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

Found 1,034 total hits in 386 results.

... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
February 10th, 1868 AD (search for this): chapter 6
the case, failing at one stage of the bill, and at another, as the reward of his pertinacity, carrying his amendment. This Act took effect March 3; Sumner treated the exclusion of colored persons from the ordinary railway carriages as a corporate malfeasance, even at common law, and before the statute of March 3 took effect sought, Feb. 20, 1865, the repeal of the charter of a company which enforced the exclusion. (Congressional Globe, pp. 915, 916.) He called attention in the Senate, Feb. 10 and 17, 1868 (Globe, pp. 1071, 1204), to a similar denial of right. He sought in the session of 1869-1870 the repeal of the charter of a medical society in Washington because of its exclusion of colored physicians as members. Dec. 9, 1860, Works, vol. XIII. pp. 186-188; March 4, 1870, Globe, pp. 1677, 1678. but as one of the companies maintained the exclusion in defiance of the statute, the senator notified its managers of his purpose to move the forfeiture of its charter, and further,
March 25th (search for this): chapter 6
ge of passengers. The amendment passed by only one majority, several of the Republican senators—Anthony, Howe, and Lane among them—voting against it. Feb. 27, 1863. Congressional Globe, p. 1328. It was concurred in by the House, and became part of the Act of March 3, 1863. At the session now under review, he carried the same amendment to two charters, succeeding after spirited contests by a small majority in each case,—defeated at one stage and prevailing at a later one. Feb. 10, 25, March 16, 17, June 21, 1864; Works, vol. VIII. pp. 103-117. The amendment was rejected, June 21, by fourteen to sixteen,—Foster, Grimes, Sherman, and Trumbull voting nay; but moved again by Sumner on the same day, it passed by a vote of seventeen to sixteen. The opposition of Saulsbury, Powell, and Willey abounded in ribaldry. Republican senators—Trumbull, Sherman, Doolittle, and Grimes, as well as Reverdy Johnson—contended that an express prohibition was superfluous, as the exclusion was
January 3rd, 1867 AD (search for this): chapter 6
nt of crime,—a penalty deemed humane at the time of the Ordinance, but now discarded. The proposed sale of negro convicts in Maryland was an occasion of his subsequently recurring to his criticism of the form of the amendment. (In the Senate, Jan. 3 and Feb. 20, 1867, Works, vol. XI. pp. 54-58.) He also initiated, Jan. 3, 1867 (Works, vol. XI. pp. 52, 53), a prohibition of peonage in New Mexico. His own substitute provided that all persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hoJan. 3, 1867 (Works, vol. XI. pp. 52, 53), a prohibition of peonage in New Mexico. His own substitute provided that all persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave; and later he suggested as another form, Slavery shall not exist anywhere within the United States. Trumbull could not see why Sumner should be so pertinacious about particular words, and Howard objected to the latter's formula as more French than American. Sumner, on appeal from Trumbull, withdrew his proposition, though afterwards regretting that he had not insisted on the striking out of the words which, as he thought, implied a sanction of slavery as a punishment of c
January 5th, 1865 AD (search for this): chapter 6
he adoption of the Proclamation of Emancipation as a statute, proposing it as an amendment to the reconstruction bill; but it was lost. (Works, vol. IX. pp. 47-50.) He had already reported his proposed amendment as a bill. He said in debate, Jan. 5, 1865, on another bill: I cannot close without declaring again my opinion that Congress at this moment is complete master of the whole subject of slavery everywhere in the United States, even without any constitutional amendment. Works, vol. IX.colored soldiers and their families, he replied to Sherman, who desired to have it wait for action on the main proposition,—the constitutional amendment to abolish slavery,— the main proposition is to strike slavery wherever you can hit it. Jan. 5, 1865. Works, vol. IX. pp. 193-197. The bill became a law March 3, 1865. William Lloyd Garrison wrote to Sumner from Boston, June 26, 1864:— My sojourn in Washington was much to see you and some others to the extent I desired; but I wish<
h all persons in the civil and military service were required to take an oath which affirmed past loyalty, as well as pledged future allegiance to the government. At the special session in March, 1863, and at the regular session, which began in December of the same year, Sumner contended that this statute applied to senators. March 5, 1863; Jan. 25, 1864. Works, vol. VIII. pp. 53-72. He and other Republican senators took the oath voluntarily; but as the Democratic senators maintained that can descent in the United States, and he commended it in brief remarks. Feb. 9, 1864. Works, vol. VIII. pp. 80-83. A constitutional prohibition, however, could be the only sure method which would secure the end. On his way to Washington in December, when the session was about to begin, Sumner sketched to Henry C. Wright, a fellow-passenger between Fall River and New York, the form of a petition for an amendment of the Constitution declaring that slavery shall be forever prohibited within t
January 7th, 1865 AD (search for this): chapter 6
t Nahant, where the air, the breeze, the sea were kindly, and where on the piazza they read together Tennyson's last volume, Enoch Arden, enjoying it more than air or breeze or sea. Later in the month he was for a few days at Newport. At a dinner at William Beach Lawrence's he met Lord Airlie, who recorded in his diary Sumner's remarks on the speeches of English statesmen, our Civil War, and other topics,—extracts from which, without Lord Airlie's authority, appeared in the Scotsman, Jan. 7, 1865. Both Sumner and Lord Airlie were annoyed by the publication. Lord Airlie and his brother-in-law, E. Lyulph Stanley, who visited this country the same season, brought letters to Sumner from the Duchess of Argyll. He attended the Saturday Club dinners, at one of which as a guest was Chase, just resigned from the Cabinet, and on his way to the White Mountains. William Curtis Noyes was another guest. He dined with J. B. Smith when the latter entertained Auguste Laugel; he dined often at
er, September 3. This was also the position of Senator Collamer and John Jay. With Sumner, as with Bryant and Greeley and all other patriotic men, the question was settled by the Chicago treason. The fear of an adverse decision of the people in November, felt by Mr. Lincoln himself as well as by others, vanished with the victories of our army in Georgia, which culminated in the evacuation of Atlanta by the rebels on the night of the day of McClellan's nomination. Mr. Lincoln carried the electond in him the same enduring qualities. My recollection of Mr. Quincy goes back to my earliest childhood, when my father spoke of him in my hearing, and pointed him out to me in the street. From that time till I left Boston for Washington, last November, I have seen and known him, always looking up to him with reverence. It is hard to think that I shall not see and know him more on earth. I trust that his papers are in such condition that we can all have the benefit of them. It will be a rar
notwithstanding the reasonable objection that his amendment was not germane. He regarded this law, securing equality in the courts, as the most important of all in establishing the manhood and citizenship of the colored people. In the following August he wrote to Mrs. Child: Among all the measures concerning slavery which have prevailed at the late session, I regard as first in practical value the overthrow of the rule excluding colored testimony. For this result I have labored two years. ly the individual or sectional claims of candidates. No urgency of persuasion would have moved him to leave his seat in the Senate in order to attend a national political convention. Sumner arrived at home, July 17. He passed a week early in August with Longfellow at Nahant, where the air, the breeze, the sea were kindly, and where on the piazza they read together Tennyson's last volume, Enoch Arden, enjoying it more than air or breeze or sea. Later in the month he was for a few days at N
March 10th (search for this): chapter 6
him into collision not only with radical leaders, but with wise and conservative men, who believed that it was a subject which belonged to Congress, and could not be safely intrusted to the exclusive discretion of the Executive. In January, 1864, there was a conference in Washington of members of Congress and citizens from different parts of the country to consult upon the nomination of Mr. Lincoln's successor, in which Mr. Chase appeared to be the favorite candidate. Two months later, March 10, Mr. Pomeroy, senator from Kansas, explained this movement in the Senate, and avowed his connection with it. Mr. Chase's candidacy, as well as the nomination of Fremont at Cleveland, came to no result; but the discontent remained during the summer, showing itself sometimes in a call for another candidate (as in the New York Tribune), or in a proposition, with a view to another candidate, for a postponement of the Republican convention, which was advocated in the New York Evening Post Bot
by Buckalew, Hendricks, and Reverdy Johnson, but also resistance from a number of Republican senators, led by Sherman and Foster, who sought to save the statute of 1793. Sherman's amendment, excluding this early statute from repeal,—legislation which in his view was constitutional and preserving the rights of the Southern States,n his letter, April 23, 1864, printed in W. L. Garrison's Life, vol. IV. p. 118. Sumner still wished the bill carried, notwithstanding its exclusion of the Act of 1793 from repeal; but Brown and Conness of his committee refused to support it after the amendment had passed, and it was laid aside. Two months later, however, a billst of physical endurance was at hand. The end was reached June 23, when, after Davis's speech, the Senate, reversing its former action, refused to save the Act of 1793,—some Republicans who had opposed its repeal changing their votes, and others not voting. The repeal of both Acts was then consummated by a vote of twenty-seven t
... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39