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

Your search returned 8 results in 6 document sections:

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)
Some of the epithets applied by him to the committee's proposition, which, though short-sighted, was well meant, exceeded the measure of the occasion. He was perhaps led to make them the stronger by the treatment he received from Fessenden, who without any due provocation descended into personalities, and pursued Sumner with unconcealed bitterness. March 9. Congressional Globe, pp. 1277-1280. Sumner followed with a reply which was made in the best of temper. Unlike the Maine senator, Williams, Howe, Henderson, and Yates referred to Sumner in very complimentary terms. Sumner's substitute received eight votes—his own and those of Brown, Chandler, Howe, Pomeroy, Wade, and Wilson. Henderson's proposition of an amendment to the Constitution, forbidding the States in prescribing the qualifications of electors to discriminate against any person on account of race or color, received the votes of the same senators with Henderson and Clark added, making only ten votes in the Senate at
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 10 (search)
s impossible forever. The Senate rejected the House retaliatory provisions by a vote of thirty yeas to seven nays, but yielded to clamor far enough to insert Williams's amendment requiring the President, whenever an American citizen was unjustly deprived of his liberty by a foreign government, to use such means, not amounting July 23. Congressional Globe, pp. 4359, 4360. His colleague Wilson, once a member, like Banks, of the Know-Nothing order, supported the bill, even voting for Williams's amendment. He approved the definition in the bill of the rights of citizenship growing out of expatriation, but Williams's amendment left the measure in such aWilliams's amendment left the measure in such an unsatisfactory shape that he did not vote upon it. The bill passed with only five negative votes. Speaker Colfax urged Sumner, in an interview, July 23, and by letter the next day, to support the bill for political reasons. On the other hand, letters approving his course came from E. R. Hoar, P. W. Chandler. Marshall O. Robe
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)
e and transfer of our commercial marine, the prolongation of the war and the increased cost, both in treasure and lives, of its suppression; and he emphasized in that connection the inadequacy of the Johnson-Clarendon convention, repeating the senator's objections. Placed in parallel lines, the passages from the President's message and the senator's speech would seem to have come from the same hand. The American members of the Joint High Commission,—Fish, Schenck. E. R. Hoar, Nelson, and Williams,—in their protocol of March 8, 1871, repeated these national claims, following closely the President's enumeration, adding the cost of pursuing the cruisers, and including the losses in the prolongation of the war and in the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion. The American Case, The Case as a whole lacks the legal spirit; its style is highly wrought, not to say sensational. Its statement of the national claims is peculiarly Davis's, as
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)
r's remark disqualified him from sitting on the case. Sumner, while maintaining the fairness of his committee, accepted Sherman's friendly suggestion that the petition be referred to a special committee. The special committee was, however, 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 Nye. Mr. Fish, as might have been expected from one of his conservative temperament, was at first no better affected towards the annexation than Sumner; Sumner's Statement, March, 1871, p. 259; H. B. Adams in North American Review, July, 1870. p. 57; Gen
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 56: San Domingo again.—the senator's first speech.—return of the angina pectoris.—Fish's insult in the Motley Papers.— the senator's removal from the foreign relations committee.—pretexts for the remioval.—second speech against the San Domingo scheme.—the treaty of Washington.—Sumner and Wilson against Butler for governor.—1870-1871. (search)
n of a settlement. See Appendix. The indignity of the removal was aggravated by the time chosen for effecting it. The Joint High Commission for the settlement of all questions between Great Britain and the United States was in session in Washington, and had taken up the Alabama claims March 8, the day preceding the action of the caucus. The Commission began its sessions February 27, and ended them May 8. The American commissioners were Fish, Schenck, E. R. Hoar, Judge Nelson, and G. H. Williams; the British commissioners were Earl de Grey (afterwards Marquis of Ripon), Sir Stafford Northcote (afterwards Lord Iddlesleigh), Professor Mountague Bernard, Sir Edward Thornton, and Sir John Macdonald. Just then came the dismissal from the post he had long held of the statesman who had studied the questions at issue more than any one of his countrymen, and whose treatment of them in his speech in 1869 had led the British Cabinet to see the necessity of an early settlement. Sumner sai
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 59: cordiality of senators.—last appeal for the Civil-rights bill. —death of Agassiz.—guest of the New England Society in New York.—the nomination of Caleb Cushing as chief-justice.—an appointment for the Boston custom-house.— the rescinding of the legislative censure.—last effort in debate.—last day in the senate.—illness, death, funeral, and memorial tributes.—Dec. 1, 1873—March 11, 1874. (search)
employed at immense cost. Millions! Read my sketch of him, and see how it is verified by the result. Howe's first mistake was that he did not follow the example of Agassiz, who refused to be seduced into any co-operation against a friend. The vacancy in the office of chief-justice was filled at this session. The President first offered the place to Mr. Conkling, among whose qualifications, whatever they were, the judicial temper was not one. Fortunately, he declined it; then George H. Williams of Oregon was nominated, whose name was withdrawn when it was found impossible to secure a confirmation. A greater surprise was then in store,—the immediate nomination of Caleb Cushing, who, having been appointed and confirmed as minister to Spain, was about to set sail. This third name struck the Senate and the country with amazement, and a confirmation was at once found to be impossible. Mr. Conkling alone appeared to approve it, and not more than half-a-dozen Republican senators