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 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 Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4.

Found 18,021 total hits in 6,327 results.

... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ...
Stephen A. Douglas (search for this): chapter 1
ed beyond the supporters of Bell, Breckinridge, and Douglas, even to some of Lincoln's supporters, who if possiree negroes in all the States (a provision added by Douglas and accepted by Crittenden); and to authorize mastetes, or their refusal to vote. It was supported by Douglas, and by the Democratic and Southern Whig senators, between different schemes. The supporters of Bell, Douglas, and Breckinridge, being in a majority, took the leon, and Clingman of North Carolina, but assisted by Douglas. February 18, 19, 20. Congressional Globe, pp. ridge, and to speeches hardly less mischievous from Douglas and Bayard. Douglas was bitter in the extreme towaDouglas was bitter in the extreme towards Wilson, Fessenden, and Hale; and Wilson in a brief reply justly called his speech mischievous, wicked, and . His associates were Collamer, Doolittle, Harris, Douglas, Polk, and Breckinridge. He was also placed on thein whether his appointment would be satisfactory to Douglas and Breckinridge, the Democratic members of the com
July, 1861 AD (search for this): chapter 1
oined with his colleague Wilson in voting for lower duties on imported wool, Feb. 19, 1861; Congressional Globe, pp. 1026, 1027. He voted, July 12, 1866, in association with his colleague, Mr. Wilson, for the postponement of a tariff for the increase of duties,—a measure chiefly promoted by the wool-growing interest, and meeting with little favor from New England manufacturers.—both acting in harmony with their position in the passage of the tariff act of 1857. At the extra session in July, 1861, he opposed raising the duties inposed in the Morrill Act by ten per cent, taking the ground that the increase, while not likely to add to the revenue, would naturally repel from us the sympathies of the laboring classes of Europe. July 29, 1861. Works, vol. v. pp. 502-508. Fessenden, however, thought that foreign opinion should not be taken into account. Sumner also proposed to relieve from the higher duty goods in the course of transportation at the time of the passage of the Act.
May, 1861 AD (search for this): chapter 1
le are very sensitive; and if they saw themselves touched on these points in honor or interest, the irritation would be extreme, and could not be controlled. I write this to you as a private and a very valued friend, for your own private use and guidance. I am sure we shall do all we can here to keep the peace, and I feel sure that you will do the same. But I have not equal confidence in the government of the United States. Shortly after Sumner's return from a visit to Washington in May, 1861, he mentioned in conversation the distrust of Seward prevailing abroad as well as in some quarters at home; and he wrote privately to Lieber to the same effect. But it is not true, as has been stated, that he sought to undermine the secretary in correspondence with English friends and in conversation with foreign diplomats. On the other hand, he did his best in that correspondence to make it appear that Seward, whatever expressions he might have used, was not in fact hostile to England,
Daniel Webster (search for this): chapter 1
gueness and subtlety. It was difficult for either side to find out from his language exactly what was in his mind, and how far he proposed to go. The New York Tribune, February 4, took issue with Seward, and found a parallel to his course in Webster's Seventh of March speech. The New York Independent, February 7, contains S. H. Gay's criticism of the speech; but the editor a week later took a more favorable view of it. Seward spoke again briefly January 31. Mrs. Seward did not approve her the author of the first Act of the kind in his State,—in insisting on the prohibition of slavery in all the Territories, irrespective of conditions of climate and population, and its abolition in all national territory, notably in contests with Webster and Winthrop,—in denouncing the Compromise measures of 1850, and especially the Fugitive Slave Act, the immediate and complete repeal of which he had advocated. He stoutly insisted in 1854 that the Nebraska bill should be opposed, not so much a
John Sherman (search for this): chapter 1
House,—some of his colleagues from Massachusetts joining with him, but the greater number separating from him. McPherson's History of the Rebellion, pp. 57-62; Congressional Globe, pp. 1262-1264, 1284, 1285, 1327, 1328, 1330. In the House, John Sherman, Schuyler Colfax, and William Windom voted for the proposed constitutional amendment. John Sherman agreed with Adams as to the admission of New Mexico without the prohibition of slavery. R. H. Dana, Jr., in speeches at Manchester, N. H. (FebJohn Sherman agreed with Adams as to the admission of New Mexico without the prohibition of slavery. R. H. Dana, Jr., in speeches at Manchester, N. H. (February 19), and Cambridge, Mass. (February 11), took substantially Adams's view. Boston Advertiser, February 20; Adams's Biography of Dana, vol. II. pp. 252, 253. Governor Andrew is also understood to have communicated to Mr. Adams his approval of the latter's course at this time; but the antislavery men of Massachusetts were as a body against compromise. He used no persuasions with them, and seemed indifferent as to their action. In the committee of Thirty-three, two members alone—Washburn
Carl Schurz (search for this): chapter 1
obody who wishes to succeed should hail from Massachusetts or New York. Their claims are said to be exhausted. He valued most highly the accomplishments of George P. Marsh, who was appointed to the Italian mission, on account of his familiarity with languages and his rank among savans. He pleaded in vain with Mr. Lincoln for Theodore S. Fay's retention at Berne, Ante, vol. II. p. 120, note. and also failed in securing for Motley the mission to the Hague. He approved the appointment of Carl Schurz to Madrid, and also procured that of secretary of legation at the same court for Mr. H. J. Perry, without the latter's request or knowledge,—deeming Mr. Perry's previous experience in the same office, and his attainments in the Spanish language, to be of special advantage to our country. He was very desirous that John Jay should receive an important mission, in view of his personal fitness, his unselfish patriotism, and his devotion to the antislavery cause; but unfortunately his name an
Whitelaw Reid (search for this): chapter 1
rehensions of a contemplated invasion of Canada; and perhaps also his style of conversation with diplomats and other foreigners, often mere badinage, which was interpreted to have a hostile meaning not intended by him. But this distrust, whatever its cause, existed in fact; and there was danger that it might precipitate serious difficulty with foreign powers at a time when our burdens could not be increased without national disaster and ruin. N. W. Senior's letter to Sumner, Dec. 10, 1861; Reid's Life of W. E. Forster, vol. i. p. 344; Walpole's Life of Lord John Russell, vol. II. p. 342. According to Earl Russell, Lord Lyons reported that, incredible as it might appear, the American Secretary of State really hoped to overawe England and France by threatening language. Bright wrote to Sumner, Nov. 29, 1861: There is a feeling among our ministers that Mr. Seward is not so friendly in his transactions with them as they could wish. I hope this is not so. Weed, in his semi-official v
1881 AD (search for this): chapter 1
. Palfrey, who had retired from political activity and was without any considerable political support,—making the selection on the ground that Dr. Palfrey, while as qualified for the post as the other candidates, had for a long period rendered eminent service to the cause of freedom, notably in his writings as also in his example as the liberator of inherited slaves. Dr. Palfrey by letter, Jan. 9, 1866, acknowledged himself indebted solely to Sumner for the appointment. The doctor died in 1881 at the age of eighty-five. Sumner's action in this appointment illustrates his exceptional way of disregarding considerations personal to himself. Palfrey was not one who could ever serve him in return, while the defeated applicants might, if disposed, prove at some time formidable adversaries. It may be safely said that Sumner never assisted in an appointment with the slightest thought of its bearing on his own political fortunes. While catholic in his estimates of men, and desirous to
Edward Everett (search for this): chapter 1
urned to the support of the propositions he had offered and later rejected. Everett, Winthrop, and A. A. Lawrence, members of the Boston Union Committee, sat near Adams as he was speaking; and when he closed, Everett gave him congratulations and approval. Another hearer was Cassius M. Clay, who approved Adams's propositions indicated his disposition to abandon the personal liberty laws of the States. Everett approved the Crittenden Compromise in a letter to the author of it; but Winthrsence of regular delegates the State might be misrepresented by volunteers. Everett, Winthrop, and other members of the Union committee from Boston, then in Washiapplauded, and Sumner's received with groans and hisses. A committee, of which Everett, Winthrop, and A. A. Lawrence were members, went to Washington to promote the adoption of the Crittenden propositions. Everett and Lawrence called on Sumner, and the former with much emotion urged him to enlist in some scheme of compromise; b
James Buchanan (search for this): chapter 1
1861. Works, vol. v. p. 473. The master spirits in Buchanan's Cabinet when Congress met were secessionists,—Cobb, SecSouthern officers was found to be well justified. President Buchanan, in his message to Congress, laid the original blamecated, Oct. 29, 1860, his views in a formal paper to President Buchanan, and to Floyd, Secretary of War. While advising theey are the subject of criticism in G. T. Curtis's Life of Buchanan, vol. II. pp. 391, 395. His faith did not spring from naur principles, which leaders now propose to abandon, as Mr. Buchanan proposed to abandon Fort Sumter. The public pride arrend Strength keep and guide you! Sumner called on President Buchanan with reference to the offer of aid to the governmentnferred often with General Scott and the loyal members of Buchanan's Cabinet-Stanton, Holt, and Dix—in reference to the safef the nation to the States, in which he came very near to Buchanan's, was no less objectionable. He wrote Mr. Adams, our mi
... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ...