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
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4 36 0 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 F. T. Frelinghuysen or search for F. T. Frelinghuysen in all documents.

Your search returned 18 results in 9 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)
t 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 as he left; but Thomas's resistance, as a member of Buchanan's Cabinet, to the relief of Fort Sumter, and his resignation when it was decided to send provisions to the garrison, was the underlying motive with senators for excluding him. He was refused a seat, although his right was maintained by the votes of Anthony, Fessenden, and Frelinghuysen. Works, vol. XII. pp. 257-269. of Indiana, both senators being accused of participating in or giving countenance to the rebellion; and also in the debate on the admission of Stark of Oregon, to whom disloyal conduct was imputed. Feb. 18, 26. June 5, 1862. Works, vol. VI. pp. 346-364. He spoke in favor of the title of Lane of Kansas to his seat, maintaining that he had not lost it by accepting what was alleged to be an incompatible office. Jan. 13, 1862. Works, vol. VI. pp. 24
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)
, consisting of Sherman, Fessenden, Howard, Harris, Howe is likely to have served instead of Harris; Sherman, Feb. 10, 1870. Congressional Globe. p. 1182. Frelinghuysen, Trumbull, and Sumner, was appointed to consider the whole subject. They at once proceeded to their business, and remained in session the greater part of the osed by the resolutions at a later date, March 16; Ibid., pp. 143-163. Address, Oct. 29, 1868; Works, vol. XII. pp. 526, 527. they were opposed by Sherman and Frelinghuysen on the ground that such supplementary demands on the Southern people, following so closely on the recent Act, were discouraging and distracting, and they encouvil methods and agents had been adopted in reconstruction, saying, I would not see new States born of the bayonet,—a declaration which called out protests from Frelinghuysen and Stewart. He agreed with Conkling, who had just then become a senator, in making a majority of the registered voters, instead of a mere majority of those v
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 10 (search)
ection to the Senate, Conkling found that his bullying style did not avail him at the bar of New York city in contests with Joseph H. Choate and other leaders, and his manner sensibly changed for the better. From other senators, like Anthony, Frelinghuysen, Sherman, and Dixon, though often or generally voting against him on measures which he had greatly at heart, Sumner received most friendly treatment. The impeachment of President Johnson consumed the attention of Congress during the largerf with elaborate speeches. C. W. Slack in the Boston Commonwealth, March 6, 1869. The debate brought together in pleasant relations Sumner and Fessenden in their encounter with the Western senators, who were led by Sherman and supported by Frelinghuysen and Conkling. The measure failed at this time, but was carried at a later session. Sumner made a full report on the subject April 1, 1869, and pressed the claim in the session of 1869-1870. June 6, July 6, 1870 (Congressional Globe, pp. 4
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)
leading journals of the principal cities of the country. It was notable that conservative public men were positive in their approval of the speech. Among those who wrote to Sumner in terms of unstinted praise were H. B. Anthony, senator; F. T. Frelinghuysen, ex-senator; E. D. Morgan, former governor of New York; John H. Clifford, former governor of Massachusetts; John M. Read, the jurist of Pennsylvania; and James Russell Lowell. The current of opinion was the same in the press. The leadersanding that I was placing my duties on him, or doing else than assent to his doing what from the source or manner of the suggestion I supposed he was desirous of undertaking. Strangely enough, in the debate in the Senate, July 15, 1870, on Frelinghuysen's confirmation as minister to England, it was treated as an offence on Motley's part that he had volunteered to write his instructions. This accusation must have come from the state department. Motley prepared the paper, and Mr. Fish aft
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 55: Fessenden's death.—the public debt.—reduction of postage.— Mrs. Lincoln's pension.—end of reconstruction.—race discriminations in naturalization.—the Chinese.—the senator's record.—the Cuban Civil War.—annexation of San Domingo.—the treaties.—their use of the navy.—interview with the presedent.—opposition to the annexation; its defeat.—Mr. Fish.—removal of Motley.—lecture on Franco-Prussian War.—1869-1870. (search)
that his removal is on account of Mr. Sumner's opposition to the San Domingo treaty. His removal will be regarded by the Republicans of Massachusetts as a blow not only at him, but at Mr. Sumner. Forney had anticipated that Sumner would be held responsible for the rejection of the treaty. He wrote, June 14, to the senator, I am glad to meet you; but my heart bleeds over the future. But come what may, I am yours. On the last day of the session, July 15, the President nominated Mr. Frelinghuysen as Motley's successor, and he was confirmed. Sumner withheld his vote, but spoke in defence of Motley,—sketching his career, and laying emphasis on his thoroughly American sentiments (a supposed allusion to one of the President's reported criticisms on the minister). Boston Journal, July 16. He read as a part of his speech Senator Wilson's letter to the President in disapproval of Motley's removal. He rose again, after further debate, to reply to what he called the war of pretexts
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)
gan (Ill.), Trumbull (Ill.), Tipton (Neb.), Hitchcock (Neb.), Caldwell (Kan.), Corbett (Oreron), Schurz (Mo.), Boreman (W. Va.), Kobertson (S. C.), Spencer (Ala.), Gilbert (Fla.). The nays were Hamlin (Maine), Edmunds (Vt.), Conkling (N. Y ), Frelinghuysen (N. J.), Scott (Penn.), J. Hill (Ga.), Morton Ind.), Harlan (Iowa) Howe (Wis.), Carpenter (Wis.), Chandler (Mich.), Ferry (Mich.), Pomeroy (Kan.), Nye (Nev.), Stewart (Nev.), Ramsey (Minn.), Lewis (Va.), Brownlow (Tenn.), Pool (N. C.), Sawyer a Democrat in disguise. Congressional Globe, p. 686. upbraided him for the injustice he had done to the President, the savior of his country, and strangely enough reproached him for not having promptly protested against the alleged wrongs. Frelinghuysen and Harlan followed in the same line, and justified the use of naval power, chiefly relying on the action of Tyler and Polk in the acquisition of Texas,—pro-slavery Presidents carrying out pro-slavery purposes. Schurz supported Sumner in a
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)
n character and principle. The scene between Sumner and Carpenter, February 5, is described by J. R. G. H. in the New York Tribune, February 7. Sherman and Frelinghuysen were on the whole with Sumner, though disagreeing on one or two points; and the Senate, on the latter's motion, exempted the churches. The Chinaman again appeg its scope, and the Senate voted to retain it. There was a tie vote on Sumner's amendment Among those voting yea were Anthony, Cameron, Chandler, Conkling, Frelinghuysen, Hamlin, Harlan, Morrill (Vermont). Morton, Sherman, Sumner, Wilson, and Windom. Among those voting no were Carpenter, Ferry (Conn.), Logan, Morrill (Maine), ide; and the Democratic senators remained spectators only, watching with satisfaction a division in the Republican ranks. Carpenter, Conkling, Morton, Harlan, Frelinghuysen, and Edmunds threw themselves into the debate with their utmost vigor, and nearly all of them were unsparing in personal epithets. They charged Sumner and Sch
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 59: cordiality of senators.—last appeal for the Civil-rights bill. —death of Agassiz.—guest of the New England Society in New York.—the nomination of Caleb Cushing as chief-justice.—an appointment for the Boston custom-house.— the rescinding of the legislative censure.—last effort in debate.—last day in the senate.—illness, death, funeral, and memorial tributes.—Dec. 1, 1873—March 11, 1874. (search)
tions admitted. The subsequent history of Sumner's bill may be properly given in this connection. It came back from the judiciary committee, April 14, Mr. Frelinghuysen stated, March 17, at the first session of the Senate after its adjournment on account of Sumner's death and funeral, that the committee's report was ready anic institutions of learning, cemeteries supported wholly or in part by taxation, and to grand and petit jurors. It did not, however, interfere with churches. Frelinghuysen, who had charge of the bill, said in opening the debate:— Would that the author of the measure were here to present and defend it! To our view it would n the morning of May 23. Carpenter voted against it on account of the provision concerning juries, but Morrill of Maine and Ferry did not vote. Morton, Howe, Frelinghuysen, and Edmunds led in the debate in favor of the bill. The House did not reach a vote upon the Senate bill during this or the next session; but in February, 18
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 18 (search)
ifestly desirable as Miss Seward represents, how does it happen that no one at Washington or among the people during the twenty years since Mr. Seward left office has said a word to revive the scheme? A good thing does not die so easily; there will always be true men and wise men to appreciate what is of enduring value. We have since had six Presidents,—Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, and Harrison,—and, not counting Washburne, five Secretaries of State,—Fish, Evarts, Blaine, Frelinghuysen, and Bayard; but none of them has coveted this island of the Caribbean Sea, rifted by earthquakes, swept by cyclones, and submerged by tidal waves, the imagined centre of universal commerce and a necessary outpost for our national defence! Journalists and merchants have been alike silent. Foreign nations who were suspected to be greedy spectators have turned away from the prize. St. Thomas remains still a Danish spinster, as she has been for two hundred years, unwedded and unsought. <