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 House or search for House in all documents.

Your search returned 14 results in 11 document sections:

1 2
C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874., Section Fourth: orations and political speeches. (search)
darkened by the want of a good cause, without which no war, in the eye of truth and reason, before God or man, can be justified. Mr. Fox said: He allowed the merits of the officers now in question, but he made a distinction between thanks and praise. He might admire their valor, but he could not separate the intention from the action; they were united in his mind; there they formed one whole, and he would not attempt to divide them. Mr. Sheridan said: There were in that House different descriptions of men who could not assent to a vote of thanks that seemed to imply a recognition or approbation of the American war. Such is the doctrine of morals, sanctioned by high English examples. Such should be the doctrine of an American statesman. If we apply this to the existing exigency; nay, more, if we undertake to try the candidates on the present occasion by this standard, we shall find, that, as Dr. Howe is unquestionably right, so Mr. Winthrop is too certainly
darkened by the want of a good cause, without which no war, in the eye of truth and reason, before God or man, can be justified. Mr. Fox said: He allowed the merits of the officers now in question, but he made a distinction between thanks and praise. He might admire their valor, but he could not separate the intention from the action; they were united in his mind; there they formed one whole, and he would not attempt to divide them. Mr. Sheridan said: There were in that House different descriptions of men who could not assent to a vote of thanks that seemed to imply a recognition or approbation of the American war. Such is the doctrine of morals, sanctioned by high English examples. Such should be the doctrine of an American statesman. If we apply this to the existing exigency; nay, more, if we undertake to try the candidates on the present occasion by this standard, we shall find, that, as Dr. Howe is unquestionably right, so Mr. Winthrop is too certainly
t, said: Sir, I have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy Act, and that freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty of speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise. No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might and ought to have profited. The of Massachusetts, I cannot forget, and which rises now in judgment against the venerable Senator. Massachusetts had commissioned a distinguished gentleman, of blameless life and eminent professional qualities, who served with honor in the other House [Hon. Samuel Hoar], to reside at Charleston for a brief period, in order to guard the rights of her free colored citizens, assailed on arrival there by an inhospitable statute, so gross in its provisions that an eminent character of South Caroli
is extent. But Franklin, who was then in England, when asked whether the Colonies would submit to the Act, if mitigated in certain particulars, replied: No, never, unless compelled by force of arms. Then it was, that the great Commoner, William Pitt, said: Sir, I have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy Act, and that freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty of speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise. No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might and ought to have profited. The gentleman tells us America is obstinate; America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of slaves, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instrume
Xlvii. But there is another incident in the history of South Carolina, which as a loyal son of Massachusetts, I cannot forget, and which rises now in judgment against the venerable Senator. Massachusetts had commissioned a distinguished gentleman, of blameless life and eminent professional qualities, who served with honor in the other House [Hon. Samuel Hoar], to reside at Charleston for a brief period, in order to guard the rights of her free colored citizens, assailed on arrival there by an inhospitable statute, so gross in its provisions that an eminent character of South Carolina, a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States [Hon. William Johnson] had characterized it as trampling on the Constitution, and a direct attack upon the sovereignty of the United States. Massachusetts had read in the Constitution a clause closely associated with that touching fugitives from service, to the following effect: The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and i
C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874., Section Eighth: the war of the Rebellion. (search)
laughed the Republic to scorn, and trod the holy traditions of our common-wealth into the dust. These traitors were allowed to play the part of Catiline in open House,—in open Senate,—in the streets,—most of all, in that loud-mouthed, blatant talk which is deemed eloquence in bar-rooms, but bad manners in decent society, and treary and March of the following year. But with the exception of that venerable Sage and apostle of Liberty, John Quincy Adams, scarcely a voice was heard in either House in advocacy of the measure. Mr. Hamilton, of South Carolina, declared that Haytien independence could not be tolerated in any form; and his colleague, Mr. Hayne,e Senate proceeded to consider the bill, when he delivered an eloquent and convincing speech. It was the first argument worthy of the name ever uttered in either House on that subject, and it did its work so effectually, that it proved to be the last that was ever to be required. Commissioners were appointed by the three governm<
quirming and hissing, but the den, was finally broken up. All these subtle agencies of secession worked harmoniously with bolder and more public demonstrations of disloyalty. In both Houses of Congress, men no better than South Carolina traitors (often not half so bad, and always more dangerous, unblushingly reviled the Union, laughed the Republic to scorn, and trod the holy traditions of our common-wealth into the dust. These traitors were allowed to play the part of Catiline in open House,—in open Senate,—in the streets,—most of all, in that loud-mouthed, blatant talk which is deemed eloquence in bar-rooms, but bad manners in decent society, and treason anywhere. And one of the chief themes of noisy discourse—illegal arrests! Why illegal? Is it illegal to arrest the murderer of a man? And is it not legal and just to seize and incarcerate the villain who is contemplating the wholesale murder of the friends of the nation—the defenders of its Union,—the protectors of it
n, in his first Annual Message, had proposed the recognition of the independence and sovereignty of Hayti and Liberia. Of course, it encountered the bitter opposition of every Pro-Slavery Senator, and every hater of the colored race. A resolution had been introduced into the Senate as long ago as July 1st, 1836; and again in January and March of the following year. But with the exception of that venerable Sage and apostle of Liberty, John Quincy Adams, scarcely a voice was heard in either House in advocacy of the measure. Mr. Hamilton, of South Carolina, declared that Haytien independence could not be tolerated in any form; and his colleague, Mr. Hayne, not only deprecated any such recognition, but demanded that our ministers in South America and Mexico, should protest against the independence of Hayti. Mr. Legare, also of the same State, opposed it violently. He was an accomplished scholar; but even the amenities of literary culture had not gained any covert in his breast, whe
Xxxi. On the 23d of April, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, when he delivered an eloquent and convincing speech. It was the first argument worthy of the name ever uttered in either House on that subject, and it did its work so effectually, that it proved to be the last that was ever to be required. Commissioners were appointed by the three governments, and diplomatic intercourse was at once instituted. On the arrival of the Minister of the Republic of Hayti, I sought an early opportunity of making his acquaintance; and with a letter of introduction from Mr. Sumner I called at his residence, which had been just prepared for the reception of himself and family. I was politely received by his secretary,—a handsome and gentlemanly young man—who said in fine English, The minister will soon come in. He does not speak English well, but of course you are so recently from Europe you must speak French and Italian—one of which is his mother tongue, <
C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874., Section tenth: downfall of the Rebellion. (search)
ated for by European powers, in the Bay of Samana; and ringing some changes upon the Monroe doctrine, he manifested a strong wish to have something effectual done on the subject. On the 12th of the month, Mr. Morton offered Resolutions authorizing the President to appoint three Commissioners, and a Secretary, to proceed to the Island, to obtain all sorts of information, etc., and report. When the matter came up, Mr. Sumner, who comprehended the whole subject better than any man in either House, moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive business; and he spoke against the whole annexation scheme. He began by saying: Mr. President,—The resolution before the Senate commits Congress to a dance of blood. It is a new step in a measure of violence; several steps have already been taken, and Congress is now summoned to take another. He went on to show that the motive which prompted the appointment of this Commission was by no means limited to inquiry concerning the
1 2