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
Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing) 644 0 Browse Search
Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume I. 128 0 Browse Search
Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Massachusetts in the Army and Navy during the war of 1861-1865, vol. 2 104 0 Browse Search
Benjamnin F. Butler, Butler's Book: Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin Butler 74 0 Browse Search
Lucius R. Paige, History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, with a genealogical register 66 0 Browse Search
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 1. 50 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 50 0 Browse Search
James Parton, The life of Horace Greeley 50 0 Browse Search
Francis Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879; the story of his life told by his children: volume 3 48 0 Browse Search
Hon. J. L. M. Curry , LL.D., William Robertson Garrett , A. M. , Ph.D., Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 1.1, Legal Justification of the South in secession, The South as a factor in the territorial expansion of the United States (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) 42 0 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4. You can also browse the collection for New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) or search for New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) in all documents.

Your search returned 14 results in 8 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)
no persuasions with them, and seemed indifferent as to their action. In the committee of Thirty-three, two members alone—Washburn of Wisconsin and Tappan of New Hampshire—stood firmly against all compromise. Five however—Washburn, Tappan, Morrill, Kellogg, and Robinson—were against the admission of New Mexico as a slave State. Of the different reports, Wilson says in his History: With the exception of the report signed by Washburn of Wisconsin and Tappan of New Hampshire, which alone had the true ring of freedom and fealty to human rights, each of the eight reports was apologetic and deprecatory in tone,—conceding much, sacrificing Northern self-respectted a lower duty on books than the fifteen per cent proposed by the bill, and expressed his preference for admitting all books free. He was opposed by Hale of New Hampshire, Baker of Oregon, and Clingman of North Carolina, but assisted by Douglas. February 18, 19, 20. Congressional Globe, pp. 987, 1030, 1047-1051. He contin
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 45: an antislavery policy.—the Trent case.—Theories of reconstruction.—confiscation.—the session of 1861-1862. (search)
n of positive loyalty. The seceded States were not represented. Among Northern senators were Wilson of Massachusetts, Morrill and Fessenden of Maine, Hale of New Hampshire, Foot and Collamer of Vermont, Preston King of New York, Wilmot of Pennsylvania, Trumbull of Illinois, Wade and Sherman of Ohio, and Chandler of Michigan. Theave the joint resolution from the House commending Captain Wilkes referred to his own committee rather than to the committee on naval affairs, of which Hale of New Hampshire was chairman, but yielded to its reference to the latter committee rather than raise a debate at an unseasonable time. Hale, when the subject was under considublican senators and representatives, sometimes on the ground that his motions were likely to defeat a beneficial measure,—for instance, from Hale and Clark of New Hampshire and Foster of Connecticut as to the removal of the former disability, and from Colfax in the House as to the removal of the latter. He secured the enfranchise
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 49: letters to Europe.—test oath in the senate.—final repeal of the fugitive-slave act.—abolition of the coastwise slave-trade.—Freedmen's Bureau.—equal rights of the colored people as witnesses and passengers.—equal pay of colored troops.—first struggle for suffrage of the colored people.—thirteenth amendment of the constitution.— French spoliation claims.—taxation of national banks.— differences with Fessenden.—Civil service Reform.—Lincoln's re-election.—parting with friends.—1863-1864. (search)
alertness on the floor, and his capacity for a running debate, which had developed with him as with other Republican senators under the responsibilities of government. The House did not proceed with the bill at this session; but at the next, in February, 1865, a committee of conference, of which Sumner was a member, reported a bill creating an independent department of freedmen and abandoned lands. This passed the House, but Sumner was unable to carry it in the Senate, where Hale of New Hampshire and Lane of Indiana now joined Grimes in opposition. On the last day of the session another committee of conference agreed on a bill which placed the bureau in the war department, limited its term to one year after the war, and reduced its scope. In this form it passed without debate or division, and was one of the last acts approved by Mr. Lincoln. General O. O. Howard was appointed commissioner. The bureau became a distinctive part of Republican policy, and a year later it was foun
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 50: last months of the Civil War.—Chase and Taney, chief-justices.—the first colored attorney in the supreme court —reciprocity with Canada.—the New Jersey monopoly.— retaliation in war.—reconstruction.—debate on Louisiana.—Lincoln and Sumner.—visit to Richmond.—the president's death by assassination.—Sumner's eulogy upon him. —President Johnson; his method of reconstruction.—Sumner's protests against race distinctions.—death of friends. —French visitors and correspondents.—1864-1865. (search)
son as to the power of a State to establish slavery— the former denying and the latter affirming it. The supporters of the resolution were determined to force a final vote on that day. Trumbull called upon senators, in order to dispose of the matter, to attend at a night session to hear all the senator from Massachusetts had to say, and then vote on his amendments. The principal debaters at the evening session, which began at seven, were the same as before, with the addition of Clark of New Hampshire, who came to the support of the committee. Henderson had denied that Congress had the right to impose conditions of suffrage on the returning States; and even Pomeroy, usually voting, as he said, for Sumner's antislavery propositions, took the same view. Sumner maintained stoutly and broadly that Congress, when reconstructing rebel States, can stamp upon them freedom in all respects, and remove absolutely all disabilities on account of color. Motions by Wade, Chandler, Howard, and Su
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)
he might hereafter be engaged; and this disposition led to a movement in Congress for an essential modification and scaling down of our neutrality laws, which were of long standing, and in some provisions coeval with the government itself. Banks, the chairman, and a majority of the House committee on foreign affairs were in sympathy with the recent Fenian raids into Canada. The committee reported a bill recasting the neutrality acts, H. J. Raymond of New York, and J. W. Patterson of New Hampshire, members of the committee. proposed, instead of the bill, a commission to revise the neutrality laws. and among the changes authorized the dispensing with the requirement of a bond not to use ships in hostilities against a friendly foreign power; permitted the sale of slips by American citizens to either belligerent in a foreign war, the United States not being a party thereto; and repealed the provisions against the fitting out of military expeditions in this country against foreign go
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)
Gerrit Smith, Governor Claflin of Massachusetts, and A. H. Bullock, former governor of that State. This correspondence noted the popular disapproval and indignation with which the removal had been received. Within a week came an election in New Hampshire, a State hitherto steadily Republican, and the result was a Democratic success, which was attributed to the action of the Senate. Gerrit Smith wrote to Sumner, March 17: The New Hampshire election! What do they who expelled you from your coNew Hampshire election! What do they who expelled you from your committee think of this first response to their deed of shame? A leader of the party, destined to be its foremost leader, Mr. Blaine, then Speaker of the House, on a careful review of the debate and the reasons assigned, put on record at a later period his conviction of the injustice and folly of the Republican members of the Senate in the displacement of Sumner, Twenty Years in Congress, vol. II. pp. 503-506. as follows: The removal of Mr. Sumner from his place had been determined In
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 18 (search)
time. Miss Seward's fidelity to facts will be understood on recurring to her article, where she says that the matter was never brought before the Senate, and may be said to have been smothered in committee! The record, as now open to the public, it may be added, shows Mr. Sumner's faithful attention to the business in repeated motions for references of documents. Of the committee on foreign relations to which the St. Thomas treaty was referred, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Patterson of New Hampshire, and Harlan of Iowa, alone survive. Their testimony has been requested by the writer, and after a reading of Miss Seward's Episode, is cordially given. It should be read in the light of her charges and insinuations of smothering and dishonorable reticence, and her assumption that the argument for the acquisition was so self-evident and conclusive that it became morally impossible to report openly against it, and that neither the committee nor any senator could assign a reason for an ad
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 19 (search)
ad at times strong antagonisms on public questions. But whatever their differences, political or personal, they have cheerfully borne their emphatic testimony to the remarkable fidelity of their deceased colleague. Ex-Senator Patterson of New Hampshire, a member of the committee with Mr. Sumner, writes, Feb. 25, 1878:— Mr. Sumner's fidelity in the discharge of his senatorial duties was so generally recognized that I could not have believed that any person would be found to question itI read the paper lately published by Ex-Secretary Fish in response to Mr. Phillips's strictures upon the utterances of President Grant relative to Mr. Sumner. It so happened that I was absent from Washington, attending the annual election in New Hampshire at the time Mr. Sumner was dropped from his committee, and so did not hear the discussions upon that subject, either in the caucus or the Senate. It was, however, a matter of frequent conversation after my return; and I do not remember to ha