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) 310 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. 94 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 II. 40 0 Browse Search
William F. Fox, Lt. Col. U. S. V., Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1861-1865: A Treatise on the extent and nature of the mortuary losses in the Union regiments, with full and exhaustive statistics compiled from the official records on file in the state military bureaus and at Washington 40 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 10. (ed. Frank Moore) 38 0 Browse Search
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 1. 36 0 Browse Search
Mrs. John A. Logan, Reminiscences of a Soldier's Wife: An Autobiography 28 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 6. (ed. Frank Moore) 26 0 Browse Search
Varina Davis, Jefferson Davis: Ex-President of the Confederate States of America, A Memoir by his Wife, Volume 1 26 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events, Diary from December 17, 1860 - April 30, 1864 (ed. Frank Moore) 24 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 Iowa (Iowa, United States) or search for Iowa (Iowa, United States) in all documents.

Your search returned 11 results in 9 document sections:

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)
. Works, vol. XI. p. 397. which declared that the seceded States had abdicated all rights under the Constitution, and become felo de se, or lapsed; and therefore slavery, as a peculiar local institution, without any origin in the Constitution or in natural right, but dependent solely on local laws, had ceased to exist; and Congress should assume jurisdiction over the vacated territory, and proceed to establish therein republican forms of government. Works, vol. VI pp. 301-318. Harlan of Iowa and Harris of New York introduced at this session radical bills for reconstruction. The latter's bill met Sumner's views; but he took exceptions to some amendments of the judiciary committee which recognized the laws and institutions of the seceded States. Congressional Globe, Feb. 17, 1862, p. 843; July 7, Globe, p. 3139; Works, vol. VII. p. 162. These propositions occasioned much excitement in the Senate, and Republican leaders—Sherman, Fessenden, Dixon, and Doolittle—were prompt to dis
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 48: Seward.—emancipation.—peace with France.—letters of marque and reprisal.—foreign mediation.—action on certain military appointments.—personal relations with foreigners at Washington.—letters to Bright, Cobden, and the Duchess of Argyll.—English opinion on the Civil War.—Earl Russell and Gladstone.—foreign relations.—1862-1863. (search)
you would be triumphant, strike quickly; let your blows be felt at once, without notice or premonition, and especially without time for resistance or debate. Time deserts all who do not appreciate its value. Strike promptly, and time becomes your invaluable ally; strike slowly, gradually, prospectively, and time goes over to the enemy. Only eleven senators on one vote and ten on another voted against the alternative of gradual emancipation. Among them were Fessenden, Grimes, Harlan of Iowa, Lane of Indiana, Pomeroy, and Wade. Wilson voted with Sumner at one stage and against him at another. Sumner, though failing to have the obnoxious provision stricken out, voted for the bill on its final passage, trusting that it would be satisfactorily amended in the House. It did not, however, come to a final vote in that body. Congress had little heart in the President's favorite idea of compensating slave-owners, Mr. Lincoln adhered to the last to his plan of compensated emancipati
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)
tion declaring that slavery shall be forever prohibited within the limits of the United States. Two days later, Mr. Wright procured its adoption at a meeting of the American Antislavery Society in Philadelphia, and this is supposed to have been the first public movement for the thirteenth amendment. Works, vol. VIII. p. 351. H. C. Wright's letter to Sumner in manuscript, May 17, 1866. Early in the session resolutions for such an amendment were proposed by Ashley of Ohio and Wilson of Iowa in the House, and by Henderson of Missouri in the Senate. Sumner himself offered two forms. He moved a reference of the subject to his own committee on slavery and freedmen, but yielded to Trumbull's suggestion that it belonged more properly to the committee on the judiciary, expressing as his chief desire that prompt action should be taken. Trumbull, adopting the formula of the Ordinance of 1787, reported as the proposed amendment that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as
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)
ich the address met with showed clearly that whatever might be the current of opinion elsewhere, the people of Massachusetts were with Sumner. Fortunate the senator who had such a constituency! The convention approved the admission of negroes to suffrage as a part and condition of reconstruction. The Republican State committee had already in July issued an Address for equal suffrage in reconstruction. New York Tribune, July 25. A similar ground was taken by the Republicans of Vermont, Iowa, and Minnesota; but generally Republican State conventions shrank from an explicit declaration. Notwithstanding the prudent reserve of politicians, there was however, during the recess of Congress, a growing conviction among the Northern people that governments at once loyal, stable, and securing the rights of all, white and black, could not be established in the rebel States without admitting the freedmen to a share in them. It was Sumner who took the lead in spreading and organizing that
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)
ed equality of rights in their constitutions. He called upon senators not to create another white man's government, and set aside human rights after having honored them the day before by establishing them in the District of Columbia. Kirkwood of Iowa assumed to take offence because, though his State was not mentioned, its constitution contained the same clause of exclusion which Sumner had characterized as odious and offensive in that of Nebraska. Dec. 14, 19, 1866; Jan. 8, 1867. Works, vuis, Mo., November 1; Jacksonville, Ill., November 2; Quincy, November 4. Aurora, November 5; La Porte, Ind., November 6: Toledo, O., November 7. A severe cold, accompanied with hoarseness and exhaustion, obliged him to give up his engagements in Iowa (except at Dubuque), and to rest a few days in Chicago. At Dubuque his welcome was from Hon. William B. Allison, then a member of the House, and since for a long period a senator, who made the arrangements for the lecture at that place. During t
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 10 (search)
m as senator was expiring, but his return was altogether unopposed. The Republican State convention, meeting at Worcester, nominated him for re-election by a resolution September 9; Works, vol. XII. p. 518. passed unanimously, which was drawn by E. L. Pierce, and presented by R. H. Dana, Jr., the latter having been the opponent six years before of a similar declaration. Sumner declined invitations from other States,— among the those of H. C. Bowen, Woodstock, Conn., and W. B. Allison of Iowa. He spoke only twice during the canvass, once briefly at a flag-raising in his own ward, September 14; Works, vol. XII. pp. 510-514. and again at Cambridge shortly before the election,—where, after a brief reference to his own public activity, covering as he maintained the various interests of the country, he defended the reconstruction acts, and renewed the discussion of financial questions, urging the speedy resumption of specie payments October 29; Works, vol. XII. pp. 519-548. Th
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 54: President Grant's cabinet.—A. T. Stewart's disability.—Mr. Fish, Secretary of State.—Motley, minister to England.—the Alabama claims.—the Johnson-Clarendon convention.— the senator's speech: its reception in this country and in England.—the British proclamation of belligerency.— national claims.—instructions to Motley.—consultations with Fish.—political address in the autumn.— lecture on caste.—1869. (search)
particularly its moderation and conciliatory spirit. New York Tribune, April 14; New York Times, April 14; New York Herald, April 14. The last named journal, May 3, reports an interview with the senator, in which he stated some incidents connected with the speech. The treaty was then rejected by a vote of fifty-four to one. The Senate of its own motion, without prompting from Sumner, removed before opening its doors the injunction of secrecy from the speech. Mr. Grimes, senator from Iowa, wrote to the London Times, May 12 (An American Citizen) that the injunction was removed at Sumner's request. Sumner denied this in a letter to Grimes, but the latter did not retract or reply. James W. Grimes's Life, by W. Salter, p. 369. Two days later it appeared in all the leading journals of the principal cities of the country. It was notable that conservative public men were positive in their approval of the speech. Among those who wrote to Sumner in terms of unstinted praise were H.
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)
er his college (Doolittle) and himself should have passed from this stage of existence. See also ante, p. 163 note,. Two gentlemen, anxious for harmony in tile party,—Horace White of the Chicago Tribune, and W. B. Allison, member of Congress from Iowa,—without Sumner's knowledge, called on Howe before the committee reported, and endeavored to dissuade him from recommending Sumner's removal; but they found him inflexible. The ground, and the only ground, he then took was that the senator had mahed, but having full faith in his fidelity and honor, was no loner there. Had Fessenden lived, the removal of Stunner would not have been carried,—indeed, would not have been attempted. Fessenden's most intimate friend in the Senate (Grimes of Iowa) wrote from Switzerland to F. A. Pike, Jan. 10, 1871: Was there ever anything so absurd, so wicked indeed, as the attempt to force the country to accept San Domingo against its will? I have no great admiration for Sumner, but I glory in his pluck<
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 18 (search)
delity 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 adverse report. This is no