hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874. 2 2 Browse Search
Knight's Mechanical Encyclopedia (ed. Knight) 1 1 Browse Search
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4 1 1 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874.. You can also browse the collection for June 27th, 1870 AD or search for June 27th, 1870 AD in all documents.

Your search returned 2 results in 2 document sections:

C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874., Section Twelfth: his character and fame. (search)
him: Quaeris Alcidae parem? Nemo est nisi ipse. He is originator and first inventor, with all prerogatives and responsibilities thereto belonging. I have mentioned only one sally in this painful document; but the whole, besides its prevailing offensiveness, shows inconsistency with actual facts of my own knowledge, which is in entire harmony with the recklessness toward me, and attests the same spirit throughout. Thus we have the positive allegation that the death of Lord Clarendon, June 27, 1870, determined the time for inviting Mr. Motley to make place for a successor, when, in point of fact, some time before his lordship's illness, even the Secretary had invited me to go to London as Mr. Motley's successor—thus showing that the explanation of Lord Clarendon's death was an after-thought when it became important to divert attention from the obvious dependence of the removal upon the defeat of the Santo Domingo treaty. A kindred inconsistency arrested the attention of The Lond
him: Quaeris Alcidae parem? Nemo est nisi ipse. He is originator and first inventor, with all prerogatives and responsibilities thereto belonging. I have mentioned only one sally in this painful document; but the whole, besides its prevailing offensiveness, shows inconsistency with actual facts of my own knowledge, which is in entire harmony with the recklessness toward me, and attests the same spirit throughout. Thus we have the positive allegation that the death of Lord Clarendon, June 27, 1870, determined the time for inviting Mr. Motley to make place for a successor, when, in point of fact, some time before his lordship's illness, even the Secretary had invited me to go to London as Mr. Motley's successor—thus showing that the explanation of Lord Clarendon's death was an after-thought when it became important to divert attention from the obvious dependence of the removal upon the defeat of the Santo Domingo treaty. A kindred inconsistency arrested the attention of The Lond