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
View all matching documents...

Your search returned 1,102 results in 213 document sections:

... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ...
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)
and the hitter from Thomas Baring. The senator and Professor Bernard were already in sympathy by common studies in international law. Sumner was invited by Sir Edward Thornton to meet them at his table without other guests. Once he dined with the commissioners, and several times he breakfasted with Earl de Grey. Late in April the senator gave all the members, including Lord Tenterden their secretary, a dinner, when were also present Lady Thornton and Lady Macdonald, Cushing, Thurman, and Hunter, the assistant secretary of state. The next day he gave a quiet dinner to the commissioners only, which allowed a free conference on the pending business. Two weeks later, and perhaps on other days, he had them to dine. He was in communication with the American commissioners through Judge Hoar, to whom he made suggestions from time to time. Finally, when the treaty had been signed, May 8, taking the first copy available at the department of state, the judge went at once to the senator, d
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 57: attempts to reconcile the President and the senator.—ineligibility of the President for a second term.—the Civil-rights Bill.—sale of arms to France.—the liberal Republican party: Horace Greeley its candidate adopted by the Democrats.—Sumner's reserve.—his relations with Republican friends and his colleague.—speech against the President.—support of Greeley.—last journey to Europe.—a meeting with Motley.—a night with John Bright.—the President's re-election.—1871-1872. (search)
with all who gave him information; but his main insistence was that the committee, assorted as it was, had no right to sit at all. He contended that by parliamentary law the committee should be made up of senators friendly to the inquiry, excluding those who, according to the ancient phrase, were against the thing, or who took ground that there were no facts or reasons justifying an inquiry,—quoting Jefferson, that a member who is against the bill ought to ask to be excused; as well as R. M. T. Hunter, a former speaker of the House, that in committees of investigation it is equally clear that the opposition who hold the affirmative should have the majority and the power. He had previously at the same session made the same point when the majority of the Senate proposed to exclude from the committee of investigation and retrenchment all but one senator who had complained of abuses; and he then urged the unfairness of the exclusion (December 18, Congressional Globe, pp. 160,167, 168
George Ticknor, Life, letters and journals of George Ticknor (ed. George Hillard), Chapter 10: (search)
ry, and the Southwestern bankruptcy, all into the computation, a close reef is better than a flowing sheet. Ye have what I advise, as Beelzebub said, braggingly, after he had counselled ignoble ease and peaceful sloth,—a parallel to my case, if you like so to call it. . . . . We are all well; my wife famously, and the bairns thrivingly. Whiggery is low. I never thought much of it, and now less than ever, since the Whigs have chosen a nullifier and a sub-treasury man for Speaker. R. M. T. Hunter. . . . . But we shall get settled some time or other, and so will you in Maine. When will you get your land on the Madawaska, and when will you get pay for your frolic last winter? However, laissez-aller. It is a new year. Love to all. Yours always, G. T. To Charles S. Daveis, Portland. Boston, May 12, 1840. Guizot's essay on the character of Washington is admirable, and Hillard has done justice to it in the translation. As soon as it is out I pray you to read it, and cau
Maj. Jed. Hotchkiss, Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 3, Virginia (ed. Clement Anselm Evans), Chapter 8: (search)
by you, resulting, as they did, in the rout of the enemy. General Lee, in correspondence with Colonel Magruder at this time, urged the rapid construction of batteries for water and land defense, hoped that the defenses at Sewell's point and Craney island, which were in weak condition, had been completed and provided with sufficient garrisons; and among other things,. said the troops he was collecting at Suffolk should hold command of and prevent the destruction of the railroads. Hon. R. M. T. Hunter wrote from Lloyd's, June 10th, to President Davis regarding the rumor that the real attack upon Richmond would be made from the Rappahannock, which he thought practicable. He gave a detailed description of the routes that would probably be taken by an invading army having Hanover Junction for its strategic objective, and suggested the proper locations for defenses against such a movement, not forgetting, good, loyal, Tidewater Virginian that he was, that some of these defenses would
James Buchanan, Buchanan's administration on the eve of the rebellion, Chapter 3: (search)
mpossible. The balloting then commenced (Tuesday evening, May 1st), on the eighth day of the session. Pages 141-152. Necessary to a nomination, under the two-thirds rule, 202 votes. On the first ballot Mr. Douglas received 145 1/2 votes; Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, 42; Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, 35 1/2; Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, 12; Mr. Dickinson, of New York, 7; Mr. Lane, of Oregon, 6; Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, 2 1/2; Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, 1 1/2, and Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, 1 vote. with Mr. Butler had retired from the Douglas Contention, nominated John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, which Mr. Dent, representing the Pennsylvania delegation present, most heartily seconded. Mr. Ward, from the Alabama delegation, nominated R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia; Mr. Ewing, from that of Tennessee, nominated Mr. Dickinson, of New York; and Mr. Stevens, from Oregon, nominated General Joseph Lane. Eventually all these names were withdrawn except that of Mr. Breckinridge, and he received t
James Buchanan, Buchanan's administration on the eve of the rebellion, Chapter 7: (search)
g and. the nonslave-holding States, Senate's Report of Committees, 2d session, 86th Congress, 1860-61, No. 288 was referred to a special committee, consist ing of thirteen members. This committee was composed of the most distinguished and influential Senators. They were true representatives of the political parties to which they respectively belonged. It consisted of five Republicans: Messrs. Seward, Collamer, Wade, Doolittle, and Grimes; five from slaveholding States: Messrs. Powell, Hunter, Crittenden, Toombs, and Davis; and three Northern Democrats: Messrs. Douglas, Bigler, and Bright. The latter three were intended to act as mediators between the extreme parties on the committee. No legislative body, in the history of nations, had ever created a committee upon whose action more important consequences depended. Beyond question, they had it in their power justly and honorably to preserve the peace of the county and the integrity of the Union. The committee first met on
James Buchanan, Buchanan's administration on the eve of the rebellion, Chapter 11: (search)
), without including the company from Fortress Monroe. His testimony before the Hale Committee and the court-Martial on Captain Armstrong. Report No. 37, pp. 58, 284. Four days after the Brooklyn had left Fortress Monroe, Senators Slidell, Hunter, and Bigler received a telegraphic despatch from Senator Mallory, of Florida, dated at Pensacola on the 28th January, with an urgent request that they would lay it before the President. This despatch expressed an ardent desire to preserve the pe officers in command, and to Lieutenant A. J. Slemmer, 1st artillery, commanding Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Florida. The following is a copy: In consequence of the assurances received from Mr. Mallory in a telegram of yesterday to Messrs. Slidell, Hunter, and Bigler, with a request it should be laid before the President, that Fort Pickens would not be assaulted, and an offer of such assurance to the same effect from Colonel Chase, for the purpose of avoiding a hostile collision, upon receiving sa
Col. J. J. Dickison, Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 11.2, Florida (ed. Clement Anselm Evans), Chapter 4: (search)
rida, in the following joint resolution of thanks to General Finegan and the officers and men of his command: Resolved by the Congress of the Confederate States of America, That the thanks of Congress are due, and are hereby tendered, to Brig.-Gen. Joseph Finegan and the officers and men of his command, for the skill and gallantry displayed in achieving the signal victory of Ocean Pond, Fla., on the 20th of February, last. T. S. Bocock, Speaker of the House of Representatives. R. M. T. Hunter, President pro tempore of the Senate. Approved May 17, 1864. Jefferson Davis. The prominent officers engaged on the Federal side in this memorable battle under Gen. Truman Seymour were Colonels William B. Barton, Joseph R. Hawley, J. Montgomery and Guy V. Henry, commanding brigades, and Capt. John Hamilton, commanding artillery battalion of three batteries. The Federal loss, according to their official reports, was 11 officers and 192 men killed; 42 officers and 1,110 men wounded
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 13. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), The Republic of Republics. (search)
The Republic of Republics. By Honorable R. M. T. Hunter. We think few impartial readers will dispute the assertion that this is the most remarkable book which has been written and published in this country for the last twenty years. It is, perhaps, not extravagant to say that if it had been written in 1833, about the time of the celebrated contest between Webster and Hayne, the civil war, which subsequently rended the American people into hostile factions and drenched the land in fraternal blood, could hardly have occurred. And yet, it is hard to believe that it was not a predestined event. The abolition of slavery, the concentration of power into fewer hands and in a more powerful form, would appear to have been predetermined, when we consider the number who made no effort to correct the evil. Their earnest desire for far more potent political machinery than they had been accustomed to handle, and the zeal of those who openly pursued the path to abolition without regard to th
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 13. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Letter of instructions to Hon. John Slidell. (search)
Letter of instructions to Hon. John Slidell. By Hon. R. M. T. Hunter. Department of State, Richmond, September 23, 1861. To the Hon. John Slidell, &c., &c., &c.: Sir,—Along with this you will receive your letter of credence to the Government of France to which the President desires you to present yourself as soon as possible. Our claims for recognition as an independent people have been made much stronger by events which have occurred since they were first presented by our Commissgotiate such treaties as the mutual interests of both countries may require, subject, of course, to the approval of the President and the co-ordinate branch of the treaty making power. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, R. M. T. Hunter. Archive office, war Department, Washington, D. C., March 10th, 1879. The above is a correct copy of a letter contained in a book belonging to the records of the State Department of the Confederate States, which book is in the posses
... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ...