Politics/Politicians = Strange Brew

[unionblue]

Tommy,

You miss a point here. Brooks did not beat Sumner with a cane because of his speech insulting a relative. He beat him because he considered Sumner something less of a human being, not a gentleman, not an equal.

Brooks ability to look at a human being and equate him to something 'less' is what is frightening and gives lie to the idea of a code of honor being upheld. Brooks actions simply upped the ante, as one might put it, at least the papers seemed to think so.

"The South cannot toterate free speech anywhere, and wold stifle it in Washington with the bludgeon and the bowie-knife, as they are now trying to stifle it in Kansas by massacre, rapine, and murder."

"Has it come to this, that we must speak with bated breath in the presence of our Southern masters?... Are we to be chastised as they chastise their slaves? Are we too, slaves, slaves for life, a target for their brutal blows, when we do not comport ourselves to please them?" (New York Evening Post).

It may have been satisfying to beat Sumner over words, but actions tend to speak louder than words, and in this case, Brooks caused more harm with his actions than Sumner with his words.

Unionblue

[ole]

Thank you, unionblue, for again saying it better than I could.

The divide created by that caning was perhaps greater than the publication of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and all of Garrison's rant.

[thea_447]

Originally Posted by ole

Thank you, unionblue, for again saying it better than I could.

The divide created by that caning was perhaps greater than the publication of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and all of Garrison's rant.

Surely you don't equate the caning with "Uncle Tom's Cabin", the book which ol' Abe himself, upon meeting Miss Harriet said, "So you're the little lady who wrote the book that started this big old war."

I also see another basic difference here between Southerners and Northerners. The caning, in my opinion was equivalent to the older method of insult the British employed, slapping one's opponent with a glove. It was an opportunity to be called out for a duel. I've no doubt that Brooks would have accepted the challenge to a duel too.

By the way, I'm congratulating myself on starting this thread because this is exactly what I wanted: to hear opposing views on some of the stories handed down about the war, but overlooked because of the enormity of the war itself.

[ole]

Thea:

When news of the caning circulated, the outrage that ripped through the country was as intense as the ripple of sympathy that followed publication of "UTC."

The outrage was directed against the entire south, not just slaveholders.

[bill_torrens]

I find myself somewhere between the two camps on this issue.

Brooks did beat Sumner because of the latter's poisonous reflections on a much-loved elderly relative who was in no position to defend himself. But he did a great deal more than land a merely symbolic blow as a means of provoking a duel. He inflicted serious injuries, and there is no way in which this can be justified. Worst of all, his actions enabled Northerners to argue that he did what he did because of Sumner's opinions on slavery. This was a blatant lie but it is still believed today.