hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Charles Sumner 2,831 1 Browse Search
George Sumner 784 0 Browse Search
Saturday Seward 476 0 Browse Search
Hamilton Fish 446 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 360 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 342 0 Browse Search
Ulysses S. Grant 328 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 308 0 Browse Search
H. C. Sumner 288 0 Browse Search
Dominican Republic (Dominican Republic) 216 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4. Search the whole document.

Found 1,240 total hits in 427 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Cameron (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
who was hoping for a favorable turn. Morrill of Vermont at this time alone made any considerable remarks, beginning on the 29th, and finishing the next day. Sumner was silent, showing no disposition for controversy, and not doubting the result. The vote was taken on the second day of the debate, and resulted 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 (Ala.), Stewart (Nev.), Thiayer (Neb.), Warner (Ala.), Williams (Oregon), Wilson (Mass.). Against the treaty,—Boreman (W. Va.), Casserly) (Cal.), Cragin (N. H.), Davis (Ky.), Edmunds (Vt.), <
Vermont (Vermont, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
Fish did not press for a vote, and makes no statement that he did, in his account of the interview printed in the Boston Transcript, Oct. 31, 1877. The delay was quite agreeable to the President, who was hoping for a favorable turn. Morrill of Vermont at this time alone made any considerable remarks, beginning on the 29th, and finishing the next day. Sumner was silent, showing no disposition for controversy, and not doubting the result. The vote was taken on the second day of the debate, andthe President's utter surprise. （Twenty Years in Congress, vol. II. p. 459） Senator Howe, who had supported the treaty, as soon as the removal was reported, called on the President and endeavored to avert it, but without avail. Morrill of Vermont also took the opportunity to protest against any blow at Sumner on account of his conscientious action on the Dominican treaty. Wilson, who had voted for it, wrote, July 5, from his seat in the Senate to the President, urging him to reconsider
Harlan (Iowa) (Iowa, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
the next day. Sumner was silent, showing no disposition for controversy, and not doubting the result. The vote was taken on the second day of the debate, and resulted 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 (Ala.), Stewart (Nev.), Thiayer (Neb.), Warner (Ala.), Williams (Oregon), Wilson (Mass.). Against the treaty,—Boreman (W. Va.), Casserly) (Cal.), Cragin (N. H.), Davis (Ky.), Edmunds (Vt.), Ferry (Conn.), Fowler (Tenn.), Hamilton (Md.), Harris (La.), Johnston (Va.), McCreery (Ky.), Morrill (me.), Morrill (Vt), Patterson (N. H.), Po<
Stewart (Nevada, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
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 (Ala.), Stewart (Nev.), Thiayer (Neb.), Warner (Ala.), Williams (Oregon), Wilson (Mass.). Against the treaty,—Boreman (W. Va.), Casserly) (Cal.), Cragin (N. H.), Davis (Ky.), Edmunds (Vt.), Ferry (Conn.), Fowler (Tenn.), Hamilton (Md.), Harris (La.), Johnston (Va.), McCreery (Ky.), Morrill (me.), Morrill (Vt), Patterson (N. H.), Pool (N. C.), Robertson (S. C.), Ross (Kan.), Saulsbury (Del.), Sawyer (S. C.), Schurz (Mo.). Scott (Penn.), Sprague (R. I.), Stockton (N. J.), Sumner (Mass.), Thurman (O.), Tipton (Ne
Oregon (Oregon, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
does not return,—he comes under our influences, he shares the good, of our churches, of our schools, and if you will let him he will grow up in the glory and the beauty of our citizenship. Senators say no; shut him out from citizenship; let him have nothing of this great privilege. Here I differ. I claim for him all that you accord to others,—nor more, nor less. There can be but one rule for all. Because the Almighty made him of a color slightly different from my friend 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 if he had been referred <
Alabama (Alabama, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
binet. April 14, 1865. General Grant also stated to George William Curtis that Sumner had neglected to report several treaties; but when Harper's weekly of Dec. 8, 1877, was shown to him, which gave the record of the Senate proving that he had reported them with due promptness, the general continued to assume in an extended conversation that the senator had not reported them. (New York Herald, Feb. 22, 1878. containing letter from Cairo, January 17.) His anachronism in his comments on the Alabama claims has already been pointed out. (Ante, p. 398, note.) General Grant's accuracy as a narrator of military affairs has been contested by several authors. Misunderstandings: Halleck and Grant; J. B. Fry, Magazine of American History, vol. XVI. p. 561. The Mistakes of Grant; by W. S. Rosecrans, North American Review, December, 1885, pp. 580-599. Grant versus The Record; by Carswell McClellan. From Chattanooga to Petersburg; by W. F. Smith. Gen. J. I). Cox's review of Grant's Personal Me
Cuba (Cuba) (search for this): chapter 12
emning the barbarities of the civil war on the island, expressing regret that slavery was still maintained upon it, and declaring sympathy with fellow-Americans in Cuba who were struggling for independence, June 23 and 24; Congressional Globe, pp. 4753, 4754, 4806. The House had rejected Banks's resoluions acknowledging the Cubted Sumner to public criticism for his refusal to have the United States make common cause with the Cuban insurgents. Sumner replied to him, March 16:— As to Cuba, I am obliged to say that I have never seen any evidence that brings her insurgents within any rule of law, reason, or humanity justifying our concession to them osecretary were at the time without popular support. President Grant, from the beginning of his term, had additions of territory in mind. His first thought was of Cuba; but the scheme for the acquisition of that island did not prosper. Next he turned to San Domingo, which was brought to his attention soon after his inauguration
Pomeroy (Kansas, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
ds (Vt.), Ferry (Conn.), Fowler (Tenn.), Hamilton (Md.), Harris (La.), Johnston (Va.), McCreery (Ky.), Morrill (me.), Morrill (Vt), Patterson (N. H.), Pool (N. C.), Robertson (S. C.), Ross (Kan.), Saulsbury (Del.), Sawyer (S. C.), Schurz (Mo.). Scott (Penn.), Sprague (R. I.), Stockton (N. J.), Sumner (Mass.), Thurman (O.), Tipton (Neb.), Vickers (Md.), Willey (W. Va.). Pairs for the treaty,—Ames (Miss.), Anthony (R. I.), Carpenter (Wis.), Gilbert (Fla.), Hamilton (Tex.), Howe (Wis.), and Pomeroy (Kan.). Pairs against the treaty,--Banyard (Del.). Buckinghamn (Conn.), Kellogg (La.), and Yates (111.). Sherman, though in his seat, did not vote. The Senate records might show a slight variation from the above lists. The composition of the Senate was such at this time and for four years after that it was open to Executive pressure as at no other period of our history. The Administration majority was still large. The Southern States were represented to a great extent by Northern men who we
Tipton, Mo. (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
Stewart (Nev.), Thiayer (Neb.), Warner (Ala.), Williams (Oregon), Wilson (Mass.). Against the treaty,—Boreman (W. Va.), Casserly) (Cal.), Cragin (N. H.), Davis (Ky.), Edmunds (Vt.), Ferry (Conn.), Fowler (Tenn.), Hamilton (Md.), Harris (La.), Johnston (Va.), McCreery (Ky.), Morrill (me.), Morrill (Vt), Patterson (N. H.), Pool (N. C.), Robertson (S. C.), Ross (Kan.), Saulsbury (Del.), Sawyer (S. C.), Schurz (Mo.). Scott (Penn.), Sprague (R. I.), Stockton (N. J.), Sumner (Mass.), Thurman (O.), Tipton (Neb.), Vickers (Md.), Willey (W. Va.). Pairs for the treaty,—Ames (Miss.), Anthony (R. I.), Carpenter (Wis.), Gilbert (Fla.), Hamilton (Tex.), Howe (Wis.), and Pomeroy (Kan.). Pairs against the treaty,--Banyard (Del.). Buckinghamn (Conn.), Kellogg (La.), and Yates (111.). Sherman, though in his seat, did not vote. The Senate records might show a slight variation from the above lists. The composition of the Senate was such at this time and for four years after that it was open to Executive
Cairo, Ill. (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 12
grees with the general's memory of what took place in the Cabinet. April 14, 1865. General Grant also stated to George William Curtis that Sumner had neglected to report several treaties; but when Harper's weekly of Dec. 8, 1877, was shown to him, which gave the record of the Senate proving that he had reported them with due promptness, the general continued to assume in an extended conversation that the senator had not reported them. (New York Herald, Feb. 22, 1878. containing letter from Cairo, January 17.) His anachronism in his comments on the Alabama claims has already been pointed out. (Ante, p. 398, note.) General Grant's accuracy as a narrator of military affairs has been contested by several authors. Misunderstandings: Halleck and Grant; J. B. Fry, Magazine of American History, vol. XVI. p. 561. The Mistakes of Grant; by W. S. Rosecrans, North American Review, December, 1885, pp. 580-599. Grant versus The Record; by Carswell McClellan. From Chattanooga to Petersburg; by
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...