Browsing named entities in Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3. You can also browse the collection for Alexander H. Stephens or search for Alexander H. Stephens in all documents.

Your search returned 12 results in 8 document sections:

Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 32: the annexation of Texas.—the Mexican War.—Winthrop and Sumner.—1845-1847. (search)
ll naturally attracted to him the support of Southern Whigs; The Southern Whigs in the Whig caucus, acting under the lead of Stephens and Toombs. supported Winthrop in a body in preference to Vinton of Ohio. Johnston and Browne's Life of A. H. Stephens, p. 220. while for the same reasons he was distrusted by members like Giddings, Palfrey, and Tuck, who insisted upon the adoption of effective measures against the prosecution of the war and the extension of slavery. They therefore voted indted for an independent candidate of their own kind. In the interval they had been drawing nearer to South Carolina disunionism. Stephens had, perhaps, a personal reason, not having been assigned to the place on committees which he desired. A. H. Stephens's Life, by Johnston and Browne, pp. 220, 221, 237, 238. The spectacle of this small band of Free Soilers, immovable in spite of frowns and odious epithets from all sides, and threats from Southern members suggestive of disunion and violence,
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 33: the national election of 1848.—the Free Soil Party.— 1848-1849. (search)
sed the Senate, but was lost in the House,—its defeat in the latter body being accomplished, strangely enough, by Alexander H. Stephens, who, from whatever motives acting, did the country a good service on that day. A. H. Stephens's Life, by JohnA. H. Stephens's Life, by Johnston and Browne, pp. 228-230. The Boston Advertizer, July 22 and 29, 1848, and June 28, 1850, approved this measure. The debates in the years 1846-1848 in relation to the Oregon and Mexican territories brought the opponents and partisans of slavst ballot was from the slave States,—largely from States from which the Whigs could not well expect electoral votes. A. H. Stephens was one of his effective partisans. His Southern partisans, both before and after the convention, contended in their avery position saw that there was something formidable in a movement so profoundly earnest and so wisely directed. A. H. Stephens's Life, by Johnston and Browne, pp. 236-237. Notwithstanding General Taylor's slaveholding interests and associat
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 34: the compromise of 1850.—Mr. Webster. (search)
bed a compact pledging themselves to maintain the settlement effected by these measures, and not to support as candidates for President and Vice-President, or for members of Congress or of any State legislature, any man of whatever party who is not known to be opposed to the disturbance of the settlement aforesaid, and to the renewal in any form of agitation upon the subject of slavery. Giddings's History of the Rebellion, pp 348, 349. Among the signers were Howell Cobb, H. S. Foote, A. H. Stephens, R. Toombs, and J. B. Thompson. The only Whig member from New England who signed this paper was Samuel A. Eliot, of Boston. Mr. Appleton, his successor, alone of the Massachusetts delegation, voted that the Compromise, including the Fugitive Slave law, was a final and permanent settlement. April 5, 1852. The speech of Daniel Webster in the Senate, March 7, 1850, in favor of the Compromise measures, was a surprise to the people of Massachusetts. It was in conflict with the princ
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 36: first session in Congress.—welcome to Kossuth.—public lands in the West.—the Fugitive Slave Law.—1851-1852. (search)
ing labor and capital for free and slave States; but he always challenged the wrong he withstood by its real name. He never treated a grave question sportively; but when slavery was the topic, he was as serious in private talk as in the debates of the Senate. Wade's inaccuracies of statement and looseness of speech suggested corresponding limitations in character. Hale's light way of speaking of political questions in private conversation sometimes led observers to misjudge him. See A. H. Stephens's Life, by Johnston and Browne, p. 308; also Reminiscences of Samuel K. Lothrop, pp. 182-183. If the Southern men thought other Northern leaders were playing a part, and would, like Webster and Corwin, yield their position under a sufficient pressure of ambition or selfinterest, they exempted him from such a suspicion. General William Preston of Kentucky, who entered Congress in December, 1852, late in his life, told the writer that the South felt that Sumner was the only Northern ma
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 37: the national election of 1852.—the Massachusetts constitutional convention.—final defeat of the coalition.— 1852-1853. (search)
Chapter 37: the national election of 1852.—the Massachusetts constitutional convention.—final defeat of the coalition.— 1852-1853. During the years 1851-1853, Whigs and Democrats acted in concert for the suppression of antislavery agitation. Forty-four members of Congress, in January, 1851, under the lead of Henry Clay and Alexander H. Stephens, pledged themselves, as already seen, to resist any disturbance of the Compromise, or a renewal of agitation upon the subject of slavery. Ante, p. 194. At the beginning of the next session, in December, 1851, the caucus of Whig members affirmed, almost unanimously, the Compromise Acts to be a final settlement, in principle and substance, of the dangerous and exciting subjects which they embrace. The Whig members from Massachusetts were reported to have voted in caucus as follows: for the Compromise, G. T. Davis, Duncan, and Thompson; against it, Fowler, Goodrich, and Scudder. The House, April 5, 1852, by a vote of one hundred to sixt<
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 38: repeal of the Missouri Compromise.—reply to Butler and Mason.—the Republican Party.—address on Granville Sharp.—friendly correspondence.—1853-1854. (search)
; but roll-calls, May 8 and 9, disclosed a change of front on the part of several Northern Democrats. The Administration brought a pressure to bear upon its Northern supporters, and secured a majority. A mass of business having precedence stood in the way of reaching the Senate bill; and another bill identical nearly in terms was introduced and finally passed, just before midnight, May 22, by thirteen majority, after stubborn resistance, under the resolute and skilful management of Alexander H. Stephens. The bill, only changed by striking out Clayton's amendment, which confined suffrage to citizens, was promptly sent to the Senate, where Sunmer's objection stopped it for a day. Other business being laid aside, it occupied the Senate during the 24th and 25th till an hour after midnight, when it passed finally by a vote of thirty-five to thirteen. The two days debate ran largely on incidental and personal matters. The result was predetermined, and on neither side was there a dispos
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 39: the debate on Toucey's bill.—vindication of the antislavery enterprise.—first visit to the West.—defence of foreign-born citizens.—1854-1855. (search)
ote to William Jay, October 7:— My longing is for concord among men of all parties, in order to give solidity to our position. For this I am willing to abandon everything except the essential principle. Others many have the offices if the principle can be maintained. I suppose Banks will be the Northern candidate for Speaker; he has a genius for the place as marked as Bryant in poetry. You will observe an advantage which the South will have in the next House from the experience of Stephens and Cobb, re-elected from Georgia, and the whole late delegation of Virginia, while most of our Northern men will be fresh. We seem to approach success; but I shall not be disappointed if we are again baffled. Our cause is so great that it can triumph only slowly; but its triumph is sure. To John Jay, October 18:— The K. N.'s here behave badly. Our contest seems to be with them. What a fall is that of John Van Buren! The ghost of 1848 must rise before him sometimes. In th
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 40: outrages in Kansas.—speech on Kansas.—the Brooks assault.—1855-1856. (search)
tion except a reply in debate. Brooks too was a member of Congress then, and made no sign at the ampler exposure of his State and of his kinsman, who assumed the defence of the State and her cherished institution; and his now setting up a much lighter treatment of the same topics as a just provocation to violence shows that any such alleged grievance was a pretence, set up because it could be availed of thereafter in defence or mitigation in proceedings in Congress or the courts. Alexander H. Stephens is said to have desired that Brooks should issue a card disclaiming all public grounds for his act. New York Evening Post, May 30. It may be remarked that if Massachusetts senators and representatives had felt called upon to take affront at and revenge the frequent imputations on the honor of the State and its people on account of their efforts for the colonization of Kansas,—far more flagrant than Sumner made on South Carolina,—the Capitol would have been the scene of unintermit