Jerks in History

[Rob Wick]

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