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 7 8 ...
E. S. Gannett (search for this): chapter 3
memory as I saw him first,—a bold, brave, honest, fearless, earnest man; young, comparatively, and striking by an impersonation of high attainments, culture, and aims. His appearance, his mien, his manner, his dress,—for this last so often characterizes the man,—all showed to the eye of one, too young then as I was to analyze it all, that he was an extraordinary man; and his life proved it. The same autumn, Sumner contributed to the Christian Examiner, at the request of its editor Rev. E. S. Gannett, an article on Prisons and Prison Discipline. Christian Examiner, January, 1846. Works, vol. i. pp. 163-183. It took for its texts nine recent publications on the subject, all but two of which were foreign. Beginning with a graceful tribute to Miss Dix, it is devoted chiefly to a statement of the points at issue between the separate and congregate systems, and gives the preference to the former as best promoting the reformation of the prisoner by excluding him from the contagion <
Benjamin Guild (search for this): chapter 3
h this, told us that he has been a member of the city government and a senator of the Commonwealth. Sumner, who never seemed to realize how sharp his blade was, was surprised afterwards, when told that he had said anything at which his opponents took offence. Edward Austin, in an interview with the writer. These personalities rankled during the lifetime of the actors. Eliot's social position was of the best, as he was closely connected by marriage with George Ticknor, Edmund Dwight, Benjamin Guild, and Dr. Andrews Norton, and by blood with the Curtis family. The influence of these families ramified in the society of Boston; and this debate, in connection with Sumner's political divergence from its traditions and interests, helped to bring him into general social disfavor. Sumner was supported by Dr. Howe, who spoke at 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
Walter Channing (search for this): chapter 3
of the committee—Sumner, Howe, Eliot, and Dwight—inspected the Philadelphia prison on two successive days in October, Two other members, Horace Mann and Dr. Walter Channing, made their visits some weeks later. and on the third day, which was Sunday, attended the religious exercises, which were conducted in one division by Miss ad characterized his reports. The controversy which began in May, 1845, was renewed at the anniversary meeting of the Society in May, 1846. Eliot, Dwight, Dr. W. Channing, and Bigelow concurred in a report drawn by Dr. Channing, which sustained the course of the Society and its secretary; while Dr. Howe, Sumner, and Mann joinedight be extended. The Law Reporter, July, 1846, vol. IX. p. 98, spoke of the speech as one of great eloquence and power. See also p. 92. Bradford Sumner, Dr. W. Channing, Rev. Mr. Todd, John Tappan, and Dwight followed Sumner in reply, and George S. Hillard spoke briefly in his support. The resolution was carried; and the pre
George Ticknor (search for this): chapter 3
writer. These personalities rankled during the lifetime of the actors. Eliot's social position was of the best, as he was closely connected by marriage with George Ticknor, Edmund Dwight, Benjamin Guild, and Dr. Andrews Norton, and by blood with the Curtis family. The influence of these families ramified in the society of Bostoviews in favor of more vigorous action. the same month, the Society decided to hold no more public meetings, and recalled the notice of one already announced. Mr. Ticknor and George T. Curtis attended the meeting where this decision was made, and both were chosen officers for the first time. They had taken no interest in the subject before, and their political hostility to Sumner and Dr. Howe, as well as Mr. Ticknor's kinship with Mr. Eliot, account for their selection. Eliot became president; and Dwight continued in office till his death, in 1854. In 1855 no officers were chosen, and Mr. Eliot took the chair in the presence of three reporters and only
Boston Atlas (search for this): chapter 3
blunder rather than an intentional misrepresentation. See Stevenson's remarks, June 18. Boston Atlas, June 21. He directed his severest criticisms against the report for 1843, describing it as sealy had been neither judicial nor philosophical. See other articles, Boston Whig, June 23; Boston Atlas, June 23. moved to lay the whole subject on the table. After referring to the accumulation of cabout to leave it. His motion was carried unanimously, and the Society adjourned sine die. Boston Atlas, June 25. The lateness of the hour, the physical weariness of all present, and the skilful re to the supporters of positive action, prevented the adoption of Mr. Lothrop's substitute. Boston Atlas, June 25. One of the audience writes as follows:— I was out of town when the meetino come to any definite result after the prolonged discussion caused public disappointment, Boston Atlas, June 25. which led to a meeting of the managers on July 10, when it was voted to call a meet
Fletcher Webster (search for this): chapter 3
s to be added to the appropriation. He was the chairman of the committee of conference which decided finally on the provisions of the bill. Sumner had an interest unusual with public men in questions outside of politics. Tocqueville plied Mr. Webster with questions on prison discipline, but found that he was not interested in the subject, saying that it was useless to try to reform criminals. Tocqueville added: Webster, like thousands of statesmen, cares only for power. Life and Letters Webster, like thousands of statesmen, cares only for power. Life and Letters of Dr. F. Lieber, p. 256. The details of the prison discipline controversy as given in this chapter are justified by its intimate connection with Sumner's start in his public career. They show better than any general statement what was the kind of community in which he first demonstrated his powers, as well as what social obstructions stood in the way of his taking his place among reformers and agitators; and the recital also is not without interest in its exhibition of the qualities and t
Benjamin Rotch (search for this): chapter 3
g 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 equipped on all points of the controversy, and was an ardent friend of the separate system; and by Benjamin Rotch, of London, a Middlesex magistrate, who in a session of the Congress held Sumner's speech in his hand in full view of Dwight, ready to reply in case the latter ventured to maintain the superiority of the Auburn system. Mr. Rotch was the grMr. Rotch was the grandson of William Rotch, a Nantucket whaler. He wrote Sumner that Dwight's abstinence from voting alone prevented a record that the first three resolutions of the Congress were unanimously approved. The secretary, thus pursued and confronted, did not find the atmosphere of the Congress congenial; certainly he was altogether silent as to a controversy which was always on his mind when in Boston. Before coming home he passed some weeks in London, during which he inspected the prison at Pentonvi
James Jackson (search for this): chapter 3
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 rival one in an unfriendly and captious spirit. Among letters to Sumner which objected to the temper of the secretary's reports were those from Rev. C. A. Bartol and Dr. James Jackson. The board of managers rendered little more than a nominal service, and Mr. Dwight, the only salaried officer, became practically the Society. He had been educated for the ministry, but did not assume the charge of a parish. His natural ability was moderate and his culture limited; he was better fitted to serve prisoners as a chaplain than to deal with the complex questions of prison discipline. A German writer Dr. Varrentrap criticised his too free use of religious phrases in hi
George Sumner (search for this): chapter 3
ciety. It was through pressure from Howe that Sumner was drawn into a controversy where he became tnough with the subject to be able to cope with Sumner and Howe. He was of a type of men, then dominient and offensive way; or that when thus met, Sumner and Howe should have been more personal and agr the purpose of upholding an inhuman system. Sumner and Howe, who were on hand, anticipating the crruption was disagreeable to the managers, but Sumner's motion for a committee to revise the report, Philadelphia, was carried without dissent. Sumner explained his first participation in the contrrward in his most dignified style, and said, Mr. Sumner, gentlemen. the speaker took little, if any asked some questions, which were answered. Mr. Sumner entered into the conversation with energy. . Sumner assisted in correcting the proofs. Sumner made ineffectual efforts at business meetings nd-dried character of the public meetings. Sumner spoke an hour at least, making points as to th[12 more...]
Longfellow (search for this): chapter 3
s in this country and abroad, and reminded Dwight of those which he had encountered within the year at the Frankfort Congress and elsewhere in Europe. Sumner made another speech, occupying two hours, on June 18, in which he reviewed the debate. Works, vol. i. pp. 486-529. The speech fills six columns of the Semi-Weekly Courier, July 5, 1847. Dr. Julius wrote from Berlin of this speech, It is excellent,—one of the most temperate, lucid, and convincing I have ever read in any debate. Longfellow wrote in his journal, June 18, 1847: Went to town to hear Sumner before the Prison Discipline Society. He made a very strong, manly speech. It was a kind of demolition of the Bastile and of——. The blank is for Eliot and Dwight. It repeated much that he had already said. The report, as written out by him, probably does not follow very closely his argument on that evening, but includes the remarks on different evenings which he particularly desired to have preserved. He did not undertak<
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...