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

Your search returned 57 results in 9 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)
c and demoralization there were senators and representatives who stood firmly for maintaining the historic positions of the Republican party. They included two-thirds of the Republican senators, but a smaller proportion of the Republican members of the House, where there was much shifting of position. New York Times, January 23; February 5. Of this type in the Senate were Sumner, Wilson, Trumbull, Wade, and Preston King; and in the House, Thaddeus Stevens, John Hickman, G. A. Grow, Roscoe Conkling, and Owen Lovejoy; and among Massachusetts members, Alley, Buffinton, Burlingame, Eliot, and Gooch. At such a period the steady courage of Sumner was of inestimable service in saving the country from the disaster of compromise and surrender. The intimacy between Sumner and Adams, which began in 1845, and had been very close during the political conflicts of fifteen years, now came to an end. There was a scene in which Adams resented Sumner's protest against his support of compromise
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 51: reconstruction under Johnson's policy.—the fourteenth amendment to the constitution.—defeat of equal suffrage for the District of Columbia, and for Colorado, Nebraska, and Tennessee.—fundamental conditions.— proposed trial of Jefferson Davis.—the neutrality acts. —Stockton's claim as a senator.—tributes to public men. —consolidation of the statutes.—excessive labor.— address on Johnson's Policy.—his mother's death.—his marriage.—1865-1866. (search)
number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. This provision, with some variations, was the same as was proposed by Stevens at the beginning of the session, and later offered with some change of phraseology by Spalding, Blaine, Conkling, and Schenck, and was at last reported by the reconstruction committee. Sumner referred, Feb. 8, 1869 (Congressional Globe, p. 1003), to the different forms of the proposed amendment, and his objections to them. It failed in the Senate, but ment from practice the study of public and international law was his favorite pursuit. His will contained a legacy to Sumner, which, as he was the survivor, lapsed; it contained also a tribute to the senator as a public man and personal friend. Conkling and Orth supported Banks, and the bill passed the House unanimously—--a large proportion of the members refraining from voting. Sumner's convictions were as strong as those of any one against the justice and legality of British conduct in ou
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 52: Tenure-of-office act.—equal suffrage in the District of Columbia, in new states, in territories, and in reconstructed states.—schools and homesteads for the Freedmen.—purchase of Alaska and of St. Thomas.—death of Sir Frederick Bruce.—Sumner on Fessenden and Edmunds.—the prophetic voices.—lecture tour in the West.—are we a nation?—1866-1867. (search)
n reconstruction, saying, I would not see new States born of the bayonet,—a declaration which called out protests from Frelinghuysen and Stewart. He agreed with Conkling, who had just then become a senator, in making a majority of the registered voters, instead of a mere majority of those voting, necessary for the calling of a copp. 409-413. He advised a popular agitation for this measure. Letter to the New York Independent, May 2, 1867. Works, vol. XI. pp. 356-360. Immediately after, Conkling, a partisan of the rule, endeavored to introduce a resolution to enable a young man to enter the Naval Academy, when Sumner, to the amusement of the Senate, remiights upon a whole race, he now asked to have it set aside for a bill to confer a right upon one young man. July 12, Congressional Globe, p. 615. Sumner aided Conkling's bill a few days later. July 17, Globe, p. 701. Sumner carried at this time a bill to prevent exclusions from office and juries in the District of Columbia on
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 10 (search)
rom you, it has not been without pain. Roscoe Conkling of New York entered the Senate March 4, 1 the lobby of the house and at his seat, when Conkling received, without reply, from E. B. Washburne a severe imputation on his honor. Conkling's expeditious retreat from Narragansett Pier is of a las old antagonist in the House, Mr. Blaine. Conkling was antipathetic to Sumner, as any one who kn3394. Sumner at first ignored the malice; but Conkling was not to be put aside in that way, and kepteturned a civil answer; notwithstanding this, Conkling went on with his offensive thrusts and imputaumner then went on to restate his positions. Conkling did not rise again, and Sumner was sustained later controversies. Another debate shows Conkling's favorite style, in which his treatment of S After his failure of election to the Senate, Conkling found that his bullying style did not avail hby Sherman and supported by Frelinghuysen and Conkling. The measure failed at this time, but was ca[3 more...]
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 55: Fessenden's death.—the public debt.—reduction of postage.— Mrs. Lincoln's pension.—end of reconstruction.—race discriminations in naturalization.—the Chinese.—the senator's record.—the Cuban Civil War.—annexation of San Domingo.—the treaties.—their use of the navy.—interview with the presedent.—opposition to the annexation; its defeat.—Mr. Fish.—removal of Motley.—lecture on Franco-Prussian War.—1869-1870. (search)
nd the senator from Oregon, I know not why he should not be equal to that senator in rights,—I know not why he should not enter into the same citizenship. In the debate on the naturalization laws, as also in other debates during the session, Conkling was offensive to Sumner, being uniformly the aggressor. Jan. 14, 17, Feb. 10, 1870. Congressional Globe, pp. 459, 506, 1143-1146. It aggravated him that Sumner ignored him and let his thrusts pass in silence. Finally, when interrupting as i in a tie,— twenty-eight to twenty-eight, not the two-thirds required. The vote was reported as follows (Democrats in italics): For the treaty—Abbott (N. C.), Brownlow (Tenn.), Cameron (Penn.), Cattell (N. J.), Chandler (Mich.), Cole (Cal.), Conkling (N. Y.), Corbett (Oregon), Drake (Mo.), Fenton (N. Y.), Hamlin (Me.), Harlan (Iowa), Howard (Mich.), Howell (Iowa), McDonald (Ark.). Morton (Ind.), Nye (Nev.), Osborn (Fla.), Pratt (Ind.), Ramsey (.Minn.), Revels (Miss.), Rice (Ark.), Spencer (A<
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)
here without consulting him, and substituting Conkling in his stead. Sumner objected to parting witd a statement of what occurred at the time. Conkling brought into the debate a characteristic speereign relations, which had been threatened by Conkling in the debate, was now fully determined upon,pirit. The assaults made upon you by Morton, Conkling, and Chandler excite equal disgust and indign The nays were Hamlin (Maine), Edmunds (Vt.), Conkling (N. Y ), Frelinghuysen (N. J.), Scott (Penn.)us for the removal were Nye. Hamlin, Stewart, Conkling, Howe, Edmunds, and Carpenter,—the last namedent in the Washington jail in 1877. Chandler, Conkling, and Edmunds were, as Wilson intimated, on thandler failed of re-elections to the Senate. Conkling chafed during Hayes's Administration, when heon of the Vice-President in his favor against Conkling's prolonged resistance; March 23 and 24. umner paused once when annoyed in this way by Conkling and Hamlin, and again when interrupted by a c[2 more...]
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 57: attempts to reconcile the President and the senator.—ineligibility of the President for a second term.—the Civil-rights Bill.—sale of arms to France.—the liberal Republican party: Horace Greeley its candidate adopted by the Democrats.—Sumner's reserve.—his relations with Republican friends and his colleague.—speech against the President.—support of Greeley.—last journey to Europe.—a meeting with Motley.—a night with John Bright.—the President's re-election.—1871-1872. (search)
e as aimed at him, and opposed it in a body. Conkling, calling it up while advocating the Presidente voting yea were Anthony, Cameron, Chandler, Conkling, Frelinghuysen, Hamlin, Harlan, Morrill (VermPrussian embassy. Puerile as the charge was, Conkling moved an amendment for an inquiry whether anyconspicuous the ladies from the White House. Conkling's speech was characteristic in manner, gesturs extreme insolence. The next day Schurz and Conkling had another encounter, in which the former de his magnanimity, justice, and intelligence. Conkling had found other victims of his worrying propeme, except when Schurz, Sumner, Carpenter, or Conkling was on the floor. Sumner was, as his manner Sumner proposed to make a single remark; but Conkling raising a point of order that the motion was rial civilities. The senator must know, said Conkling, after what has occurred, that courtesy is noes, the Nation, and Henry Ward Beecher. Even Conkling, who had treated the Republican opponents of [6 more...]
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 59: cordiality of senators.—last appeal for the Civil-rights bill. —death of Agassiz.—guest of the New England Society in New York.—the nomination of Caleb Cushing as chief-justice.—an appointment for the Boston custom-house.— the rescinding of the legislative censure.—last effort in debate.—last day in the senate.—illness, death, funeral, and memorial tributes.—Dec. 1, 1873—March 11, 1874. (search)
he Senate and assuming to represent the Administration. Still, outside of a small number,—like Conkling, Chandler, Logan, and Carpenter,—the feeling towards Sumner was in every way kindly and consideoffice of chief-justice was filled at this session. The President first offered the place to Mr. Conkling, among whose qualifications, whatever they were, the judicial temper was not one. Fortunatelenate and the country with amazement, and a confirmation was at once found to be impossible. Mr. Conkling alone appeared to approve it, and not more than half-a-dozen Republican senators seemed dispoutwell chairman) reported adversely to a confirmation. It was, however, supported in debate by Conkling and Carpenter; but even with their aid it would have failed except for the strenuous efforts off the body to bear it to Massachusetts, and as soon as that duty was performed they adjourned. Conkling referred to the vacant chair long Held by a senator of distinguished eminence, and one of the m
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 19 (search)
caucus or in the Senate when Mr. Sumner's removal was debated, March 10, 1871; nor by President Grant, when giving reasons for it in the summer of 1871; nor by Mr. Conkling, July 23, 1872, when at the Cooper Institute he defended with much elaboration the removal, stating instead, what is now disproved, that Mr. Sumner did not repnvassed by senators, proves that it never existed, that it never had any place in their minds, that it was never communicated to them. It was not mentioned by Mr. Conkling when he defended the removal in his speech at Cooper Institute, July 23, 1872; nor in the debate in the Senate, April 28, 1874, when it was explained or defend also, would be an interesting spectacle! Surely, he was not, one of the leading senators! Nor could there have been among then, for reasons already given, Messrs. Conkling, Howe, Hamlin, Cameron, or Anthony. Who, then, were the nameless, undesignated leading senators to whom Mr. Fish made known the memorandum which, as now all