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 1,038 total hits in 305 results.

... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ...
Albert G. Browne (search for this): chapter 5
ate, but was lost in the House,—its defeat in the latter body being accomplished, strangely enough, by Alexander H. Stephens, who, from whatever motives acting, did the country a good service on that day. A. H. Stephens's Life, by Johnston and Browne, pp. 228-230. The Boston Advertizer, July 22 and 29, 1848, and June 28, 1850, approved this measure. The debates in the years 1846-1848 in relation to the Oregon and Mexican territories brought the opponents and partisans of slavery into a cce of power in the House and a strong force for debate.. Southern men of an extreme pro-slavery position saw that there was something formidable in a movement so profoundly earnest and so wisely directed. A. H. Stephens's Life, by Johnston and Browne, pp. 236-237. Notwithstanding General Taylor's slaveholding interests and associations, and the type of Southern politicians who had promoted his candidacy, large numbers of antislavery Whigs finally gave him their votes, relying on his decla
Richard Haughton (search for this): chapter 5
28, probably referred to Sumner when he spoke of Mr. Everett as one who could be a philosopher, a scholar, and a progressionist, without being a renegade. Their organ in Boston was the Atlas, a journal intensely partisan, the columns of which were almost exclusively given to politics, rarely containing any discussion of social questions, of foreign affairs, material enterprise, or scientific discovery,—topics which now so largely occupy a metropolitan journal. Its successive editors —Richard Haughton, William Hayden, Dr. Thomas M. Brewer, and William Schouler—were each true to the general spirit of the journal, regarding no institution so sacred as the Whig party, no men so deserving of invective and proscription as those who, having once borne its name, refused to submit to its authority. The last two named were at this period its managers. Schouler was by nature genial and kindly, and while an editor at Lowell was one of the antislavery Whigs who organized the opposition to the <
Samuel Lawrence (search for this): chapter 5
er than from selfish calculation. A correspondence with an old friend, Samuel Lawrence, occurred later in the canvass, which was even more unpleasant than that wAppleton. A year before, when lecturing at Lowell, he had been invited by Mr. Lawrence to be his guest. Their early friendship has been noted in this Memoir. Antthat the tariff was not at the time a practical issue, a published letter of Mr. Lawrence, which assigned causes for the depression in manufacturing business independther speakers—S. C. Phillips, for instance—made the same use of the letter. Mr. Lawrence authorized the Atlas to state that Sumner had perverted the language of the letter; whereupon Sumner applied to him for an explanation. Mr. Lawrence, in his reply, did not attempt to specify in what the perversion consisted, but proceeded to Sumner replied at length after the election, stating in what particulars Mr. Lawrence had done him injustice, and appealing to their ancient friendship. The latt
Samuel Hoar (search for this): chapter 5
f resolutions was read by John A. Andrew. The Free Soil State convention met at Tremont Temple in Boston, September 6. Sumner was present at the preliminary caucus in that city, speaking briefly, and being placed at the head of the list of delegates. He assisted in the preparations for the convention by inviting speakers and counselling as to candidates. The convention continued for two days. It nominated S. C. Phillips for governor, and an electoral ticket, at the head of which was Samuel Hoar. The addresses and proceedings were marked by a most serious and determined spirit. It was, as Sumner wrote to Palfrey, an earnest, imposing body, with an enthusiasm that rose to fever heat. Sumner spoke briefly in moving a committee to report an address and resolutions, of which he was made chairman. The address was not his own composition; Palfrey was its reputed author. The Free Soilers of Massachusetts proved to be men of extraordinary vitality; and it is interesting to observe
committee and one of the leading promoters of the movement, Sumner gave a large share of his time to addressing the people. He was urged in formal invitations to attend mass meetings in other States,—Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Ohio,—and to speak in the cities of New York, Brooklyn, Albany, and Philadelphia; but except a week in Maine, he confined himself to Massachusetts, speaking in the principal towns and cities, In Maine he spoke at Portland, Bath. Waterville, Augusta, Gardiner, and perhaps one or two other points in that State In Massachusetts he spoke at Central Hall, Boston, September 14, and at other dates at Plymouth, Roxbury, Somerville, Chelsea, Milford, Newburyport, Dorchester, Amherst, Pittsfield, Great Barrington, Adams, Stockbridge, Chicopee, Springfield, Lynn, Salem, Brookline, Nantucket, Fall River, Taunton, Lowell, Fitchburg, Dedham, Canton, Worcester, and Cambridge. and on October 31 at Faneuil Hall. The speech was not written out, and no report is
Charles R. Train (search for this): chapter 5
s was broken up, leaving room for a party pledged to opposition to slavery. Some of his associates in Massachusetts would have accepted Webster; E. R. Hoar, C. R. Train, and Rev. J. W. Thompson, and even Wilson (New York Tribune, April 1, 1848), were of those who took the favorable view of Webster at this time. Wilson and Alle without hesitation or regret. He wrote to Palfrey, April 23, 1848:— There is a movement at the State House to nominate Webster. E. Rockwood Hoar and Charles R. Train promote it. The former invited me to favor it. I told him that I could not regard Webster as the representative of our sentiments; that he had been totally rr. Early in 1848, Webster said to a company of Young Whigs, his earnest supporters for the Presidency (among whom were E. R. Hoar, O. P. Lord, G. T. Davis, and C. R. Train), on the occasion of their call upon him at J. w. Paige's house in Summer Street, Boston, that he would support heartily as the Whig candidate any conspicuous l
George Bancroft (search for this): chapter 5
nd of unquestionable facts you have shown the aggressive character of the mexican War, and still further the foul slaveholding motives in which it had its origin. I think that the just historian hereafter will be compelled to adopt your views, and to hold the war up to the indignation and disgust of posterity. I am very anxious that a history of the Mexican War should be written in the spirit of peace. Some time ago an application was made to my friend Mr. Prescott, and I think also to Mr. Bancroft, to write the history of the second Conquest of Mexico; General Scott's papers were to be placed at their disposal. They have declined. I am glad of it. I would not have them soil their pens by such work unless they can see it as an occasion for diffusing the principles of peace. I long to see history written in the spirit of human brotherhood. There would then be no pompous efforts to make war attractive; but it would be always exposed as an assault upon God's image and a violation o
Thomas H. Benton (search for this): chapter 5
lready in this way won a victory in New Hampshire over Democratic subserviency by joining with the Whigs in the election of a Whig governor and of John P. Hale as senator. This was indeed before the formal organization of the Free Soil party; but the same considerations governed in that as in the later unions referred to. The Whigs took advantage of such opportunities, though condemning similar action in the Free Soilers In Missouri they joined with Democrats of the Calhoun type to defeat Benton, and elected Henry S. Geyer as senator. Early in 1849, holding with only two votes the balance of power in the Legislature of Ohio, they joined with the Democrats in the election of Democratic judges, in the repeal of the infamous laws against negroes, and the election of Salmon P. Chase to the Senate. Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. II. p. 338. Similar co-operation in Connecticut and Indiana resulted in the election of Free Soil members of Congress, or of Democrats who w
George F. Hoar (search for this): chapter 5
l the speakers united in renouncing old party ties. None did this better than C. F. Adams. Sumner's speech was a brief one. There was the manly form of Charles Sumner in the splendor and vigor and magnetic power of his youthful eloquence,—G. F. Hoar at Reunion of Free Soilers of 1848, held Aug. 9, 1877. W. S. Robinson described the scene in a letter to the Springfield republican. Warrington's Pen Portraits, pp. 184, 185 He dwelt upon the growth and potent influence of the slave-power, whived to be men of extraordinary vitality; and it is interesting to observe how many of them came to the front before or during the Civil War,—Sumner, Adams, Wilson, Burlingame, Dana, E. R. Hoar, and Andrew. Among the younger Free Soilers were George F. Hoar, Henry L. Pierce, John A. Kasson, and Marcus Morton, Jr, the last of whom became chief-justice of the Supreme Court of the State. The Free Soilers of Massachusetts have held two reunions,—one, Aug. 9, 1877, at Downer Landing, Hingham, with C<
w territory had been sharply drawn, a considerable body of the Whigs—the Southern generally, and the Northern to a large extent—sought to escape it by a declaration against any acquisition from Mexico. This proposition was made in the Senate by Berrien of Georgia, a Whig, in February, 1847, expressly, as he said, in the interest of the South; it was favored by other Southern men as a mode of allaying sectional agitation; and in the North, Whig politicians accepted it as a, device for keeping tWhig, Oct. 7, 1847. Winthrop in the House supported it; Feb. 22, 1847. Addresses and Speeches, vol. i. p. 589. and the Northern Whig press very generally adopted it as a politic solution of a vexed question. The proposition, as it came from Berrien in the Senate and from Winthrop in the House, was lost by a vote which was rather party than sectional. The advantages of the acquisition were too apparent, and the passion for territorial expansion too strong, to admit of this feeble expedien
... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ...