hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4 82 0 Browse Search
Owen Wister, Ulysses S. Grant 2 0 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Your search returned 84 results in 5 document sections:

Owen Wister, Ulysses S. Grant, Bibliography. (search)
of in the text. With it should be read the Memoirs of Sherman and Sheridan. They make a trilogy that will outlast any criticism. VII. Grant in peace. By Adam Badeau. (Hartford, Conn., 1887: S. S. Scranton & Co.) Contains much that is trivial, but much that is valuable. VIII. Historical essays. By Henry Adams. The four last essays. (New York, 1891: Charles Scribner's Sons.) There is no better summary of pertinent political issues. IX. Mr. Fish and the Alabama claims. By J. C. B. Davis. （Boston and New York, 1893: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.) Another excellent and absorbing summary. X. the story of the Civil War. By John Codman Ropes. (New York, 1894-98: G. P. Putnam's Sons.) Unfinished. The reader may always trust Mr. Ropes' information, but not always his judgment. XI. History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850. Volumes III. and IV. By James Ford Rhodes. (New York, 1895-99: Harper Brothers.) Unfinished. This work is steadily taking the featur
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)
tional. Its statement of the national claims is peculiarly Davis's, as he did not submit it, as he did the other parts of the Case, to publicists for revision. Davis to Fish, Sept. 21, 1872. prepared by Davis under Fish's direction, and approved byDavis under Fish's direction, and approved by President Grant, J. Russell Young (Around the World with General Grant, vol. II. pp. 279, 280) reports General Grant as oreign relations committee. The next day Mr. Fish wrote to Davis, The President approves of your presentation of the Case. 9,095,000,000. Memorandum to Granville's letter to Schenck. Davis afterwards charged Sumner with putting forth doctrines and gested, by the voluntary action of the tribunal. As it was Davis's Case —his portentous exhibition of the national injuries—adeau's Grant in Peace, p. 202. That confidence continued. Davis's statement that on receiving, June 23, Motley's report of e in the latter: The whole tone of the letter discredits Davis's account of differences between Mr. Fish and Sumner in Apr
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)
instead of plotting to absorb them. New York Tribune, April 5, 1871. Such reflections were on the senator's mind before he had been admitted to knowledge of the circumstances of the negotiation. One day the assistant secretary of state (Davis) brought him some despatches from San Domingo, which revealed to him that Baez .was maintained in power by our navy. I confess now, he said afterwards, my emotion as I read this painful revelation. Until then I had supposed the proceeding blame, Osborn (Fla.), Pratt (Ind.), Ramsey (.Minn.), Revels (Miss.), Rice (Ark.), Spencer (Ala.), Stewart (Nev.), Thiayer (Neb.), Warner (Ala.), Williams (Oregon), Wilson (Mass.). Against the treaty,—Boreman (W. Va.), Casserly) (Cal.), Cragin (N. H.), Davis (Ky.), Edmunds (Vt.), Ferry (Conn.), Fowler (Tenn.), Hamilton (Md.), Harris (La.), Johnston (Va.), McCreery (Ky.), Morrill (me.), Morrill (Vt), Patterson (N. H.), Pool (N. C.), Robertson (S. C.), Ross (Kan.), Saulsbury (Del.), Sawyer (S. C.), Sch
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)
admit as a State. In Senate, Dec. 20 and 21, 1870. Thurman, Congressional Globe, pp. 193, 250; Davis, Ibid., p. 195; Bayard, Ibid., p. 226. This idea of recurring to an act which had been repudiatey, which Sumner reported July 13, 1870, is still (1893) pending in the Senate; and, according to Davis's method of accusing Sumner, not only he but all his successors in the chairmanship have been, dnent. J. C. B. Davis, in the New York Herald, Jan. 4, 1878. See reply of Wendell Phillips to Davis's letter (New York Herald, Jan. 9, 1878; Boston Herald, Jan. 13, 1878). This final pretext or af have been communicated to senators at the time; but this could not be, It did not occur to Mr. Davis, who is the authority for this statement, that it would be an unmanly thing to communicate prien give it as a reason for their action, or at a later day when the subject was again mooted. Davis, after stating what does not appear except on his authority,—that this memorandum was communicat
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, chapter 19 (search)
s than such testimony from such a source. Mr. Davis in his paper jumps the charge of pigeon-holi pleased to hear that it had taken place. Mr. Davis says: The unrevealed records of the Senate i the matter have ended without a record. If Mr. Davis can find anything in the Senate journals to circulated against him. The charge which Mr. Davis now substitutes for the original one is, tha been completely disproved by the record. Mr. Davis's assertion that the President and secretaryno chairman could stand the test. It is for Mr. Davis to show, before he can sustain his charge, as removal heretofore given having failed, Mr. Davis has attempted a new one, which no assailant ofry of such a settlement. This, according to Mr. Davis, was communicated by Mr. Fish to leading Repand November 10, 1877; nor by any one except Mr. Davis, and by him only after the pretext of unrepong the remotest allusion to the reason which Mr. Davis now resorts to when the others have failed. [16 more...]