Browsing named entities in Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3. You can also browse the collection for February 7th or search for February 7th in all documents.

Your search returned 4 results in 2 document sections:

Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 35: Massachusetts and the compromise.—Sumner chosen senator.—1850-1851. (search)
ir allies, kept his supporters firm, and they resolved to stand by him. February 17 Their stubbornness was not merely from policy; for they believed that whatever might be the merits of other eminent Free Soilers, Sumner alone could by his power of speech and is daring fill the place of the antislavery protagonist in the Senate. The election of any other would in their view be half a defeat. The feeling of the Free Soilers outside of the Legislature was the same. Charles Allen wrote, February 7, You must be the hero of this war to the end,—the conquering hero, I trust. S. C. Phillips forbade the use of his own name as an alternative, and counselled adherence to Sumner to the end. The contest dragged wearily on, and the prospect of success grew fainter. There was a meeting in Sumner's office, attended by some members of the Legislature and other leaders, where Sumner again volunteered to withdraw; but the general conviction was that a change of candidates would distract the u
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 38: repeal of the Missouri Compromise.—reply to Butler and Mason.—the Republican Party.—address on Granville Sharp.—friendly correspondence.—1853-1854. (search)
sas and Nebraska, and declared the prohibition inoperative, for the reason that it had been superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850. Douglas, February 7, added the term void to inoperative, changed the phrase superseded by to inconsistent with, and further amplified the clause. Benton, in the House, called the paragraph, but its first full article on the subject did not appear till February 8. The National Intelligencer's first article against the bill was published February 7, and others followed February 21 and 28, —the three articles filling many columns. The National Era, October 19 of the same year, noted, in a review of the eartee, and says he objected. I would not have been allowed to be there. （Seward's Life, vol. II. p. 216.) Everett first signified in the Senate his opposition, February 7. It does not appear that his convictions were then against it. He maintained cordial relations with its author during the whole controversy. Three days after t