hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Charles Sumner 1,580 0 Browse Search
George Sumner 1,494 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 642 0 Browse Search
Robert C. Winthrop 392 0 Browse Search
Henry Wilson 348 0 Browse Search
William H. Seward 342 0 Browse Search
Fletcher Webster 328 0 Browse Search
Douglas 236 8 Browse Search
Edward Everett 224 0 Browse Search
Benjamin F. Butler 208 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3. Search the whole document.

Found 486 total hits in 160 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...
De Beaumont (search for this): chapter 3
tions, to work side by side, and during religious exercises to sit together. The comparative advantages of the two systems in promoting the prisoner's reformation, keeping him in good physical and mental condition, and giving him useful industrial training, were contested points. The separate system, first tried in Pennsylvania, drew the attention of European philanthropists and publicists, and their reports after personal inspection were uniformly in its favor. Among the visitors were Beaumont and Tocqueville in 1831, and Demetz and Blout in 1837, from France; Crawford, in 1834, from England; and Julius, in 1836, from Prussia. It was established in Belgium, where it is still continued in full vigor; but elsewhere in Europe the congregate or some mixed system now prevails. In this country the separate system survives only at Philadelphia. The Boston Prison Discipline Society was founded in 1825, at a time when the discussion as to the merits of the two systems had begun. Earl
Samuel A. Eliot (search for this): chapter 3
issue seemed to justify. It will be seen that Eliot's set came quickly to his support, even withouand Howe taking one view of what they saw, and Eliot and Dwight the opposite one. Richard Vaux, on, and began their examination. To Mr. Vaux, Eliot and Dwight appeared listless and not at all eniversary meeting of the Society in May, 1846. Eliot, Dwight, Dr. W. Channing, and Bigelow concurrer,—a thrust which, an eye-witness says, made Mr. Eliot start as if he had been shot Later on in thees rankled during the lifetime of the actors. Eliot's social position was of the best, as he was ce indefinite postponement of the resolutions. Eliot spoke twice, sharply criticising Sumner's reponished at the revelation of his own misdeeds. Eliot was pompous and Boston personified, as usual. Howe, as well as Mr. Ticknor's kinship with Mr. Eliot, account for their selection. Eliot became Eliot became president; and Dwight continued in office till his death, in 1854. In 1855 no officers were chosen[7 more...]
Crawford (search for this): chapter 3
The comparative advantages of the two systems in promoting the prisoner's reformation, keeping him in good physical and mental condition, and giving him useful industrial training, were contested points. The separate system, first tried in Pennsylvania, drew the attention of European philanthropists and publicists, and their reports after personal inspection were uniformly in its favor. Among the visitors were Beaumont and Tocqueville in 1831, and Demetz and Blout in 1837, from France; Crawford, in 1834, from England; and Julius, in 1836, from Prussia. It was established in Belgium, where it is still continued in full vigor; but elsewhere in Europe the congregate or some mixed system now prevails. In this country the separate system survives only at Philadelphia. The Boston Prison Discipline Society was founded in 1825, at a time when the discussion as to the merits of the two systems had begun. Early in its existence its reports, prepared by its secretary, Rev. Louis Dwight,
Charles Sumner (search for this): chapter 3
nt appointed as the committee, Bradford Sumner, Charles Sumner, Hillard, Dr. Channing, and Dwight; and the pretee to consist of the other three members, with Charles Sumner as chairman. Dwight was absent during the su, though not present, more than matched him there. Sumner advised Mr. Rathbone, of Liverpool, and Dr. Julius,buting among the delegates the Liverpool edition of Sumner's recent speech. The president of the Congress was Sumner's friend, Professor Mittermaier, of Heidelberg. It was a distinguished assembly, composed of men eminx magistrate, who in a session of the Congress held Sumner's speech in his hand in full view of Dwight, ready son of William Rotch, a Nantucket whaler. He wrote Sumner that Dwight's abstinence from voting alone preventeng which he inspected the prison at Pentonville. Sumner attempted, soon after the Society's meeting, to proor to Dr. Wayland, who had declined a re-election. Sumner's report being offered, Bradford Sumner at once obj
Edmund Dwight (search for this): chapter 3
connected by marriage with George Ticknor, Edmund Dwight, Benjamin Guild, and Dr. Andrews Norton, a6 and 30, contained communications friendly to Dwight. On the other side there were several speakersms, but chiefly defending with friendly zeal Mr. Dwight; Bradford Sumner, a lawyer respectable in chtter equipped for the debate than any other of Dwight's party. Mr. Gray spoke at three meetings, ocrtially. Sumner seconded the resolutions, and Dwight also assented to them. Genuine friends of therejoinder. Stevenson continued his defence of Dwight's extracts from Lafayette and Roscoe, the everthe whole. Gray seemed to me very foxy. Poor Dwight looked crushed. He was astonished at the rever, Aug. 5, 1847. A few days later he addressed Dwight an elaborate note, expressing regret that the pressing engagements, he was ready to assist. Dwight did not respond to the appeal. In the summer wever, that its course will now be altered. Mr. Dwight, the secretary, has become insane,—whether i[5 more...]
George T. Bigelow (search for this): chapter 3
referred to. Ante, vol. II. pp. 329, 330. Dr. Wayland, who had been persuaded to retain the presidency after his removal to Providence, was in the chair. George T. Bigelow, Afterwards chief-justice. a member of the bar, rising, according to previous arrangement, to move the acceptance of the secretary's annual report, expressewe, who were on hand, anticipating the course of things, at once rebuked the secretary's persistency in his vicious method of treating that system, and repelled Mr. Bigelow's imputation. The interruption was disagreeable to the managers, but Sumner's motion for a committee to revise the report, and to visit Philadelphia, was carrihis reports. The controversy which began in May, 1845, was renewed at the anniversary meeting of the Society in May, 1846. Eliot, Dwight, Dr. W. Channing, and Bigelow concurred in a report drawn by Dr. Channing, which sustained the course of the Society and its secretary; while Dr. Howe, Sumner, and Mann joined in a minority re
English (search for this): chapter 3
not know. The New York Society promises great usefulness. . . .I cherish a lively recollection of my brief intercourse with you in Paris. An international prison congress was held this year at Brussels. Sumner, in letters from Europe, was urged to attend, but was unable to do so. His brother George, however, was present, and acquitted himself well in the debates, showing in them, according to Dr. Julius, a rare moderation and excellent temper. His principal speech, translated into English, was republished in the Boston Daily Advertiser, Oct. 22, 1847, with an introductory note by Charles. who wrote to him a note of congratulation on the high quality of his speech and his success in speaking in a foreign tongue. The discussions of 1846 and 1847, which had discredited the character of the managers for efficiency, fairness, and breadth of view, were a fatal blow to the Society, and it never recovered public confidence. In May, 1848, Sumner appeared before the managers, an
Henry H. Fuller (search for this): chapter 3
of these families ramified in the society of Boston; and this debate, in connection with Sumner's political divergence from its traditions and interests, helped to bring him into general social disfavor. Sumner was supported by Dr. Howe, who spoke at great length on two evenings, making a minute comparison of the two prison systems, and earnestly advocating that of Pennsylvania; June 2 and 16. Dr. Howe's speech of June 16 is fully reported in the Semi-Weekly Courier, June 24. by Henry H. Fuller, a hard-headed lawyer, who spoke twice, commending the resolutions in terse and pertinent remarks; and by Hillard, who appeared only once in the debate, urging fairness in the reports of the Society, and rebuking an anonymous newspaper attack on Sumner. Sumner, Howe, and Hillard were the subjects of coarse attacks in communications printed in the Boston Post, June 2, 4, 9, and 22. The first article was replied to by a writer in that journal, June 5. The Boston Advertiser, June 26 a
Harper (search for this): chapter 3
candid statement, and quoted, without adopting, the still stronger animadversions of foreign writers. Provoked by what he thought to be Mr. Eliot's overbearing manner and personal reflections on Dr. Howe and himself, Sumner made in his second speech several personal references to Eliot, using terms hardly proper for a young man to apply to his seniors, except under provocation. Some of Sumner's friends thought his personal references in this debate needlessly cutting. E. P. Whipple in Harper's Magazine, May, 1879, p. 276. I will borrow, he said as he began, from the honorable treasurer, with his permission, something of his frankness without his temper,—a thrust which, an eye-witness says, made Mr. Eliot start as if he had been shot Later on in the speech Sumner spoke of him as the Achilles of the debate, impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer,—saying also that he had in the course of a short speech contrived to announce himself as treasurer of the Boston Prison Discipline Socie
George Combe (search for this): chapter 3
s on successive warm evenings in May and June, going early and remaining late. The audiences which filled the spacious Temple represented the intelligence and philanthropy of the city, as well as all that Was radical and adventurous in speculation,—people already enlisted or about to enlist in the warfare against American slavery; people earnest for moral reforms, like temperance; seekers for novelties, who imagined they had found a new revelation in phrenology as taught by Spurzheim and George Combe; disciples of Theodore Parker's theology and of Emerson's philosophy. An audience of such tendencies and inspirations could be gathered in no other city. Their interest was rather in the disputants than in the subject; it was aesthetic and sentimental, rather than philanthropic and practical. They were interested in Sumner as a man, enjoyed his refined eloquence, were inspired by his noble sentiments, and admired the spirit with which he resisted the dictation of those whose right to d
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...