Your search returned 85 results in 25 document sections:

ore than an hour, when an attempt was made to turn their flank. I ordered the Seventy-first regiment to go forward to their support, which, in moving to the point indicated, was exposed to a heavy fire from the enemy. I regret to state that Major Conkling of the Seventy-first Indiana was killed while moving to the support of the Sixteenth, and bravely cheering on his men; and that very shortly afterward, Lieut.-Colonel Topping fell from his horse mortally wounded while encouraging the men of heen minutes longer the left wing stood that awful fire, when they gave way and retreated up the hill. The Seventy-first came gallantly forward, led by Gen. Manson, and scarcely had they met the shock when Lieut.-Col. Topping, commanding, and Major Conkling were killed, and many of the officers of that regiment fell, one second lieutenant having about twenty bullets through him. The regiment was broken, disorganized, and never formed again on that day. The men fought in squads, in companies, and
ore than an hour, when an attempt was made to turn their flank. I ordered the Seventy-first regiment to go forward to their support, which, in moving to the point indicated, was exposed to a heavy fire from the enemy. I regret to state that Major Conkling of the Seventy-first Indiana was killed while moving to the support of the Sixteenth, and bravely cheering on his men; and that very shortly afterward, Lieut.-Colonel Topping fell from his horse mortally wounded while encouraging the men of heen minutes longer the left wing stood that awful fire, when they gave way and retreated up the hill. The Seventy-first came gallantly forward, led by Gen. Manson, and scarcely had they met the shock when Lieut.-Col. Topping, commanding, and Major Conkling were killed, and many of the officers of that regiment fell, one second lieutenant having about twenty bullets through him. The regiment was broken, disorganized, and never formed again on that day. The men fought in squads, in companies, and
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 10. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), chapter 2.15 (search)
God forbid that the skeleton in the national closet should be needlessly dragged to light, but, remember, the burning of Columbia has been charged upon Hampton's cavalry by General Sherman. Surely it is permissible for one to deny the commission of the crime who, though himself but an insignificant drop in the ocean of war, still takes a soldier's pride in the fair fame of his old command, whose honor he holds as sacred as his own. As justly might the right of denial be withheld from Mr. Conkling if charged with Mr. Garfield's foul murder. History will be written, and the muse must not hold a lying pen. It should be written in the spirit of liberality and charity learned from the divine sermon once delivered from Judea's mountain height, but it should also be written with due regard to Jehovah's injunction, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Not to the privates or subaltern officers of the corps which burnt Columbia attaches the moral responsibility. A so
Francis Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879; the story of his life told by his children: volume 4, Chapter 11: last years.—1877-79. (search)
g voice which surprised his hearers. He seemed, indeed, as one of the subsequent speakers remarked, to Rev. R. C. Waterston. have renewed his youth. It was the last flash of fire in the fading flame. He spoke but once again in public, and that was a last plea for the enfranchisement of women, Feb. 14, 1879. before a hostile legislative committee, at the State House. On the same day that he was thus vindicating human rights by advocating the equality of the sexes, Senators Blaine and Conkling, rival aspirants for the Republican nomination for the Presidency, were making their respective bids for the support of the Pacific coast by advocating, in the Senate at Washington, a bill to restrict Chinese emigration, in defiance of existing treaty obligations. The moral sense of the country was shocked by this wanton disregard of a solemn contract between nations, and startled by the recreancy to the fundamental theories of the republic manifested by party leaders of such eminence. Th
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 40: outrages in Kansas.—speech on Kansas.—the Brooks assault.—1855-1856. (search)
r. May 27. Keitt, colleague and confederate of Brooks, on Feb. 5, 1858, in the House seized G. A. Grow of Pennsylvania by the throat, and called him a damned Republican puppy. New York Tribune, Feb. 6, 1858. In all Sumner said of Butler he fell below what had often occurred in the British Parliament and in Congress without the sequel of violence, as when Burke spoke of Hastings; or in controversies between Tristam Burges and John Randolph, Daniel Webster and D. S. Dickinson, Blaine and Conkling. Nor did Sumner's speech on the second day contain any elaborate criticism of South Carolina, but only a single passage illustrating her devotion to slavery (an historic fact claimed to her credit by her public men), and asserting that her whole history was of less value to civilization than the example of Kansas in that territory's struggle against oppression. This single passage was but an incidental reference; whereas Sumner's full speech on the topic two years before led to no act of
Hon. J. L. M. Curry , LL.D., William Robertson Garrett , A. M. , Ph.D., Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 1.1, Legal Justification of the South in secession, The South as a factor in the territorial expansion of the United States (ed. Clement Anselm Evans), The civil history of the Confederate States (search)
he slaves. The public declaration was to be made that the safety of the capital from the assaults of the insurgents, the saving of the Union, the rescue of Southern Union people from the control of the disunionists, the recovery of the forts and the honor of the flag, were to be the grounds of armed invasion in the Southern States. (Blaine, Twenty Years, pp. 323, 353.) The House organized by electing Mr. Grow, speaker, defeating Mr. F. P. Blair, of Missouri. The war leaders were Stevens, Conkling, Washburne, Lovejoy, Morrill and Colfax. Opposed to them were English, Voorhees, Pendleton, Corning, Richardson, Cox, Vallandigham, and Crittenden. The message of President Lincoln related almost wholly to matters of the war then in progress. The two things uppermost for earnest consideration were the armies and the money necessary to conduct a vigorous war. Referring to the occupancy of Fort Sumter by the Federal garrison, he claimed this to be necessary in order to maintain visible
nation of Hayes for the Presidency Grant gave him a cordial support. Until the nominations were made, however, all Grant's influence had been thrown in favor of Conkling, and against Bristow and Blaine. He had declined to allow his name to go before the convention, but he naturally took a keen interest in the selection of the candidate who might succeed him. Conkling had been his especial advocate and defender in the Senate during the period when many fell away, while for Bristow he entertained an especial bitterness. He looked upon Bristow as a Cabinet Minister who had become not only the rival of his chief, but the instigator of all the fierce and pere sentiment, which was one of the most intense he ever knew. But for Blaine at this time Grant had no animosity; he opposed him because he was the competitor of Conkling. When, however, Hayes became the candidate by a compromise, Grant was loyal to his party and to the decision of its representatives. No one suspected him, an
family, naturally eager to regain the position they had once enjoyed, was incessant; and Grant allowed every step to be taken to present his name to the country and the convention without one sign of disapproval. Delegates were chosen pledged to vote for him; important statesmen known to have always been in his confidence openly advocated his nomination; yet with that singular reticence which he sometimes displayed, he made neither public nor private utterance on the subject, and men like Conkling, Cameron, and Logan declared in intimate conferences that Grant had never said to either that he would be a candidate. He always had a superstitious feeling, which he describes in his memoirs, that he would fail in any effort made by himself to secure his own advancement. He had done nothing whatever to promote his first nomination, and nothing directly for his second; and he determined now to follow the same course in regard to a third. He finally, however, became extremely anxious to
his utterance was followed by a demonstration from Conkling, not only Grant's most prominent champion at ChicaMentor, the home of the candidate, he was met by Mr. Conkling, and the two were entertained by the man who had however, first to the Senate Chamber to visit Senator Conkling, who informed me that my name had been sent toetween Garfield and Blaine on one side, and Grant, Conkling, and Arthur on the other. Robertson, whose courseto all the recognized rules of political courtesy, Conkling should have been consulted; and Merritt, the frienor Italy, or some equally good place. Advise with Conkling and Platt. It would be better to come here withou weeks in Washington, consulting not only with Senators Conkling and Logan, but constantly with Vice-President Mexico and gone to his house at Long Branch. Both Conkling and Platt had resigned their positions in the Sena Grant had fully sympathized with the feeling of Mr. Conkling and Vice-President Arthur, and had come in for h
nt to Chicago a fervent adherent of Grant, and was steadfast under Conkling's lead in the advocacy of a third term. When Garfield was nominatticket was tendered to him as a sort of propitiatory reparation to Conkling. The nomination for the Presidency had itself been suggested for Conkling by some who were willing to support him, though they would not accept Grant; but Conkling declared that he had gone to the conventionConkling declared that he had gone to the convention to nominate Grant, and rather than receive the prize he was pledged to obtain for another he would cut his right arm from his body. Arthur, done in his place. Arthur was in complete accord with Grant and Conkling in their dispute with Garfield, and even took a more conspicuous prant in the struggle, visiting Albany to aid in the re-election of Conkling and incurring the severest criticism of Garfield's supporters. Ththe same relations he had once maintained, not only with Grant and Conkling, but with the wing of the party which they led. For this change th