Browsing named entities in Adam Badeau, Grant in peace: from Appomattox to Mount McGregor, a personal memoir. You can also browse the collection for Charles Sumner or search for Charles Sumner in all documents.

Your search returned 97 results in 13 document sections:

1 2
he recommended that a strong military force should still be retained in the Southern States, he declared his belief that the citizens of that region are anxious to return to self-government within the Union as soon as possible. This document Charles Sumner denounced in the Senate as a whitewashing report. The statesman did not concur with the conqueror in believing the South subdued. Before long Sumner was in favor of remitting restrictions which Grant wished to retain. For General Grant belSumner was in favor of remitting restrictions which Grant wished to retain. For General Grant believed that the feeling of the South after this epoch underwent a change; and in consequence his judgment changed as to the treatment the South should receive. But his sentiment at the close of the war is better expressed in a letter he wrote to Mrs. Grant than in any formal document. On the 24th of April, 1865, General Grant arrived at Sherman's headquarters in North Carolina, having been sent from Washington by the government to annul the convention between Sherman and Johnston. He at onc
Secretary at his house in K street, on the day when General Grant announced to Stanton that the President had urged him (General Grant) to accept the office of Secretary of War, and that the General had accepted the offer. The day was warm, and during the early twilight we sat in the wide hall with the street door open, talking upon this very subject, when General Grant came slowly up the steps. After the usual greeting and the passing of a few words, the General said to the Secretary that he wanted to speak with him, and the two retired to the library. They were absent from ten to fifteen minutes, and both looked troubled on their return. The General went away, only saying Good evening. Stanton, with a suppressed agitation which was very marked, but in calm language, told me the purport of the interview and of what Sumner and other Senators had said to make him stick. He then said: You and Mrs. Stanton are the only ones who gave me good advice and I ought to have followed it.
Republican party as the party was to him. He had not wanted the nomination and the party had wanted the prestige of his name at the polls. He was not now grateful to the party, for he believed that if the party leaders could have done without him they never would have nominated him. And it is true that he was not the choice of the leaders, who doubted his political ability and distrusted even yet his political fidelity; he was forced upon them by the rank and file. Stanton, Chase, Greeley, Sumner—all would have preferred a purely political man. Grant knew this. He refused from the first to take any active part in the campaign. When the trial of the President was concluded and Congress adjourned, he set out for his little home in Galena to get away from arrangements and conferences. The party managers were very much annoyed by this course. Nearly all his friends thought it unwise, and those who were intimate enough advised against it. He was now, they said, the chief of the part
sation between them. Those who wanted foreign missions were numerous, and collectorships and other lucrative posts were in great demand. But no applicant received an answer. While he was at Galena, Grant had said to me, that he thought Motley, the historian, would make a good Secretary of State. Motley had been Minister at Vienna, but was removed by Johnson for criticising the Reconstruction policy of the Administration too sharply, and great sympathy was felt for him by Republicans. Sumner, especially, was anxious that he should be restored to the post he had lost. Motley corresponded with me during the canvass, and sent me copies of the speeches he made for Grant. These were shown to Grant, and they impressed him favorably. But soon after the election, Grant visited Boston, where Motley called on him. I did not accompany my chief on this occasion, and on his return I asked his opinion of Motley. He parts his hair in the middle and carries a single eyeglass, was the reply;
met him frequently, as well as at that of Charles Sumner, with whom he was extremely intimate. Durtrian Mission, but afterward he was pressed by Sumner for the mission to England. John Jay, of New York, was a prominent rival, but Sumner's influence prevailed, and Motley received the appointment ment which was doubtless in part drawn up by Mr. Sumner. This was proposed as the draft or basis ofast to preserve kindly relations with him. But Sumner was intolerant in temper, arbitrary in will, etubborn, and possessed a will as determined as Sumner's; he knew his rights, and though always readyal; and though Motley was not as yet at fault, Sumner's course both surprised and angered Grant. Ina conversation with Fish before Motley sailed, Sumner declared that if his wishes could not be carri British Minister, Mr. Motley, Mr. Fish, and Mr. Sumner to meet the President, who had consented to o praise; that he seemed to consider himself Mr. Sumner's Minister rather than that of the Governmen[3 more...]
eard of, but could not verify; he fancied that Sumner was a statesman; and he felt the remains of th of the public service for twelve years, while Sumner was at this time chairman of the Senate Commit returned to Vienna. But almost immediately Sumner's dictatorial disposition and imperious behaviheir own position. It was very different from Sumner's. They held that though England had been mostantagonism between the characters of Grant and Sumner soon became apparent. Sumner's enormous conce to settle the question definitely, and begged Sumner, who as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Aonstrued, and regretted what he had said. But Sumner simply replied: No, I cannot disturb Motley, aent in, and went up as usual to Sumner's desk; Sumner almost provoked a rupture then, but finally thhe note, however, the dinner occurred at which Sumner declined the acquaintance of the Secretary. Sdministration, with whom it was evident that Mr. Sumner could not or would not work, exerted itself [48 more...]
to the new people in America as likely to become allies. Sumner was known personally to the prominent members of the Liberes. There was, it is true, a shade of distrust because of Sumner's speech delivered only a month before Motley's appointmenthe Clarendon-Johnson treaty in April, and the effect of Mr. Sumner's speech demanding consequential damages; as well as bec Fish and Rose. It was at this time that Fish consulted Sumner, and the Senator laid down the impossible but indispensabl another chairman for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as Sumner's impracticable doctrines, as well as his refusal to speak the treaty an impossibility if he remained in the place. Sumner was removed, and the negotiations proceeded successfully. roval in England. The claims themselves were scouted, and Sumner's original advocacy of them in the Senate had almost cost this proposition was adopted, and the firebrand lighted by Sumner was quenched before it kindled one of the mightiest confla
eneath an undemonstrative exterior; this gave them, I doubt not, an undefined fellowship of feeling, and yet threw a certain constraint about their intimacy. They knew and liked each other better, I believe, than either ever said to the other. But such natures understand and appreciate perhaps as well as if they expressed more. Two grave questions, the English and the Cuban, were at once presented to the State Department. The story of the English imbroglio, the quarrel with Motley and Sumner, in which Fish fully sympathized with Grant, the Treaty of Washington, and the Arbitration at Geneva—all this I have attempted to record. The subject profoundly interested the Secretary of State, and all the adjustment was left to him. Grant approved of every step that was taken, though sometimes he required to be convinced; but he was in accord with Fish at every critical moment. In the personal phases of the controversy the feelings of both became enlisted, and they were brought into clo
iety have since induced many people of wealth to make Washington their home, some of whom have only wealth to offer as a claim to admission there. In the days I tell of nobody cared who was rich or who was poor. Power was so much more important than money; great fame, great deeds, so much more distinguished than fine houses or fine clothes, that society was good in the best sense of the word. What did a mere millionaire amount to in a company that included Sherman or Farragut or Seward or Sumner, a Chief Justice, a General of the Army, a Secretary of State or of the Treasury? Some of the greatest people had the humblest houses; even diplomatists lived over cooks' shops and gave dinners to the Cabinet on china that they saw every night in the week at each other's tables. Women with names that will never die wore the plainest gowns, and breeding and wit and elegance went about on foot to parties that were finer in all the elements of real society than can be seen to-day in Washingt
, and even of aspiration, that amounted almost to indifference; a singular moderation running through his whole character, which some considered stolidity; but which tempered what without it would have been harsher qualities, and produced all the results of wisdom, patience, judgment, and even far-sighted patriotism. He saw, even plainer than his political friends, the possibilities that told in his own favor and he put them away. Shortly after the close of the war I was present when Charles Sumner proposed to him that a painting should be placed at the Capitol to represent the surrender of Lee; but Grant declared that he was unwilling that any commemoration of the defeat and disaster of one section of the country should be perpetuated at the Capitol. Again, a few days before his first inauguration, Mr. Blaine, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, formally suggested that Congress should allow Grant a leave of absence from the army for four years, so that at the expiratio
1 2