+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Jerks in History (/thread-1307.html)
RE: Jerks in History - brtmchl - 11-21-2013 10:03 PM
(11-21-2013 09:59 PM)L Verge Wrote: What makes Preston Brooks's actions worse than those of John Brown (and others) in Bleeding Kansas?
Preston Brooks never hacked people to death in cold blood......"his truth is marching on."
RE: Jerks in History - J. Beckert - 11-21-2013 10:04 PM
(11-21-2013 09:27 PM)Rsmyth Wrote: Joe are you saying that back then if someone said something you did not agree with beating them and severely injuring them was an honorable thing to do? What if Sumner had died, do you think Brooks should have been tried and if so on what charge?
Sumner was an Abolistionist. I think i would have had a difficult time holding my tongue when talking to anyone that supported slavery. If you think what he said crossed the line...I don't think he went far enough.
Yes I am, Rich. The mores of the time dictated this. But it has to be viewed in the context of the times. Your own words, back then, explain this. It was a grave insult to all of the men Sumner chastised, in the vilest of terms and in public. Would it flush today? Of course not, but in the 1850's, duels were common. We, of course, can't in this day and age imagine challenging someone to a duel over an insult, but in those days it was common. If Sumner had died, I'm sure charges would have been preferred against Brooks. You may say you'd have had a difficult time holding your tongue in an arguement about slavery, but are you viewing that through your 21st. century views? As far as Sumner not going far enough, are you saying that he should have been more personally insulting instead of just expressing his views on the subject? He stepped over the line and his views were outside the rules of decorum for those days. That's why he got a thrashing.
RE: Jerks in History - L Verge - 11-21-2013 10:05 PM
Thank you, Mike, my point exactly...
RE: Jerks in History - J. Beckert - 11-21-2013 10:13 PM
(11-21-2013 10:02 PM)Linda Anderson Wrote: "During Sumner's long years of suffering following the attack, it is said that he never spoke unkindly of Brooks. It is related that years after, when one day walking in thee Congressional Cemetery in Washington, George William Curtis called his attention to a cenotaph of Brooks which Sumner had not noticed before, his only remark was: "Poor fellow. Poor fellow!" To the question then asked by Curtis, "How do you feel about Brooks?" he replied, "Only as to a brick that should fall upon your head from a chimney. He was the unconscious agent of another power."
Leave it to Linda to put a conscientious spin on this! If Sumner put it into this perspective, shouldn't we be able to also?
RE: Jerks in History - L Verge - 11-21-2013 10:27 PM
I found this interesting article from a Vermont newspaper that attempted to show blame on both Brooks and Sumner. There was a similar one from a New Hampshire newspaper also, but it placed more of the blame on Sumner for dishonoring Brooks's family member.
Montpelier, Vermont, Patriot and State Gazette [Democratic]
(30 May 1856)
The following is the statement of Mr. Sumner, under oath, in regard to the assault upon him by Mr. Brooks:
[statement omitted by transcriber]
Mr. Sumner's own account makes the outrage lighter than did the first dispatches. Mr. Brooks was the only one who knew of the attack beforehand, -- contrary to first reports, which represented that this mode of punishment was agreed on by southerners in caucus, -- and he was promptly arrested by the by-standers, Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, grasping Brooks round his waist; and the instrument used on Mr. Sumner was a limber and hollow gutta percha walking stick.
The remarks made by Mr. Sumner, which provoked this assault, were malignant and insulting beyond anything ever uttered in coolness upon the floor of the Senate. Yet, had they been ten times more so, they could have afforded no excuse for this brutal and dastardly attack. The House owes it to its own character to expel this cowardly wretch at once.
We observe the Abolition papers are disposed to use this incident to promote their peculiar views. They speak of it as "another outrage" of slavery against freedom; whereas it is a personal affair entirely, for which Mr. Brooks is alone responsible. It is an incident, we agree, which has resulted from the angry passions this slavery controversy has infused throughout the whole Union; and the lesson it teaches with most clearness, is the folly and madness of any word or act which many stimulate this excitement to a higher degree of frenzy.
I also found it interesting that Charles Sumner had enough stamina to continue in politics until his death nearly twenty years later, playing an active role in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, among other things.
RE: Jerks in History - Linda Anderson - 11-21-2013 10:40 PM
(11-21-2013 10:27 PM)L Verge Wrote: I also found it interesting that Charles Sumner had enough stamina to continue in politics until his death nearly twenty years later, playing an active role in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, among other things.
There is a similarity to Seward who was also able to view his attack philosophically. Seward, already injured from his carriage accident, sustained painful wounds from the assassination attempt but he stayed in office for the next four years and then somehow managed to travel around the world although he was in poor health.
Some people just have a strong life force.
RE: Jerks in History - Eva Elisabeth - 11-22-2013 07:01 AM
(11-21-2013 06:22 PM)Rsmyth Wrote: ... a duel would have been honorable but beating someone with a cane is cowardly and not something the people of that state should be proud of.I agree on this. Although I can understand what led Brooks to this attack, but I can't justify violence as a way of telling or teaching someone he said something wrong or bad, especially as the victim couldn't use the same weapon to defend himself (whereas Brooks et al could have used words at every time). Sitting alone in his office, Sumner had no chance to defend himself or getting help, differently to the situation of his verbal attack on Butler.
But I agree on that Sumner should have expected such aftermath since the whole atmosphere concerning the sequence of events in Kansas was a violent one.
Thanks Linda for posting Sumner's later account on his feelings towards Brooks. I didn't expect Sumner to think like that and be so forgiving.
(11-21-2013 10:40 PM)Linda Anderson Wrote: There is a similarity to Seward who was also able to view his attack philosophically. Seward, already injured from his carriage accident, sustained painful wounds from the assassination attempt but he stayed in office for the next four years and then somehow managed to travel around the world although he was in poor health.Well said, Linda. I think he did even stronger than Lincoln believe in probably facing such a violent deed and fate, and I take my hat off for his willingness to die for his believes and aims.
Some people just have a strong life force.
New York Times Editor Henry J. Raymond wrote: "Free from the faintest impulse of revenge himself, he could not appreciate its desperate intensity in the hearts of others. Mr. Seward, with his larger experience and more practical knowledge of human nature, had repeatedly told him that so great a contest could never close without passing through an era of assassination - that if it did not come as a means of aiding the rebel cause, it would follow, and seek to avenge its downfall, and that it was the duty of all who were responsibly and conspicuously connected with the Government, to be prepared for this supreme test of their courage and patriotic devotion. Mr. Seward himself, had acted upon this conviction, and had stood at his post always prepared for sudden death."
RE: Jerks in History - My Name Is Kate - 11-22-2013 09:25 AM
Was slavery the real issue, or was it the desire for political power? The Republicans wanted to keep slavery out of the territories for political reasons at least as much, if not more than for moral reasons.
Self-righteous old John Brown practiced his own form of slavery with his twenty children from two wives, one of whom was just sixteen when he married her after his first wife died shortly after giving birth.
RE: Jerks in History - Gene C - 11-22-2013 10:32 AM
(11-22-2013 09:25 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote: Self-righteous old John Brown practiced his own form of slavery with his twenty children from two wives, one of whom was just sixteen when he married her after his first wife died shortly after giving birth.
Not surprised, but I did't know that. Where did you read that?
I think for most people slavery was the real issue, although many of them did not have a strong enough feeling to go to war over it. Between Sumter & Brooks, who knows, probably both slavery & political attention, and the power that can come from it.
RE: Jerks in History - Linda Anderson - 11-22-2013 01:24 PM
"In the days before delivering the speech, Sumner had read a draft to Frances Seward. She strongly advised him to remove the personal attacks, including a reference to Butler's slight paralysis that slurred his speech. In this instance, Sumner did not heed her advice...
"News of the brutal assault, which left Sumner with severe injuries to his brain and spinal cord and kept him out of the Senate for three years, galvanized antislavery sentiment in the North...
"The beating reached into the people's hearts and minds, which political events rarely touch, the historian William Gienapp has argued. It 'proved a powerful stimulus in driving moderates and conservatives into the Republican party.'"
Team of Rivals
RE: Jerks in History - My Name Is Kate - 11-22-2013 04:52 PM
(11-22-2013 10:32 AM)Gene C Wrote: Not surprised, but I did't know that. Where did you read that?
I think for most people slavery was the real issue, although many of them did not have a strong enough feeling to go to war over it.
I read that on Wikipedia.
I'm sure there were individual exceptions, but overall I have a hard time believing that slavery was the real issue for the North simply because they did not also believe in equal rights for all races. The Brooks/Sumner incident probably galvanized anti-Southern sentiment at least as much as it did anti-slavery sentiment.
Slavery was the method the South used to hold on to political power, was it not? It gave wealthy land-owning slaveholders an additional 3/5 vote per slave, and that was enough to tilt political power in the South's favor. At least, that is my understanding.
RE: Jerks in History - Eva Elisabeth - 11-22-2013 06:48 PM
(11-22-2013 04:52 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:I think it's inappropriate to speak of "the North" or "the real issue". I think the slavery issue rooted in all these aspects (economic, political - regarding the slaves owners over-representation in the votes - and human ones), with individually (even amongst politicians) different proportions. However, one aspect might have been dominant, still the others (I believe) had their share, too.(11-22-2013 10:32 AM)Gene C Wrote: Not surprised, but I did't know that. Where did you read that?
I think for most people slavery was the real issue, although many of them did not have a strong enough feeling to go to war over it.
I read that on Wikipedia.
I'm sure there were individual exceptions, but overall I have a hard time believing that slavery was the real issue for the North simply because they did not also believe in equal rights for all races. The Brooks/Sumner incident probably galvanized anti-Southern sentiment at least as much as it did anti-slavery sentiment.
Slavery was the method the South used to hold on to political power, was it not? It gave wealthy land-owning slaveholders an additional 3/5 vote per slave, and that was enough to tilt political power in the South's favor. At least, that is my understanding.
RE: Jerks in History - My Name Is Kate - 11-22-2013 07:33 PM
"Dominant" issue would have been a better choice of words.
I cannot see much logic in being so concerned about so-called "freedom" for the slaves, when lack of equal rights and equal opportunity would put the freed slaves in a position similar to a rabbit in a cage that is let loose for the chase to begin. The rabbit has its freedom alright, but only for the few short moments before it gets shredded.
Was the plight of women really so much different from that of the slaves? They were basically owned by their husbands, were they not? It was their "choice" to marry, but what other options were available to them? Where was the concern for women? If the North had been thinking more clearly, they would have been all for suffrage for women, because with a far greater population, it would have given them a political advantage.
My experience of human nature tells me that the struggle for political power was the dominant issue leading up to the Civil War.
RE: Jerks in History - Craig Hipkins - 11-26-2013 08:16 AM
I can think of a big jerk when it comes to Washington D.C. History. How about Daniel Sickles chasing Barton Key around the city and shooting him in cold blood.
As far as the Brooks/Sumner incident I have to agree with Rob on this one. Anyone who uses violence as a means to defend a principle when diplomacy is still a viable option is a coward. Did other southerners like John C. Calhoun or Jefferson Davis ever waltz into a place of debate and beat somebody almost to death because they disagreed with them or felt dishonored? No, because they could articulate their position regarding the issue on the table. Brooks was a thug and although Sumner may have been a little overbearing and perhaps condescending to his political rivals he surely did not have to be beaten to a bloody pulp.
Craig
RE: Jerks in History - J. Beckert - 11-26-2013 07:06 PM
It's a matter of perspective Craig, but it's better understood if viewed in context of the mores of the times and without any 21 st. century opinions. This was an era when soldiers were flogged for military disciplinary infractions. Tied to a post and whipped. (The practice was banned in 1862, but depending on the CO's willingness to take a gamble and get his own discipline for allowing it, it continued on a smaller scale). Soldiers were branded with a hot iron for violations of the military code of conduct. "T" for theft, "C" for cowardice and "D" for deserter. The brand was usually placed on the forehead, cheek or hip. Certainly extreme by our standards today, but not in the 1860's. Soldiers were executed for merely falling asleep on picket duty. Shot. Dead. For falling asleep. You said Sumner "may have been a little overbearing and perhaps condescending". He wasn't overbearing or condescending - he was downright rude and insulting. To publically insult a man or his family in public in those days was an insult that had to be addressed. Brooks felt Sumner's lack of civility precluded the invitation to a duel, which may have lead to his death, so he did the next best thing - walked up to him, explain his transgression and told him he would be punished for it.