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

Your search returned 10 results in 3 document sections:

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)
orris at Constantinople, Bancroft at Berlin, and Dr. S. G. Howe in Greece. Mr. Fish was prompt to place Motley on his list. It was afterwards represented, but not truly, that the appointment was due to Sumner's influence and urgency, Fish to Moran, Dec. 30, 1870. with the intimation that otherwise it would not have been made, and the Administration would not have been misled. It was, however, clearly the President's prepossession and Mr. Fish's friendly interest and popular favor that gav, 1869, because [the italics being Mr. Fish's] we think that when reversed it can be carried on here with a better prospect of settlement than where the late attempt at a convention resulted so disastrously. Mr. Fish, however, in his letter to Mr. Moran, Dec. 30, 1870, gave a different and inconsistent reason for the withdrawal, putting it then on the ground of the minister's disobedience to instructions,—manifestly an afterthought. It is not proposed in this narrative to review the controv
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)
umner, a senator and a friend. On that day he signed the letter to Moran, intended as an answer to Motley's letter of December 7. This is n as himself, uniformly ignore the insult to Sumner in the letter to Moran. Badeau says that Fish's letter to Moran in no way reflected on SuMoran in no way reflected on Sumner. Grant in Peace, p. 218. The interval may have worked confusion in his memory, but what follows will show that at the time he did know consult the senator. But for the studied insult in the despatch to Moran the secretary might have gone at once to Sumner, and would have donth one who had imputed to him the baseness charged in the letter to Moran. After this meeting Sumner declined to recognize Mr. Fish at a dind me personally in his despatch to Motley. Meaning the letter to Moran, intended as a reply to Motley. Sumner wrote afterwards:— He produced the offensive passage contained in Fish's despatch to Moran, and justified the senator for acting upon the instincts of a man a
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 19 (search)
The breach of personal (not official) relations between the secretary and the senator was assigned as the cause of the removal by its advocates in the Senate debate of March 10, 1871. But it was shown at the time that Mr. Sumner was always ready to confer freely with Mr. Fish on public business, and indeed had done so but a few weeks previous, and that the breach of personal relations was caused by a gross insult, so called in debate, which Mr. Fish had given Mr. Sumner in the despatch to Mr. Moran of Dec. 30, 1870, previous to which they had been engaged in friendly intercourse and correspondence. This flimsy pretext of non-intercourse, as it was termed by Senator Schurz, did not avail at the time to mislead the public. The debates in the caucus and in the Senate, and the public journals in their leaders, paragraphs, and correspondence, pointed to Mr. Sumner's determined opposition to the San Domingo scheme and his exposure of the proceedings of its leading promoters as the motive