hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
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 1,580 0 Browse Search
George Sumner 1,494 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 642 0 Browse Search
Robert C. Winthrop 392 0 Browse Search
Henry Wilson 348 0 Browse Search
William H. Seward 342 0 Browse Search
Fletcher Webster 328 0 Browse Search
Douglas 236 8 Browse Search
Edward Everett 224 0 Browse Search
Benjamin F. Butler 208 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 3. Search the whole document.

Found 486 total hits in 160 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 3
25-1850 there was an earnest contention in this country on prison discipline, between the partisans of the separate or Pennsylvania system—which enforced the absolute separation of convicts from one another by day as well as at night—and those of thental condition, and giving him useful industrial training, were contested points. The separate system, first tried in Pennsylvania, drew the attention of European philanthropists and publicists, and their reports after personal inspection were unifoe contended that the reports had confounded it with the more rigid system of absolute solitude, which was discarded in Pennsylvania in 1829, and in other States at about the same time; that the report for 1838 had applied the opinions of Lafayette an great length on two evenings, making a minute comparison of the two prison systems, and earnestly advocating that of Pennsylvania; June 2 and 16. Dr. Howe's speech of June 16 is fully reported in the Semi-Weekly Courier, June 24. by Henry H. Ful
Heidelberg (Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) (search for this): chapter 3
the summer of 1846, to attend the International Penitentiary Congress at Frankfort-on-the-Main; but his Boston antagonists, though not present, more than matched him there. Sumner advised Mr. Rathbone, of Liverpool, and Dr. Julius, of Berlin, of his coming; and the former in England and the latter on the Continent were assiduous in distributing among the delegates the Liverpool edition of Sumner's recent speech. The president of the Congress was Sumner's friend, Professor Mittermaier, of Heidelberg. It was a distinguished assembly, composed of men eminent in jurisprudence and science, or practically connected with prison administration. Dwight was called to the tribune, Boston Advertiser, July 22. 1847. Law Reporter, vol. IX. p. 428. and spoke briefly in English on the objects of the Boston Society, without entering on a development of the penitentiary system of the United States,—evidently not at ease in a body which approved by a large majority the separate system, and cont
Russia (Russia) (search for this): chapter 3
t the two systems, but chiefly defending with friendly zeal Mr. Dwight; Bradford Sumner, a lawyer respectable in character, but moderate in professional attainments; J. Thomas Stevenson, who confessed that he knew nothing about prison discipline, and whose late participation in the debate was due only to his political antipathy to Sumner and Dr. Howe; and Francis C. Gray, 1796-1856. Mr. Gray was in his youth the private secretary of John Quincy Adams at the time of the latter's mission to Russia. His writings were miscellaneous, chiefly articles for reviews, and related to history, poetry, foreign literature, commerce, and science. He is spoken of by his surviving contemporaries as a person most remarkable for the variety and fulness of his knowledge; and his vigorous intellect easily digested his acquisitions. It was not for want of natural gifts or of liberal training that he failed to become one of the eminent men of his State. who though lacking the qualities of an attractive
Department de Ville de Paris (France) (search for this): chapter 3
in this way, not hastily, but after serious inquiry and long debate. Works, vol. i. p. 530. Contrary to Tocqueville's expectations, the separate system lost ground with the decline of interest in the discussion. See his remarks to Sumner in Paris, April 13, 1857, post, chap. XLI. Sumner, in his reply, September 15, wrote:— The discussions which have recently taken place in Boston on the subject of prison discipline have been the means of diffusing much information and awakeninger, that its course will now be altered. Mr. Dwight, the secretary, has become insane,—whether incurably so, I do not know. The New York Society promises great usefulness. . . .I cherish a lively recollection of my brief intercourse with you in Paris. An international prison congress was held this year at Brussels. Sumner, in letters from Europe, was urged to attend, but was unable to do so. His brother George, however, was present, and acquitted himself well in the debates, showing in
Worcester (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 3
o appeared only once in the debate, urging fairness in the reports of the Society, and rebuking an anonymous newspaper attack on Sumner. Sumner, Howe, and Hillard were the subjects of coarse attacks in communications printed in the Boston Post, June 2, 4, 9, and 22. The first article was replied to by a writer in that journal, June 5. The Boston Advertiser, June 26 and 30, contained communications friendly to Dwight. On the other side there were several speakers,—Rev. George Allen, of Worcester, who consumed one hour in his first speech and two in another, comparing to some extent the two systems, but chiefly defending with friendly zeal Mr. Dwight; Bradford Sumner, a lawyer respectable in character, but moderate in professional attainments; J. Thomas Stevenson, who confessed that he knew nothing about prison discipline, and whose late participation in the debate was due only to his political antipathy to Sumner and Dr. Howe; and Francis C. Gray, 1796-1856. Mr. Gray was in his
Brussels (Belgium) (search for this): chapter 3
good. Everything relating to it is now read with avidity. the government of our Society is in the hands of a few persons who are strongly prejudiced against change. I think, however, that its course will now be altered. Mr. Dwight, the secretary, has become insane,—whether incurably so, I do not know. The New York Society promises great usefulness. . . .I cherish a lively recollection of my brief intercourse with you in Paris. An international prison congress was held this year at Brussels. Sumner, in letters from Europe, was urged to attend, but was unable to do so. His brother George, however, was present, and acquitted himself well in the debates, showing in them, according to Dr. Julius, a rare moderation and excellent temper. His principal speech, translated into English, was republished in the Boston Daily Advertiser, Oct. 22, 1847, with an introductory note by Charles. who wrote to him a note of congratulation on the high quality of his speech and his success in
Liverpool (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 3
o the partisan character of the annual reports and as to the rival system, to which he recurred the next year. The speech is reported in the Boston Advertiser, May 28, and in a revised form in the Boston Courier, May 30. It was reprinted at Liverpool in pamphlet at Mr. Rathbone's instance, and by him sent to persons in England interested in the question. These will be noted in a later connection. He commended Dwight for what he had done in awakening an interest in prisons, and in pressing chairman. Dwight was absent during the summer of 1846, to attend the International Penitentiary Congress at Frankfort-on-the-Main; but his Boston antagonists, though not present, more than matched him there. Sumner advised Mr. Rathbone, of Liverpool, and Dr. Julius, of Berlin, of his coming; and the former in England and the latter on the Continent were assiduous in distributing among the delegates the Liverpool edition of Sumner's recent speech. The president of the Congress was Sumner's
Manchester (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 3
ntiary system of the United States,—evidently not at ease in a body which approved by a large majority the separate system, and contained many delegates who were familiar with the Boston controversy. But the advocates of the separate system, who had awaited an exposition of his adverse views and were ready for an encounter, were too aggressive to let him alone in the quiet part he had prescribed for himself, and pressed him in personal intercourse. He was confronted by Joseph Adshead, of Manchester, author of a paper on Prisons and Prisoners, who invited him to a public debate; by Dr. Varrentrap, of Frankfort, whose criticisms of his reports had been translated and republished in the Boston Law Reporter, July, 1846, vol. IX. pp 97-110. 428. and who assailed his statistical tables; by Suringar, who upbraided him for his partisanship, telling him he could never expect to be a happy man until he tried to undo all the mischief he had done by his onesidedness; by Julius, who was fully
France (France) (search for this): chapter 3
ogether. The comparative advantages of the two systems in promoting the prisoner's reformation, keeping him in good physical and mental condition, and giving him useful industrial training, were contested points. The separate system, first tried in Pennsylvania, drew the attention of European philanthropists and publicists, and their reports after personal inspection were uniformly in its favor. Among the visitors were Beaumont and Tocqueville in 1831, and Demetz and Blout in 1837, from France; Crawford, in 1834, from England; and Julius, in 1836, from Prussia. It was established in Belgium, where it is still continued in full vigor; but elsewhere in Europe the congregate or some mixed system now prevails. In this country the separate system survives only at Philadelphia. The Boston Prison Discipline Society was founded in 1825, at a time when the discussion as to the merits of the two systems had begun. Early in its existence its reports, prepared by its secretary, Rev. Loui
Belgium (Belgium) (search for this): chapter 3
eping him in good physical and mental condition, and giving him useful industrial training, were contested points. The separate system, first tried in Pennsylvania, drew the attention of European philanthropists and publicists, and their reports after personal inspection were uniformly in its favor. Among the visitors were Beaumont and Tocqueville in 1831, and Demetz and Blout in 1837, from France; Crawford, in 1834, from England; and Julius, in 1836, from Prussia. It was established in Belgium, where it is still continued in full vigor; but elsewhere in Europe the congregate or some mixed system now prevails. In this country the separate system survives only at Philadelphia. The Boston Prison Discipline Society was founded in 1825, at a time when the discussion as to the merits of the two systems had begun. Early in its existence its reports, prepared by its secretary, Rev. Louis Dwight, 1793-1854. declared a positive preference for the Auburn method, and treated the riva
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...