hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
U. S. Grant 1,800 0 Browse Search
Nellie Grant 480 0 Browse Search
Jesse Grant 391 1 Browse Search
W. T. Sherman 384 0 Browse Search
Sam Grant 360 0 Browse Search
Stanton Grant 352 0 Browse Search
Andrew Johnson 330 0 Browse Search
Ulysses S. Grant 302 8 Browse Search
Edwin M. Stanton 299 1 Browse Search
Johnson Grant 264 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Adam Badeau, Grant in peace: from Appomattox to Mount McGregor, a personal memoir. Search the whole document.

Found 145 total hits in 25 results.

1 2 3
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) (search for this): chapter 22
of the South during the War; and he hoped afterward to secure the withdrawal of the French from Mexico by the same means. But to Grant this seemed to indicate indifference to the result, and he fina reality perversions of Seward's intellect in an unworthy cause; and the effort to send Grant to Mexico he always attributed to Seward. The conception was worthy of the diplomatic Secretary, to whom that juncture in affairs at home and at the same time forced him to carry out Seward's policy in Mexico. But though, as I have said, Grant never got over his dislike of Seward's course, either in taty with Seward, and he had striven successfully to lessen the influence of Seward's Minister to Mexico. Still the honors were divided. Seward had defeated Grant in what the soldier had so much as and Johnson's overthrow. Up to the last their differences continued. In sending Rosecrans to Mexico, Seward must have known the affront he offered Grant, and by the rejection of the Clarendon-John
France (France) (search for this): chapter 22
Seward had succeeded by temporizing and negotiating, by patience and subtle skill, by submitting to what was inevitable and obtaining whatever was attainable, in at first postponing, and at last preventing, the active intervention of England and France in favor of the South during the War; and he hoped afterward to secure the withdrawal of the French from Mexico by the same means. But to Grant this seemed to indicate indifference to the result, and he finally came to believe that Seward was ws foiled. But, after all, both were patriots, both were indispensable to the salvation of the State. Grant's victories would have been useless, if not impossible, unless Seward's skill had stayed the hostile and impatient hands of England and France; and Seward's diplomacy required Vicksburg and the Wilderness to be of any avail. As Lincoln once said to Sickles, when they were discussing the battle of Gettysburg, There is glory enough to go all around. Nevertheless, it is well to tell the
City Point (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 22
Chapter 22: Grant and Seward. there was a positive antagonism between Grant and Seward. Their characters were as unlike as their policies and achievements. During the last months of the war Seward paid a visit at Grant's headquarters at City Point, and while there he told me a story which illustrates more than one point in his character. He was describing the alarm and anxiety of the North in the autumn of 1864. For months Grant had accomplished nothing in front of Richmond; Hood had forced Sherman to retrace his steps from Atlanta, and Early had nearly captured Washington. The opponents of the Government at the North made the most of the situation for political purposes. The elections were approaching, and a Cabinet council was held. It was necessary, Seward said, to throw something overboard in order to save the ship, and Emancipation was to be the Jonah. He was selected, he told me, to make the sacrifice, and proceeded to Auburn, where he delivered the speech which m
Auburn, Va. (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 22
hed nothing in front of Richmond; Hood had forced Sherman to retrace his steps from Atlanta, and Early had nearly captured Washington. The opponents of the Government at the North made the most of the situation for political purposes. The elections were approaching, and a Cabinet council was held. It was necessary, Seward said, to throw something overboard in order to save the ship, and Emancipation was to be the Jonah. He was selected, he told me, to make the sacrifice, and proceeded to Auburn, where he delivered the speech which many will remember, re-opening the whole question of slavery and Emancipation, when the States should return to the Union. When the insurgents, he said, shall have disbanded their armies and laid down their arms, the war will instantly cease; and all the war measures then existing, including those which affect slavery, will cease also; and all the moral, economical, and political questions, as well questions affecting slavery as others, which shall then
Atlanta (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 22
s a positive antagonism between Grant and Seward. Their characters were as unlike as their policies and achievements. During the last months of the war Seward paid a visit at Grant's headquarters at City Point, and while there he told me a story which illustrates more than one point in his character. He was describing the alarm and anxiety of the North in the autumn of 1864. For months Grant had accomplished nothing in front of Richmond; Hood had forced Sherman to retrace his steps from Atlanta, and Early had nearly captured Washington. The opponents of the Government at the North made the most of the situation for political purposes. The elections were approaching, and a Cabinet council was held. It was necessary, Seward said, to throw something overboard in order to save the ship, and Emancipation was to be the Jonah. He was selected, he told me, to make the sacrifice, and proceeded to Auburn, where he delivered the speech which many will remember, re-opening the whole quest
Richard Taylor (search for this): chapter 22
s of Johnson as a President who at first aimed to revenge himself upon Southern men of better social standing than himself, but who still sought their recognition, and in a short time conceived the idea and advanced the proposition to become their Moses to lead them triumphantly out of all their difficulties. I remember once returning to him from the White House, and describing to him what I had seen; the antechamber of the tailor-President crowded with magnates of the South, Hunter and Richard Taylor and others of that sort, waiting for a chance to ask to be pardoned. Grant, like every other human being, was sometimes unjust in his judgments, and did not always allow the credit of the highest motives to those who opposed him. He thought Johnson was affected by the influences I have described, and that Seward for the sake of place and power followed in the political somersault. No word intimating a belief that Seward originated Johnson's policy ever escaped him in my hearing, eit
for Maximilian to remain. Here was their first open difference. They were antagonists apparently even in aim, and certainly in means and methods and manner. The consequence was not only a marked divergence of opinion, but on Grant's part, a coolness of feeling that lasted for years and was never entirely removed. But though Grant at times could hardly force himself to be civil, and disliked even to go to Seward's house, the courteous Secretary kept up his visits and his compliments. Mr. Blaine, in his Twenty Years of Congress, attributes to Seward the conception of Johnson's entire scheme of restoring the States, but Grant never gave Seward credit for the plan. He thought it the child of Johnson's brain, developed by the situation in which he found himself, of a humble Southerner suddenly raised to a position in which he could dispense essential favors to those who had always seemed his superiors but now courted him for their own purposes. Grant in his Memoirs speaks of Johnso
W. T. Sherman (search for this): chapter 22
while there he told me a story which illustrates more than one point in his character. He was describing the alarm and anxiety of the North in the autumn of 1864. For months Grant had accomplished nothing in front of Richmond; Hood had forced Sherman to retrace his steps from Atlanta, and Early had nearly captured Washington. The opponents of the Government at the North made the most of the situation for political purposes. The elections were approaching, and a Cabinet council was held. In policy. Those instructions, in fact, were written out, and Seward once began to read them in Cabinet, but Grant refused to hear them. Even after this they were forwarded to Grant through the Secretary of War, but were finally turned over to Sherman. It would indeed have been a Machiavellian triumph to have got rid of Grant at that juncture in affairs at home and at the same time forced him to carry out Seward's policy in Mexico. But though, as I have said, Grant never got over his disl
Andrew Johnson (search for this): chapter 22
re regained. Such a man could not appreciate Johnson's Secretary of State. Seward had succeededgress, attributes to Seward the conception of Johnson's entire scheme of restoring the States, but dit for the plan. He thought it the child of Johnson's brain, developed by the situation in which own purposes. Grant in his Memoirs speaks of Johnson as a President who at first aimed to revenge motives to those who opposed him. He thought Johnson was affected by the influences I have descrings and principles of a lifetime to remain in Johnson's Cabinet. He could not perceive that Sewardhough Grant thought Seward only a follower of Johnson in the Reconstruction policy, he certainly bedue to Seward's suggestion. He did not think Johnson clever enough to initiate all the craft that the crisis of the relations between Grant and Johnson, when other Cabinet Ministers ranged themselvlection, indeed, was the seal of Seward's and Johnson's overthrow. Up to the last their difference[3 more...]
ministration,—the Reconstruction policy; and in this defeat Grant was the principal figure and instrument. Grant's election, indeed, was the seal of Seward's and Johnson's overthrow. Up to the last their differences continued. In sending Rosecrans to Mexico, Seward must have known the affront he offered Grant, and by the rejection of the Clarendon-Johnson Treaty, which Grant did so much to accomplish, the final effort of Seward's diplomacy was foiled. But, after all, both were patriots, both were indispensable to the salvation of the State. Grant's victories would have been useless, if not impossible, unless Seward's skill had stayed the hostile and impatient hands of England and France; and Seward's diplomacy required Vicksburg and the Wilderness to be of any avail. As Lincoln once said to Sickles, when they were discussing the battle of Gettysburg, There is glory enough to go all around. Nevertheless, it is well to tell the whole truth about great men in great emergencies
1 2 3