part of the regular army, was false and absurd. Under no circumstances, even if intended, could such a plan have succeeded, especially with the regular army. But no such breach of trust was intended, nor would any graduate of West Point in the army have committed or permitted it. It had no better foundation than the statement of Senator Conness of California, who three years later urged and secured the assignment of General McDowell to command on the Pacific coast, on the ground that after the war for the Union should have ended there would be in California a more powerful rebellion than that then existing among the Southern States. Fitz John Porter. New York, December 8, 1884. His heart and intellect both recognized their claim upon his services, and he obeyed. At this time he wrote, No one could feel more sensibly the
cut--Dixon, Foster. Vermont--Collamer, Foot. New York — Harris, Morgan. New Jersey--Ten Eyck. Pennsylvania--Cowan. Maryland--Reverly Johnson. West Virginia--Van Winkle, Willey. Ohio — Sherman, Wade. Indiana--Henry S. Lane. Illinois--Trumbull. Missouri--Brown. Henderson. Michigan--Chandler, Howard. Iowa — Grimes, Harlan. Wisconsin--Doolittle, Howe. Minnesota--Ramsey, Wilkinson. Kansas--J. H. Lane, Pomeroy. Oregon--Harding, Nesmith. California--Conness.--Total, 38. Nays--[All Democrats.] Delaware--Riddle, Saulsbury. Kentucky--Davis, Powell. Indiana--Hendricks. California--McDougall.--Total, 6. Not Voting.--Buckalew, Pa.; Wright, N. J.; Hicks, Md.; Bowden and Carlile, Va.; Richardson, Ill.--all Democrats. But it failed June 15. in the House: Yeas 95; Nays 66--substantially, though not absolutely, a party division. Mr. Ashley, of Ohio — changing his vote to enable him to do so — now moved a reconsideration; and
d Mr. Johnson, and opposed by Mr. Trumbull, Mr. Conness, Mr. Davis, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Farwell. Thereed to — yeas, twenty-eight; nays, twelve. Mr. Conness, of California, moved to amend the bill, bymand during the pleasure of the President. Mr. Conness demanded the yeas and nays, and they were oenate, on the eighteenth of February, 1864, Mr. Conness, of California, introduced a joint resolutiproper appropriation for the land service. Mr. Conness stated that the joint resolution was preparfter debate, in which Mr. Howe, Mr. Sumner, Mr. Conness, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Fessenden Wilson, Mr. Ten Eyck, Mr. Lane, of Kansas, Mr. Conness, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Sumner, Mre national forces. After debate, in which Mr. Conness, Mr. Brown, Mr. Collamer, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Greed to — yeas, twenty-one; nays, eighteen. Mr. Conness moved to lay the bill on the table, but the, twenty-eight; nays, twelve. On motion of Mr. Conness, the bill was amended, so that any recruiti[5 more...]<
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 7. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Letter from General Hampton on the burning of Columbia. (search)
f taking up the time of the Senate in reading letters addressed not to the Senate but to individual Senators, and especially on matters pertaining to private controversies between persons not members of the Senate. Mr. Johnson moved the reference of General.Hampton's letter to the Committee on Military Affairs, or he was willing to have it lie on the table. Mr. Fessenden hoped it would not be referred or ordered to lie on the table, but that the Senate would refuse to receive it. Mr. Conness said that a man who would attempt to destroy the Government of the United States would certainly not hesitate to burn a city. He hoped the letter of Wade Hampton would not be received or considered at all by the Senate. Mr. Johnson then withdrew the letter of General Hampton. Times have changed since 1866. General Sherman, in his Memoirs published in 1875, maintains that Columbia was burned by accident and not by design, and makes this most remarkable admission [Memoirs, volume II
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)
of the senators—Mr. Morrill of Vermont said with emphasis, when Sumner was no longer a member of the committee, that his administration of its business during the period he remained chairman was masterly. In a conversation with the writer. Mr. Conness said in the Senate, Feb. 6, 1868: Without any disrespect to the other members of the committee, I had really begun to believe that the honorable senator [Sumner] was the committee. Sumner answered from his seat, Oh, no; not at all. Another asured his rejection as chief-justice. Sumner disavowed personal feeling, which Bright attributed to him. He treated particularly in his speech the kind of evidence competent in such a case. He led the debate, Feb. 13, 1868, in co-operation with Conness, Edmunds, Howard, and Sherman, against the admission of Philip F. Thomas, senator-elect from Maryland, specifically on the ground that he had permitted a minor son to leave home to enlist in the Confederate army, and had provided him with money
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 49: letters to Europe.—test oath in the senate.—final repeal of the fugitive-slave act.—abolition of the coastwise slave-trade.—Freedmen's Bureau.—equal rights of the colored people as witnesses and passengers.—equal pay of colored troops.—first struggle for suffrage of the colored people.—thirteenth amendment of the constitution.— French spoliation claims.—taxation of national banks.— differences with Fessenden.—Civil service Reform.—Lincoln's re-election.—parting with friends.—1863-1864. (search)
iates were Howard of Michigan, Pomeroy of Kansas, Gratz Brown of Missouri, and Conness of California. He introduced a bill to repeal all fugitive—slave acts, which d, notwithstanding its exclusion of the Act of 1793 from repeal; but Brown and Conness of his committee refused to support it after the amendment had passed, and it ng the charter of an existing company, overcoming the objection made by Dixon, Conness, and Hale that his proposition was irrelevant,—and, as was often the case, faias drawn by Mr. Chase. was lost; but he was supported by Chandler of Michigan, Conness, Howard, Lane of Indiana, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Wilkinson, and Wiin the Senate while Sumner was speaking. This is stated by another senator, Mr. Conness, in an interview published in the Gold Hill (Colorado) News, and sent by him in a note to Sumner, August 22. 1865. Mr. Conness said, Mr. Fessenden was always snapping at Mr. Sumner in debate. Frederick Douglass, writing to Sumner, Sept. 9,
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)
ceased, and Congress shall have declared it entitled to representation; but it obtained only eight votes—those of Brown, Conness, Grimes, Howard, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, and Wade. On the 24th Sumner renewed his effort to displace the resolution wsuccess. When asked not to waste time, and senators said from their seats, Give up! he replied, That is not my habit. Conness said, We know that, and there was laughter. The debate proceeded. Powell of Kentucky, from a Southern standpoint, oppoes Booth. He became instantly senseless, and did not recover consciousness. Sumner was at the time at the house of Senator Conness, in company with him and Senator Stewart; and being told what had occurred by some one rushing in from the street, th his steadfast support of colored suffrage against the President's plan. Members of Congress were confused by events. Conness did not see how impartial suffrage, although he believed in it, could be imposed by Congress. Wilson, Fessenden, who
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)
; and it was declared to be carried. Fessenden doubted the decision, and Anthony, the chairman, calling on senators to stand, the result was fifteen in favor to thirteen (or perhaps fourteen) against. Fifteen to fourteen are the figures of Mr. Conness, and also of the New York Tribune, February 18. Sumner, in a note to his Works (vol. XI. p. 104), gives the vote as fifteen to thirteen, and in a letter to Mr. Bright as seventeen to fifteen. Sherman gave his recollections of the committee'e adoption of the proposition. He left the caucus at once, and sought to defeat it by personal appeals to members of the House. His action in this respect led to an acrimonious debate in the Senate, in which Wade took him severely to task; and Conness also made reflections on the senator from Maine. (Feb. 19, 1867, Congressional Globe, pp. 1555-1560.) The griefs of this debate were thought to have had an effect on the impeachment trial of the next year. Sherman, hitherto averse to it, mainta
The Daily Dispatch: November 17, 1863., [Electronic resource], A Grand shoddy wedding in WashingtonJenkins's description of the affair. (search)
th, with the usual addition of a white silk vest. Among the dignitaries of the evening we noticed the President, Abraham Lincoln, together with nearly all the members of the Cabinet--Messrs. Stanton, Bates, and others. Of the foreign ministers there were present Lord Lyons and Count Mercier. The British and French legations were also well represented. The military was represented by Major-Generals Halleck, Auger, McDowell, and other officers of lesser note. Senators Wilson, and Conness, of California, we also noticed during the course of the evening. Hon. Simon Cameron and his two daughters were alike conspicuous among the hosts of guests assembled on the occasion, together with President Garrett and Wm. Prescott Smith. At half-past 11 o'clock the dancing (the Lancers) commenced in the dining room. Miss Kate Chase led off with Hon. R. C. Parsons, ex-Consal to Rio Janeiro, as her partner. The young and beautiful daughter of Gen. McDowell was singled out among the c
The Daily Dispatch: January 25, 1864., [Electronic resource], Debate in the U. S. Senate--Garret Davis. (search)
very just measure of this Administration to carry on the war to a speedy and successful issue, but there is a higher vein of loyalty than that. Where a Senator — where any individual — believes that he discovers that the administration of the Government, and especially in its Executive Department, is in conflict with the liberty of the people, it is a higher prerogative of loyalty to oppose such aggression upon the Constitution than it is to approve its measures where they are right. I make my acknowledgements to the gentleman from California for his frankness, that he is in favor of free investigation. Mr. Conness remarked that the gentleman, in having fallen from "glory" to his present degradation, in having once heard the lion roar, was now compelled to listen to the howling of the jackals. "To what base uses do we come at last." It could not be fairly deduced from him that he could ever shrink from any of the facts regarding the proper administration of the Governmen
1 2