Jerks in History

[J. Beckert]

(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.