Browsing named entities in William Schouler, A history of Massachusetts in the Civil War: Volume 1. You can also browse the collection for Holt or search for Holt in all documents.

Your search returned 4 results in 3 document sections:

William Schouler, A history of Massachusetts in the Civil War: Volume 1, Chapter 5: (search)
portion of our country. [Applause.] . . . We are here, in the presence of the public peril, ready to sink, more than hitherto, the partisan in the patriot: counting it honor, as well as duty, to lock arms with such glorious patriots as the noble Holt [applause], working at the pumps, whoever is at the helm; the bold and unflinching Johnson [applause], nailing his flag to the mast; and the peerless Everett [applause], sounding the clarion-notes of his stirring eloquence along the ranks of the aernor. Thomas Russell, Esq., of Boston, moved to amend the motion, that a committee of two from each congressional district be appointed to report nominations for the other officers to the convention. He said, We have come here to lock arms with Holt and Dickinson and Butler and Frothingham and Greene, and we have got to do it in some practical way. This amendment was carried, and a committee appointed, which subsequently reported, for Lieutenant-Governor, Edward Dickinson, of Amherst; for Se
William Schouler, A history of Massachusetts in the Civil War: Volume 1, Chapter 11: (search)
any further reference to the subject on the files of the Governor. On the 15th of August, the Governor wrote to the Secretary of War the following letter:— I had the honor, when in Washington, the first week in July, to call your attention to the cases of several officers of the Thirty-sixth U. S.C. troops, who were degraded by General Orders No. 46 from General Butler's headquarters in April last, which act of degradation has been declared by the Judge-Advocate-General of the army (Holt), on proper reference to that officer, to be utterly without warrant of law. I believe also, that the order was hasty and ill-advised, even though it had been legally competent. The particular individuals for whose rights and welfare I intervened had long been faithful and meritorious soldiers of the Twenty-fifth Massachusetts, who had earned in the field the recommendation of their field officers to promotion, and they had all secured the reputation of bravery and fidelity. You remarked
William Schouler, A history of Massachusetts in the Civil War: Volume 1, Chapter 12: (search)
nd to forfeit all allowances. Colonel Gardiner Tufts, our State agent at Washington, who knew the man and had examined the case, had written to the Governor that he was a good and faithful soldier, one who has been and can be trusted to go into the city without guard. The Governor had previously called the attention of the Secretary of War to this sentence in strong and indignant language. Major Burt, the Judge-Advocate of the Commonwealth, had also examined the case, and his letter to Judge Holt, at the head of the Bureau of Military Justice, in regard to it was most able and convincing. In the letter of the Governor to the President is this paragraph— This inhuman sentence could not be imposed by a judge of the highest judicial tribunal of this Commonwealth for any crime. But I understand the court-martial that imposed this sentence was presided over by a captain in the service. Such things ought not to be. . . . You know how extremely uncertain these tribunals have prov