Browsing named entities in Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4. You can also browse the collection for Charles Howard or search for Charles Howard in all documents.

Your search returned 26 results in 8 document sections:

Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 45: an antislavery policy.—the Trent case.—Theories of reconstruction.—confiscation.—the session of 1861-1862. (search)
ht Jan. 21 and Feb. 4, 1862. Works, vol. VI. pp. 252-289. Bright's offence was the giving of a letter of introduction to Jefferson Davis, March 1, 1861, similar in purport to a letter of Caleb Cushing, which some years later insured his rejection as chief-justice. Sumner disavowed personal feeling, which Bright attributed to him. He treated particularly in his speech the kind of evidence competent in such a case. He led the debate, Feb. 13, 1868, in co-operation with Conness, Edmunds, Howard, and Sherman, against the admission of Philip F. Thomas, senator-elect from Maryland, specifically on the ground that he had permitted a minor son to leave home to enlist in the Confederate army, and had provided him with money as he left; but Thomas's resistance, as a member of Buchanan's Cabinet, to the relief of Fort Sumter, and his resignation when it was decided to send provisions to the garrison, was the underlying motive with senators for excluding him. He was refused a seat, although
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 48: Seward.—emancipation.—peace with France.—letters of marque and reprisal.—foreign mediation.—action on certain military appointments.—personal relations with foreigners at Washington.—letters to Bright, Cobden, and the Duchess of Argyll.—English opinion on the Civil War.—Earl Russell and Gladstone.—foreign relations.—1862-1863. (search)
nvened shortly after the session began. They took unanimous action (Mr. King of New York alone not voting), which it was supposed would effect his withdrawal from the Cabinet. Without naming him, it was agreed to call upon the President to make such changes in his Cabinet as would secure unity of purpose and action, and include in it only the cordial and unwavering supporters of a vigorous and successful prosecution of the war. The committee of the caucus, consisting of Collamer, Trumbull, Howard, Harris, Grimes, Pomeroy, Fessenden, Fessenden's unfavorable opinion of Seward at an early date is given in his letter, Feb. 2, 1858, to J. S. Pike. First Blows of the Civil War, p. 379. Sumner, and Wade, waited on the President, December 18. Collamer presented the formal paper which had been agreed upon, and the senators individually stated their objections to Mr. Seward's continuance in the Cabinet. When Mr. Lincoln's attention was called, probably by Sumner, to the despatch of July 5
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 50: last months of the Civil War.—Chase and Taney, chief-justices.—the first colored attorney in the supreme court —reciprocity with Canada.—the New Jersey monopoly.— retaliation in war.—reconstruction.—debate on Louisiana.—Lincoln and Sumner.—visit to Richmond.—the president's death by assassination.—Sumner's eulogy upon him. —President Johnson; his method of reconstruction.—Sumner's protests against race distinctions.—death of friends. —French visitors and correspondents.—1864-1865. (search)
y eight votes—those of Brown, Conness, Grimes, Howard, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, and Wade. On the 2 account of color. Motions by Wade, Chandler, Howard, and Sumner to adjourn or postpone or lay on tle as absurd, monarchical, and anti-American. Howard returned to the contest, and repelled the unfoThe five Republican senators (Brown, Chandler, Howard, Sumner, and Wade) and seven Democratic senatorried his point. He had earnest coadjutors in Howard and Wade; but it was admitted in unfriendly qu than his opponent Trumbull, or his supporters Howard and Wade. He stood alike for reconstruction byddeus Stevens, Henry Winter Davis, and Wade Howard and Wade ascribed the present difficulty to Prndifference and opposition among Republicans. Howard and Davis were averse to any direct issue with vol. II. p. 71. died Dec. 5, 1864, at Castle Howard, Yorkshire. His disease was paralysis, which should like to know who was with him at Castle Howard during his last days. While I was there he to[5 more...]
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 51: reconstruction under Johnson's policy.—the fourteenth amendment to the constitution.—defeat of equal suffrage for the District of Columbia, and for Colorado, Nebraska, and Tennessee.—fundamental conditions.— proposed trial of Jefferson Davis.—the neutrality acts. —Stockton's claim as a senator.—tributes to public men. —consolidation of the statutes.—excessive labor.— address on Johnson's Policy.—his mother's death.—his marriage.—1865-1866. (search)
ll, and exalted, as was his habit, his own personal career. The veto and the harangue marked a distinct step in his departure from the Republican party. Then came his veto, March 27, of the Civil Rights bill, and July 16, of the second Freedmen's Bureau bill—the last two vetoes being overcome by a two-thirds vote of both houses. Trumbull showed consummate ability in the drafting, management, and advocacy of these measures. As they were well handled in debate—not only by Trumbull, but by Howard, Morrill of Maine, Fessenden, and Wilson—Sumner, although he had prepared himself on the Civil Rights bill, did not speak; but he watched the measure closely and with deep interest, approving it altogether, and recognizing it as a precedent for his own bill for equal political rights in the reconstructed States. Feb. 7, 1866; Congressional Globe, p. 707. Feb. 9, 1866; Globe, pp. 765-767. Works, vol. x. pp. 271-279. He wrote to the Duchess of Argyll, April 3:— These are trying days
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 52: Tenure-of-office act.—equal suffrage in the District of Columbia, in new states, in territories, and in reconstructed states.—schools and homesteads for the Freedmen.—purchase of Alaska and of St. Thomas.—death of Sir Frederick Bruce.—Sumner on Fessenden and Edmunds.—the prophetic voices.—lecture tour in the West.—are we a nation?—1866-1867. (search)
rsy was traversed again. The binding force of fundamental conditions after the State's admission was treated at length. Howard thought he had made a good point on Sumner by offsetting the Massachusetts exclusion of ignorant voters against the Nebrative of race or color, as the basis of their suffrage. Dec. 14, 19, 1866; Jan. 8, 1867; Works, vol. x. pp. 508, 509. Howard and Wilson also denied any obligation to admit the rebel States to representation on their acceptance of the fourteenth an, which closed at 3 A. M., the Republican senators met at 11 A. Mr., when a committee, consisting of Sherman, Fessenden, Howard, Harris, Howe is likely to have served instead of Harris; Sherman, Feb. 10, 1870. Congressional Globe. p. 1182. Frel Sumner made an earnest effort for equal suffrage, but it found no favor with his associates, only one supporting him; Howard probably. and he gave notice that he should appeal to the caucus. At 5 P. M. the caucus met, and Sumner, warmly encoura
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 54: President Grant's cabinet.—A. T. Stewart's disability.—Mr. Fish, Secretary of State.—Motley, minister to England.—the Alabama claims.—the Johnson-Clarendon convention.— the senator's speech: its reception in this country and in England.—the British proclamation of belligerency.— national claims.—instructions to Motley.—consultations with Fish.—political address in the autumn.— lecture on caste.—1869. (search)
arter. Anthony, who was in the chair, sent at once to Sumner a bit of paper with these words and his initials: That was a great speech. The leader in the Providence Journal, April 20, 1869, was presumably written by Senator Anthony, who was its editor as well as chief proprietor. It approved the speech as free from the spirit of hostility and revenge, and representing the views of the senators as well as public opinion. Fessenden was the first to approve; and he was followed by Sherman, Howard, Morton, Scott, Thurman, Casserly, Stockton, Chandler, and Warner. Fessenden and other senators, in personal congratulations and in public remarks, commended particularly its moderation and conciliatory spirit. New York Tribune, April 14; New York Times, April 14; New York Herald, April 14. The last named journal, May 3, reports an interview with the senator, in which he stated some incidents connected with the speech. The treaty was then rejected by a vote of fifty-four to one. The Se
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 55: Fessenden's death.—the public debt.—reduction of postage.— Mrs. Lincoln's pension.—end of reconstruction.—race discriminations in naturalization.—the Chinese.—the senator's record.—the Cuban Civil War.—annexation of San Domingo.—the treaties.—their use of the navy.—interview with the presedent.—opposition to the annexation; its defeat.—Mr. Fish.—removal of Motley.—lecture on Franco-Prussian War.—1869-1870. (search)
a partial one, as its chairman was Nye, who in the debate had said that Babcock was as pure as the waters of the mountain from melted snow. The committee by one majority justified Babcock and the Dominican authorities; The majority were Nye, Howard, Williams, and Warner; and the minority, Ferry, Schurz, and Vickers. but the minority report had the signature of Ferry, who was unquestioned in his devotion to the Republican party, and who in character and position carried greater weight than Nted as follows (Democrats in italics): For the treaty—Abbott (N. C.), Brownlow (Tenn.), Cameron (Penn.), Cattell (N. J.), Chandler (Mich.), Cole (Cal.), Conkling (N. Y.), Corbett (Oregon), Drake (Mo.), Fenton (N. Y.), Hamlin (Me.), Harlan (Iowa), Howard (Mich.), Howell (Iowa), McDonald (Ark.). Morton (Ind.), Nye (Nev.), Osborn (Fla.), Pratt (Ind.), Ramsey (.Minn.), Revels (Miss.), Rice (Ark.), Spencer (Ala.), Stewart (Nev.), Thiayer (Neb.), Warner (Ala.), Williams (Oregon), Wilson (Mass.). Again
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Note. (search)
65). 2. Crayon drawing, by Eastman Johnson in 1846, belonging to the Longfellow family, and engraved for this Memoir (vol. II.). It is held by the artist to have been a good likeness at the tine, but others express a doubt. 3. Crayon, by W. W. Story; made from sittings in 1851 at the request of the seventh Earl of Carlisle, with some final touches from Seth W. Cheney, as Story left for Europe before it was quite finished (ante, vol. III. p. 64; IV. p. 261). It has been kept at Castle Howard, Yorkshire; it is a good likeness, and represents Sumner at his best, in the fulness and strength of manhood. Prescott wrote to Sumner in January, 1852: You cannot expect a better likeness in every sense. It was lithographed by S. W. Chandler before it was sent to England. Epes Sargent wrote of the print, which was published in 1854, that it was a capital likeness, and that nothing could be better. The biographer has a copy of a photograph of the picture, taken at York since the senator'