Your search returned 223 results in 87 document sections:

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
and Morrill, of Maine, and further opposed by Messrs. Wright (Union), of Ind., Willey, of West Va. (who wished the question of Emancipation submitted to a popular voavis, Henderson. Kennedy, Latham, McDougall, Nesmith, Powell, Saulsbury, Stark, Willey, Wilson, of Mo., and Wright--14. This bill having reached the House, Mr. Stely assailed by Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, and more temperately opposed by Messrs. Willey, of Va., McDougall and Latham, of Cal., and Powell, of Ky. Mr. Henderson, os 32 (including Davis, of Ky., Henderson, of Mo., Thomson [Dem.], of N. J., and Willey, of Pa.); Nays--Messrs. Bayard and Saulsbury, of Del., Kennedy, of Md., Carlilepirit, but more temperately, the bill was opposed by Messrs. Browning, of 111., Willey, of Va., Henderson, of Mo., and Collamer, of Vt. (the first and last Republican: June 23, 1864. Yeas 27; Nays 12--Messrs. Cowan, of Pa., and Van Winkle and Willey, of West Va., voting with the Opposition. The President's signature, five days
. 11. 1864. to the Senate by Mr. Henderson of Mo., and adopted April 8. in that branch by the strong vote of 38 to 6; as follows: Yeas--[Democrats in Italics.] Maine--Fessenden, Morrill. New Hampshire--Clark, Hale. Massachusetts--Sumner, Wilson. Rhode Island--Anthony, Sprague. Connecticut--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, <
is at the point of destruction. Some reckless and wicked stragglers from our troops have penetrated every dwelling place they could find unoccupied, and set fire to each one. Even Webster's has not escaped. Smoke and flame are pouring out of every door and window. We must make at least an effort to save it. My companion runs into the first floor, and sweeps out piles of blazing straw. Only one room has been seriously damaged; the others are merely scorched and stained with smoke. Chaplain Willey of the Third Connecticut regiment would not recognize his old comfortable chamber, and my own is quite impenetrable from the blinding smoke. But a little labor saves this house for the time, although it does not seem likely long to escape. It is a shameful fact that, on Sunday afternoon, at least a score of houses in the neighborhood of Falls Church were wantonly destroyed by wandering mischief-doers from our camps. The whole air was red and black, by turns, with their flame and. s
arlisle, of Virginia; Harris, of New-York; Kennedy, of Maryland; Latham, of California; Nesmith, of Oregon; Pearce, of Maryland; Powell, of Kentucky; Rice, of Minnesota; Saulsbury, of Delaware; Ten Eyck, of New-Jersey; Thomson, of New-Jersey; and Willey, of Virginia. Among these are five of the seven members of the Committee of the Judiciary; and two, Harris, of New-York, and Cowan, of Pennsylvania, are Republicans. The debate was distinguished by signal ability on both sides. Undoubtedly tt I have ever tried to support, in letter and in spirit, I will ask a fair and impartial hearing. This, and this only, is the tribunal with which I intend to be content. Mr. Bright then referred to the question of the Senator from Virginia, ( Mr. Willey,) asking him to define the letter of September to the Senator. I will say that I have had but one countersign since I have been on duty here, and that has been — peace, peace, peace. War never, never, never, as a remedy for any supposed griev
atham, Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Powell, Rice, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Thomson, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilmot, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of Missouri--thirty-six. On the fourteenth, the Senate resumed the considrs. On motion of Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, the fifth section, relative to State and local bounties, was stricken out. Mr. Willey, of West-Virginia, moved to add a section, discharging any soldier belonging to any regiment or organization mustered oenlistment should only be for the unexpired term of the regiment or other organization. The amendment was supported by Mr. Willey, Mr. Hendricks, and Mr. Grimes, and opposed by Mr. Wilson, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Conness, and rejected. Mr. Buckalew, oive to the land grant railroads, and ask a further conference. The motion was agreed to, and Mr. Harris, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Willey were appointed managers. The House agreed to a further conference, and the Speaker appointed Mr. Thayer, of Pennsylvan
C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874., Section Ninth: Emancipation of the African race. (search)
counts in our terrible indictment what Africa has suffered all hail! Niobe of the nations duty to fallen soldiers Plea for National Cemeteries Congress Adopts the plan I. In the debate, on the passage of the bill amending the Charter of the City of Washington, in May, 1864, prejudice and injustice still insisted on inserting the word while before the word male, so as to exclude Colored suffrage. When all its advocates had finished, Mr. Sumner dropped a few words, especially to Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, who had opposed the extension of the right to Colored people, with the violence indicated by these words:—This provision, I undertake to say, is not only odious to the people of this District, but that it will be disastrous in its results, not only here, but in its influence on popular opinion everywhere in the nation. Mr. President,—Slavery dies hard. It still stands front to front with our embattled armies, holding them in check. It dies hard on the battle-field;
I. In the debate, on the passage of the bill amending the Charter of the City of Washington, in May, 1864, prejudice and injustice still insisted on inserting the word while before the word male, so as to exclude Colored suffrage. When all its advocates had finished, Mr. Sumner dropped a few words, especially to Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, who had opposed the extension of the right to Colored people, with the violence indicated by these words:—This provision, I undertake to say, is not only odious to the people of this District, but that it will be disastrous in its results, not only here, but in its influence on popular opinion everywhere in the nation. Mr. President,—Slavery dies hard. It still stands front to front with our embattled armies, holding them in check. It dies hard on the battle-field; it dies hard in the Senate Chamber. We have been compelled during this session, to hear various defences of slavery, sometimes in its most offensive forms. Slave-hunting ha
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 seceded States. Congressional Globe, Feb. 17, 1862, p. 843; July 7, Globe, p. 3139; Works, vol. VII. p. 162. These propositions occasioned much excitement in the Senate, and Republican leaders—Sherman, Fessenden, Dixon, and Doolittle—were prompt to disavow emphatically any responsibility of the Republican party for them. Sherman went so far as to say that they acknowledged the right of secession, and he could draw no distinction between them and the doctrines of Jefferson Davis. Willey and Carlile of Virginia, representing border State allegiance, imputed disloyalty to Sumner, and also likened him to Jefferson Davis. He encountered similar criticism outside of the Senate, as well from some supporters of the Administration as from its opponents. The New York Evening Post, March 13, 1862, wrote an elaborate leader against it. Joel Parker, professor at Cambridge, treated the offer of the resolutions as an act of treason, and more mischievous than open adhesion to slavery.
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)
r review, he carried the same amendment to two charters, succeeding after spirited contests by a small majority in each case,—defeated at one stage and prevailing at a later one. Feb. 10, 25, March 16, 17, June 21, 1864; Works, vol. VIII. pp. 103-117. The amendment was rejected, June 21, by fourteen to sixteen,—Foster, Grimes, Sherman, and Trumbull voting nay; but moved again by Sumner on the same day, it passed by a vote of seventeen to sixteen. The opposition of Saulsbury, Powell, and Willey abounded in ribaldry. Republican senators—Trumbull, Sherman, Doolittle, and Grimes, as well as Reverdy Johnson—contended that an express prohibition was superfluous, as the exclusion was already forbidden by the common law; but this contention overlooked the opposite practice and judicial view prevailing in the slave and also in some of the free States. Sherman objected on the ground of the embarrassment to which the proprietors of the railway would be subjected. Sumner reminded Trumbull
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)
, Warner (Ala.), Williams (Oregon), Wilson (Mass.). Against the treaty,—Boreman (W. Va.), Casserly) (Cal.), Cragin (N. H.), Davis (Ky.), Edmunds (Vt.), Ferry (Conn.), Fowler (Tenn.), Hamilton (Md.), Harris (La.), Johnston (Va.), McCreery (Ky.), Morrill (me.), Morrill (Vt), Patterson (N. H.), Pool (N. C.), Robertson (S. C.), Ross (Kan.), Saulsbury (Del.), Sawyer (S. C.), Schurz (Mo.). Scott (Penn.), Sprague (R. I.), Stockton (N. J.), Sumner (Mass.), Thurman (O.), Tipton (Neb.), Vickers (Md.), Willey (W. Va.). Pairs for the treaty,—Ames (Miss.), Anthony (R. I.), Carpenter (Wis.), Gilbert (Fla.), Hamilton (Tex.), Howe (Wis.), and Pomeroy (Kan.). Pairs against the treaty,--Banyard (Del.). Buckinghamn (Conn.), Kellogg (La.), and Yates (111.). Sherman, though in his seat, did not vote. The Senate records might show a slight variation from the above lists. The composition of the Senate was such at this time and for four years after that it was open to Executive pressure as at no other perio
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...