Difference between revisions of ".NDQx.NDAwMw"
From DigitalMaine Transcription Project
Hayley.ellis (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
It remains to be seen whether his | It remains to be seen whether his | ||
| − | criticism of Secy. Chase's | + | an |
| + | criticism of Secy. Chase's fin ^ cial | ||
system is just. And in his | system is just. And in his | ||
examination of the "recreant" | examination of the "recreant" | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
Horace thought him altogether, too | Horace thought him altogether, too | ||
severe. | severe. | ||
| − | + | In short in seemed to me | |
| − | In short in seemed to me | ||
no one of the public men whose | no one of the public men whose | ||
names had been mentioned during | names had been mentioned during | ||
| − | his discourse had by their acts won his esteem so much as John Brown. | + | his discourse had by their acts |
| − | Surely his thoughts on the subject of reconstruction were very | + | won his esteem so much as John |
| + | Brown. | ||
| + | Surely his thoughts on the | ||
| + | subject of reconstruction were very | ||
Latest revision as of 12:31, 22 January 2019
It remains to be seen whether his
an
criticism of Secy. Chase's fin ^ cial system is just. And in his examination of the "recreant" Secretary's anti slavery record calling his principle "base metal" unable to stand the test, even Horace thought him altogether, too severe.
In short in seemed to me
no one of the public men whose names had been mentioned during his discourse had by their acts won his esteem so much as John Brown.
Surely his thoughts on the
subject of reconstruction were very