I have to agree with Joe on this. We need to recognize that social standards 150 years ago were quite different from ours. Once we adjust our thinking, history will often make more sense.

As for Dan Sickles's shooting of Philip Barton Key: Sickles was a cuckolded husband - another situation that warranted a duel. Key was a philanderer; the fact that he came from a very prominent family did not excuse his behavior. Likewise, Sumner berated one particular man to the extreme over what was an ill of all American society. This was crude and uncalled for - especially from a member of Congress. Brooks's actions were no worse than Sumner's words to the society of that time.

There are societies in the world today that would see nothing wrong with what Brooks or Sickles did. It is a question of honor to their way of thinking. Be careful, they may be coming to a neighborhood near you.

(11-26-2013 07:06 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  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.

Remember this TV show from the 60's staring Chuck Connors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKmJPnAGUJk

Quote: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.

Likewise, the practice of "Hooding" as punishment was prevalent in the US (as well as British) Navy in the 19th Century.... hence, some say the practice of hooding the conspirators - whether or not Powell attempted suicide or the hooding was utilized as a means of silencing the prisoners.

It seems to me the issue here boils down to the age-old one that historians have struggled with for generations, i.e., is the historian allowed to make moral judgments as to history. Most historians say no, although that in and of itself is a moral judgment. Historians make moral judgments in other ways, however, by the material they emphasize and the research they emphasize. That said, I have a question. We're told that we cannot judge Brooks by our standards. OK, I accept that, but aren't people judging Sumner as well? Sumner saw in the 1850s a country that required northern states to return fugitive slaves regardless of that state's perceived right to ban slavery within its borders. The Congress didn't even allow debate on the issue due to the gag rule. Northern abolitionists were not allowed to send abolitionist material into the southern states because of it.

So if we cannot judge Brooks, how can we call Sumner's action rude or obnoxious?

Best
Rob

(11-27-2013 07:48 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  So if we cannot judge Brooks, how can we call Sumner's action rude or obnoxious?

Best
Rob

Because being rude or (especially) obnoxious is timeless?

(11-27-2013 07:48 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  So if we cannot judge Brooks, how can we call Sumner's action rude or obnoxious?
Best
Rob

We shouldn't judge either one of them from our 21st century seat, in my opinion. We should just try and understand their situation in the era in which it occurred. It would take a whole heck of a lot more than someone calling me a "Squat, nameless animal" or saying I kept a "Harlot" to get me to viciously cane them, but in the 1850's, what Sumner did was beyond their rules of decorum. Aside from someone purposely and physically harming a family member, I wouldn't be capable of that. I don't think any of us would. Most of our society got away from confrontations over honor like that a long time ago, but at that time, it was expected. This was one step down from a duel, which I can't fathom either, but it was still on the table back then.

I'm not sure that any of us were trying to "judge" either Brooks or Sumner -- we were trying to explain that there were different attitudes in earlier societies. IMO, a good historian tries to understand the era of which they write, not judge it. Nothing makes me worse mad today than people who feel the need to tell other people that they are wrong because their thinking doesn't jive with "the modern judge." Who made them the anointed one?

Joseph - love the quote at the bottom of your post. Dr. Ben Carson, right? I love that man's writings as well as the great things he has done as a person. He's someone that I wouldn't mind judging me!

(11-27-2013 09:17 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Joseph - love the quote at the bottom of your post. Dr. Ben Carson, right? I love that man's writings as well as the great things he has done as a person. He's someone that I wouldn't mind judging me!

That is indeed from Dr. Ben. He makes a lot of sense to me too.

The problem I have with Brooks is his response to Sumner, he didn't respond in kind to Sumner's verbal attack. As far as I know, prior to his attack Brooks didn't publicly say anything insulting about Sumner or his family.

Brooks attacked an unarmed man who was not expecting it, and who was positioned where he could barely defend himself. While Brooks may not have been a coward, his acts were cowardly by the standards of his time and today.

Sorry, Gene, but I don't believe that Brooks's actions were considered cowardly by the standards of HIS time. I don't know any other way to express the thoughts of those times other than what I have already said, so I am going to ask one more time:

What makes Brooks worse than John Brown and Bleeding Kansas? Many abolitionists applauded his mass killings. and many influential Northerners gave financial aid to his decision to raid Harpers Ferry and incite a slave rebellion. Believe it or not, I despise what Brown did, but I understand his fanaticism given the circumstances of the 1850s -- just like I understand Preston Brooks taking his wrath out on one pompous abolitionist.

(11-27-2013 11:25 AM)L Verge Wrote:  What makes Brooks worse than John Brown and Bleeding Kansas? Many abolitionists applauded his mass killings. and many influential Northerners gave financial aid to his decision to raid Harpers Ferry and incite a slave rebellion. Believe it or not, I despise what Brown did, but I understand his fanaticism given the circumstances of the 1850s -- just like I understand Preston Brooks taking his wrath out on one pompous abolitionist.

I don't believe Brooks was worse than Brown, Brooks didn't kill anyone. I agree Laurie, many approved Brown's actions and I would believe that many people in the north who might have been against slavery were appalled by Brown's actions in that what he did was too extreme. Right and wrong haven't changed that much over time and neither have our perceptions of right and wrong. There will always be people like John Brown who commit evil acts. People will still make excuses and justify wrong behavior if it is for a cause we feel is just. We will always struggle with the issue, when is it wrong to attack your enemy and when is it acceptable or even prudent to do so? It seems like the winner or survivor gets to decide that question. I choose to believe there will be a greater and final judge who gets to make the ultimate decision with ultimate consequences.

I agree about the final judge, and I sure hope that he's not the one portrayed in the Old Testament.

I've never heard anyone say that Brooks was worse than Brown. However, I know of one major difference. I could find a number of northern newspaper editorials and northern citizens who criticized what Brown did. I would love for someone to show me a southern editorial or letter from someone who criticized Brooks.

Best
Rob

When this discussion first started, I did go online and found one site that carried about 25 articles from newspapers of the time. And yes, there were at least two in the South that I saw condemning Brooks. Of course, I can't find that particular site again!

I did find an interesting review, however, on a book entitled The Caning -- and I immediately thought of those of us who have been haggling back and forth on the subject on this forum:

Fredricksburg Star
Elizabeth Rabin – October 28, 2012

On May 22, 1856, Preston Brooks, a congressman from South Carolina, beat Charles Sumner, a senator from Boston, in the Senate chamber with a malacca cane. Time and distance makes this statement now sound like an accusation from the game Clue. But in the years before the Civil War, Brooks’s act signaled the widening distance developing in contemporary American society.

Abolitionist rhetoric and pro-slavery response had led from fiery words to physical violence that spread even to the halls of American government. Stephen Puleo’s latest nonfiction book, The Caning: The Assault That Drove America to Civil War, focuses on the confrontation between Brooks and Sumner and explores the events that led up to it.

Puleo’s book is an accessible, interesting read for those who are curious about the Civil War but may be intimidated about where to start.

Sumner was a Boston native who fought what he thought was the good fight against slavery by using the most inflammatory remarks at his disposal. Brooks was a young Southern man determined to avenge what he felt were personal insults toward his land and his family, even if it meant violence.

Readers will not only find The Caning a compelling read, but they may be surprised to find multiple parallels to today’s political climate. The debate over the legality of slavery often hinged on what was or wasn’t explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, much like many hotly debated issues today. Many editorials of the day insisted that “apathy was not an option . . . nor were insipid calls for calm, reason or cooler heads.” Again and again, citizens from both pro-slavery and abolitionist states emphasized how they were incapable of even understanding their opponents’ arguments.

As our current political discussion continues to be stormy, these same sentiments come up whether the issue is health care or the federal deficit.

With attitudes like these in 1856, violence, not just between statesmen, but between American citizens was inevitable. The time for talk was over; many illustrations of the caning acknowledged this by showing Brooks’s cane overcoming Sumner’s pen. While The Caning may be a jumping-off point for history buffs in the making, the book is also a grim reminder of what can happen when a healthy debate becomes a polarizing argument that neither side is willing to lose.

Here's "the rest of the story" at least as far as concerns Preston Brooks.

"One of the most bitter critics of the attack was Sumner's fellow New Englander, Representative Anson Burlingame (Republican-Massachusetts). When Burlingame denounced Brooks as a coward on the floor of the House, Brooks challenged him to a duel, and Burlingame accepted the challenge. Burlingame, as the challenged party, specified rifles as the weapons, and to get around American anti-dueling laws he named the Navy Yard on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls as the site. Brooks, reportedly dismayed by both Burlingame's unexpectedly enthusiastic acceptance and his reputation as a crack shot, neglected to show up, instead citing unspecified risks to his safety if he was to cross "hostile country" (the Northern states) to reach Canada. He was subsequently mocked as a coward by Northerners for the rest of his life.[23]"

The rest of his life was unfortunately not a long time for Brooks.

"Brooks died unexpectedly from croup in January 1857, before the new Congressional term began. He was buried in Edgefield, South Carolina. The official telegram announcing his death stated 'He died a horrid death, and suffered intensely.' Despite terrible weather, thousands went to the Capitol to attend his funeral. Only one speaker, Representative John Houston Savage of Tennessee, openly referred to the attack on Sumner. Savage favorably equated the caning to the assassination of Julius Caesar by Brutus. Republicans left the House in protest. Senator Butler had Savage's comments removed from the published proceedings. Long afterward Charles Sumner said that 'It was slavery, not he, that struck the blow.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks