hide Matching Documents

Your search returned 7 results in 6 document sections:

Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery., Second joint debate, at Freeport, August 27, 1858. (search)
awa because the resolutions I read were not adopted at the right spot. It may be possible that I was led into an error as to the spot on which the resolutions I then read were proclaimed, but I was not, and am not in error as to the fact of their forming the basis of the creed of the Republican party when that party was first organized. I will state to you the evidence I had, and upon which I relied for my statement that the resolutions in question were adopted at Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854. Although I was aware that such resolutions had been passed in this district, and nearly all the northern Congressional Districts and County Conventions, I had not noticed whether or not they had been adopted by any State Convention. In 1856, a debate arose in Congress between Major Thomas L. Harris of the Springfield District, and Mr. Norton, of the Joliet District, on political matters connected with our State, in the course of which, Major Harris quoted those resolutions as havin
Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery., Fifth joint debate, at Galesburgh, October 7, 1858. (search)
urgh, or the Constitution as he expounds it in Charleston. Mr. Lincoln has devoted considerable time to the circumstance that at Ottawa I read a series of resolutions as having been adopted at Springfield, in this State, on the 4th or 5th of October, 1854, which happened not to have been adopted there. He has used hard names; has dared to talk about fraud, about forgery, and has insinuated that there was a conspiracy between Mr. Lanphier, Mr. Harris, and myself to perpetrate a forgery. No and that I had written to him and asked him for the authority as to the time and place of their adoption; that Major Harris being extremely ill, Charles H. Lanphier had written to me for him, that they were adopted at Springfield, on the 5th of October, 1854, and had sent me a copy of the Springfield paper containing them. I read them from the newspaper just as Mr. Lincoln reads the proceedings of meetings held years ago from the newspapers. After giving that explanation, I did not think the
Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Debates of Lincoln and Douglas: Carefully Prepared by the Reporters of Each Party at the times of their Delivery., Sixth joint debate, at Quincy, October 13, 1858. (search)
ess from the Springfield District, had referred to that platform in a speech in Congress as having been adopted by the first Republican State Convention which assembled in Illinois. When I had occasion to use the fact in this canvass, I wrote to Major Harris to know on what day that Convention was held, and to ask him to send me its proceedings. He being sick, Charles H. Lanphier answered my letter by sending me the published proceedings of the Convention held at Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854, as they appeared in the report of the State Register. I read those resolutions from that newspaper the same as any of you would refer back and quote any fact from the files of a newspaper which had published it. Mr. Lincoln pretends that after I had so quoted those resolutions he discovered that they had never been adopted at Springfield. He does not deny their adoption by the Republican party at Aurora, at Bloomington, and at Rockford, and by nearly all the Republican County Conve
Varina Davis, Jefferson Davis: Ex-President of the Confederate States of America, A Memoir by his Wife, Volume 1, Chapter 40: social relations and incidents of Cabinet life, 1853-57. (search)
outpost to outpost with their families, knowing Washington only through their marching orders. Sometimes the enforcement of this rule was as painful to Mr. Davis as to the recipient of the order. Notably in the case of his dear and intimate friend, Major Robert Anderson, who had been stationed at a most agreeable and healthful post in Kentucky, and very much desired to remain there. The reply of the Secretary of War is appended, and explains itself: War Department, Washington, October 5, 1854. Hon. J. C. Breckenridge, Lexington, Kentucky. Dear Sir: I have received your letter of the 22d ult., transmitting a petition of several citizens for the retention of Major Anderson, U. S. Army, as Governor of the Military Asylum at Harrodsburg Springs. In reply thereto, I have to inform you that the change of Brevet-Major Anderson's station results from a rule of the Department, lately instituted, that captains shall not be separated from their companies for the performance of
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)
n observing the rules of decorum, and had given no occasion for a personal grievance, confining himself in the treatment of the slavery as well as other questions to a discussion of measures and policies, even in his main speech on the Nebraska bill, and abstaining from any impeachment of motives or any altercations with senators. Douglas in debate, March 3, 1854, admitted Sumner's bland manners and amiable deportment up to the time of the Nebraska contest. The National Intelligencer, Oct. 5, 1854, while contending against his positions, wrote: But we are bound to admit that in his most excited discourses in the Senate on this subject,—that is, on questions affecting these rights,—as well as in his general personal intercourse (so far as we are informed), he has not been in the habit of transgressing the bounds of parliamentary law or the requirements of courtesy and good breeding. A similar tribute was given in the New York Evening Post, June 1, and the Wheeling (Va.) Gazette, qu
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)
The senator has not forgotten that on a former occasion I did something to exhibit the plantation manners which he displays. I will not do any more now. In all this Sumner was no aggressor. He had from first entering the Senate, as a Washington journalist politically unfriendly admitted, observed uniformly, even in the treatment of the slavery question, parliamentary law as well as the requirements of courtesy and good breeding in his personal intercourse. National Intelligencer, Oct. 5, 1854. Banks said at Waltham, Sept. 6, 1856, that Sumner had never spoken a harsh or unfeeling word to his fellow-man in his life. Boston Telegraph, Sept. 6, 1856. It will be recalled how during his first session he bore without retort or notice the epithets applied to him at the time of his speech against the Fugitive Slave Act,—for which he had not given the slightest provocation. It was his fixed purpose when he came to that body to discuss laws, policies, and institutions fully and fearl