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

Your search returned 8 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, 1860– April, 1861. (search)
hairmanship of the committees and a majority of members of each committee. It fell to Bright of Indiana, who nine years before had explained the exclusion of Chase, Hale, and Sumner by saying that they were outside of any healthy political organization, to move the new list on which the two parties had agreed. Sumner was made chairman of the committee on foreign relations, taking the place of Mason, who had held the post since 1851. His associates were Collamer, Doolittle, Harris, Douglas, Polk, and Breckinridge. He was also placed on the committees on private land claims and patents. His colleague, Wilson, became chairman of the committee on military affairs. Sumner, exercising the customary right of a chairman, designated as clerk of his committee Mr. Ben Perley Poore, not at the time a personal or political friend, and only an acquaintance for a short time, but supposed by long residence abroad to be specially competent for the duties,—requiring, however, Mr. Poore to ascerta
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)
sed associates, remained silent. The committee on foreign relations consisted of Sumner (chairman), Collamer, Doolittle of Wisconsin, Wilmot, Browning of Illinois, Polk of Missouri, and Breckinridge. Sumner's frequent motions for executive sessions showed that the committee was busy with its appropriate work. There was a generalribune, February 14.) He treated the currency question more fully July 11, 1868. Works, vol. XII. pp. 443-480. He took part in the debate on the expulsion of Polk December 18. Works, vol. VI. pp. 150, 151. He had paired with Polk, March 4, 1861. of Missouri and Bright Jan. 21 and Feb. 4, 1862. Works, vol. VI. pp. 2Polk, March 4, 1861. of Missouri and Bright Jan. 21 and Feb. 4, 1862. Works, vol. VI. pp. 252-289. Bright's offence was the giving of a letter of introduction to Jefferson Davis, March 1, 1861, similar in purport to a letter of Caleb Cushing, which some years later insured his rejection as chief-justice. Sumner disavowed personal feeling, which Bright attributed to him. He treated particularly in his speech the kind of
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)
Again, August 8:— I wish I were with you in Germany, away from these heats of weather and these cares. Your pleasant letter forgets to tell me how you like London, its society, its politicians, its cabinet ministers. I imagine you already surrounded by choice spirits. But pray tell me something of the scene. The mission to Spain was offered first to Montgomery Blair, who was indignant, saying that he had refused the post when he was a young man during the administration of Polk, and he complained to Seward that he had not pushed him for the chief-justiceship against Chase. Seward said that he had presented his papers, and that Blair was his candidate. Blair thought that if Seward had been much in earnest he could have prevented Chase's nomination. President Lincoln selected Hale for the mission to Spain] out of general kindness and good — will to the lame ducks. Hale had lost his seat in the Senate, and the President wished to break his fall. He had been urged
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)
di Anian, which is my most curious discovery in all this research. This you will find at the Coast Survey. I had two works of Kittlitz, —one in German and the other in English. Sumner put into his speech an intimation that the Senate should have been consulted in advance as to the treaty, Mr. Seward submitted in 1862 to the Senate the draught of a convention with Mexico for the assumption in part of her debt, and the Senate advising against it, the negotiation went no further. President Polk asked the advice of the Senate before concluding the treaty with Great Britain on the Oregon boundary. and also a protest against its being made a precedent for a system of indiscriminate and costly annexion,—adding his hope that subsequent expansions would come solely by the attraction of republican institutions without war, and even without purchase. This caveat proved to be opportune; for Seward, though it was not then known, was already embarked in a wild enterprise Seward had vi
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)
inal notice to Hayti; and only the weakness of that government and of Cabral's party prevented an actual collision. Such Executive measures violated the principle of non-intervention in foreign or civil wars prescribed by international law, as well as the Constitution, which invests Congress only with the power to declare war,—a provision which would be idle words if the Executive were left at liberty to make war before it was thus declared. In Congress these proceedings were justified by Polk's military movements against Mexico, which were the beginning of an unjust war for the extension of slavery; but generally they were disapproved, even by those who justified the President's good intentions. Senator Harlan, who supported the treaty, admitted them to have been irregular. Harper's Weekly wrote, April 15, 1871: There has unquestionably been a misconception of the limits of Executive power, and a consequent action which is constitutionally indefensible. But by such action our go
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)
st estate; Howe withdrew (April 14), after Sumner's speech on the Ku-Klux bill, his insinuation that Sumner had become 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 speech begun on one day and ending on the other, in which he dealt at length with the President's use of military power without authority from Congress. On the third day the subject was laid on the table on Harlan's motion. The President communicated to Congress, April 5, the report of the commissioners, which, as was expected, was altogether favorable to his view. The r