hide Matching Documents

Browsing named entities in Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4. You can also browse the collection for November 28th or search for November 28th in all documents.

Your search returned 5 results in 5 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)
the slaveholding interest for a long period had poisoned the minds of many of the Democratic leaders at the North. Treasonable sentiments were uttered by Franklin Pierce, Caleb Cushing, Fernando Wood, Horatio Seymour, and Chancellor Walworth; Greeley's American Conflict, vol. I. pp. 388-393, 512. Cushing made, November 26, an inflammatory speech at Newburyport, which affirmed the right of secession, and denied the right of the government to coerce the seceders. (Boston Post, November 27, 28, 29.) His letter, November 19. justifying the complaints of the seceders is printed in the Boston Advertiser, November 21. Henry Wilson replied to him at length in a trenchant letter, which reviewed his earlier and better record. New York Tribune, December 26. and Daniel E. Sickles, in his speech in the House, Dec. 10, 1860, set up the city of New York as a barrier against the march of national troops for the maintenance of the Union. Journals of great influence, notably the New York Heral
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)
in a speech at Rockville, Md., October 3. The resolutions, however, were supported in the New York Tribune, Feb. 25 and March 15, 1862, by O. A. Brownson, the Catholic writer, and by a public meeting in Cooper Institute, March 6, 1862, where James A. Hamilton took the chair. (Works, vol. VI. pp. 376, 381-384.) Sumner's article was approved in letters from judge John Appleton of Maine, Isaac N. Arnold of Illinois, and Thaddeus Stevens. Mr. Blair, in letters to Sumner, September 24 and November 28, while maintaining at length his public criticisms, avowed his personal friendliness. Mr. Lincoln's comments on the opposite views of Sumner and Blair are given in his Life, by Nicolay and Hay, vol. IX. p. 336. Peace was as—yet so far in the distance that the question had not become a practical one; but Sumner always thought it wise to break ground early, and prepare the public mind for an approaching issue. Two years later (Feb. 8. 1864) he called by resolutions for irreversible gua
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 48: Seward.—emancipation.—peace with France.—letters of marque and reprisal.—foreign mediation.—action on certain military appointments.—personal relations with foreigners at Washington.—letters to Bright, Cobden, and the Duchess of Argyll.—English opinion on the Civil War.—Earl Russell and Gladstone.—foreign relations.—1862-1863. (search)
said nine months before at Leith, that the effort of the Northern States was a hopeless one; and he suggested that there was an interval between opinions and the steps which give them effect. Letters in his behalf by C. L. Ryan, October 16 and 18. London Times, October 20 and 24. Shortly after, in an open corespondence with Prof. F. W. Newman, he called the struggle of our government to maintain itself a hopeless and destructive enterprise. Dec. 1, 1862. Professor Newman's letter, November 28, calls Gladstone the admirer of perjured men. Gladstone's rejoinder of December 4 was published in the London Star. （New York Tribune, December 12 and 20.) Mr. Gladstone's pro-slavery sympathies and partiality for the Southern rebellion were treated in Letters on the American Rebellion, by Samuel A. Goddard, of Birmingham, contributed to English journals at the time, and since published in a volume, pp. 181-193, 252-259, 281-285. Mr. Adams, disturbed by the tendency to intervention
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 58: the battle-flag resolution.—the censure by the Massachusetts Legislature.—the return of the angina pectoris. —absence from the senate.—proofs of popular favor.— last meetings with friends and constituents.—the Virginius case.—European friends recalled.—1872-1873. (search)
h has led in the great battle of liberty and equality. By the blessing of God she shall lead again in smoothing the wrinkled front of war. Thanks, and God bless you! To E. L. Pierce he wrote gratefully for his effort before the committee, which was so much praised. I feel it in my heart. His letter to Mrs. Claflin, March 11, 1873, is printed in Chaplin's Life of Sumner, p. 438. Sumner did not anticipate when he arrived from Europe the prostration which was at hand. He wrote, November 28, the day before he reached Washington: My strength is perceptibly increasing. I have walked to-day, and with a stronger step and more natural gait than for a long time. The angina pectoris now returned, and a week later he wrote to his physician:— Two nights ago I heard the lecture of Professor Tyndall, during which I sat one and a half hours, and then walked slowly to the horse-car (two short squares); but before reaching it the pains in the heart visited me so that on reaching
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 19 (search)
r from the head of the committee on foreign relations, on which he had long served, the rupture of friendly intercourse subsisting between him and Mr. Fish, are likely, both in their public and personal aspects, to prove matters of permanent interest. While many contributions have been made to the discussion, the more elaborate are the letter of Mr. Fish, Oct. 29, 1877, printed in the Boston Evening Transcript, the reply of one of Mr. Sumner's literary executors through the same journal, November 28, and a paper by Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, in support of Mr. Fish, dated Jan. 3, 1878, and appearing in the New York Herald. Various persons have at times had relations to the controversy, but lately it has been treated as one which chiefly concerned Mr. Fish and Mr. Sumner. Their respective claims, however, to the public esteem are not the pending question. Mr. Sumner, in 1870, resisted in the Senate with all his power the annexation of San Domingo as fraught with evil to the colore