Defending Honor: Understanding why Preston Brooks caned Charles Sumner

The Bonnie Blue Blog

VERBATIM POST
===========================

“What is life without honor? Degradation is worse than death.”

--Lt. General Thomas J. Jackson, CSA

This image is ubiquitous in every public school textbook of American history (that I have seen, including my 12 year old's).


The print depicts a brutal senseless act, with leering faces in the crowd. A faceless barbarian (South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks, Democrat) mercilessly beats a gentle quill-wielding martyr (Senator Charles Sumner, Republican, Massachusetts), his blood dripping off the cane.


The image is not historically accurate, and is pure Northern propaganda.

Southern character is mocked, as if Mr. Brooks' actions represent a typical Southern predilection to violence; it caricatures every Southerner as a slave-beating overseer.


The press of the country was no less adept at spin and hyperbole in 1856 than it is today.



In today's public schools, history is only taught through modern cultural bias, which makes an event or idea, quite reasonable in the past, seem horrific to a modern child.



What was Preston Brooks thinking at the time of the caning of Sumner?


Charles Sumner was a Boston-raised and Harvard educated attorney. Sumner was probably the most vocal abolitionist in the Senate. In fact, his first major speech in the Senate was entitled "Freedom national, Slavery sectional," delivered in August 1852, in which he denounced the Fugitive Slave Act as unconstitutional. He was an el0quent fanatic for his cause.


The question of whether new western territories, in this case Kansas, would enter the Union as a "Free" or "Slave" state was the question of the moment. The intricacies of the positions of the pro-Slavery and anti-slavery positions cannot be described adequately in an essay of this length. The stakes were high for both sides, including the balance of political power in the Federal government, setting new constitutional precedents, and, as always, economic considerations of private monied interests drove the politics.


May 18, 1856, Charles Sumner rose in the Senate chamber, and delivered the speech that gave such offense (relevant excerpt):


Before entering upon the argument, I must say something of ...senators who have raised themselves to eminence on this floor in championship of human wrongs; I mean the senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Butler), and the senator from Illinois, (Mr.Douglas, who, though unlike as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, yet, like this couple, sally forth together in the same cause. The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight -- I mean the harlot, Slavery. For her his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote in behalf of his wench Dulcinea del Toboso is all surpassed. The asserted rights of slavery, which shock equality of all kinds, are cloaked by a fantastic claim of equality. If the Slave States cannot enjoy what in mockery of the great fathers of the Republic, he misnames equality under the Constitution -- in other words, the full power in the National Territories to compel fellow men to unpaid toil, to separate husband and wife, and to sell little children at the auction-block -- then, sir, the chivalric Senator will conduct the State of South Carolina out of the Union! heroic knight! Exalted senator! A second Moses come for a second Exodus!
--The Crime Against Kansas: The Apologies For The Crime: The True Remedy., United States Senate, May 18-19, 1856

Senators Stephen Douglas and Andrew Butler, according to Charles Sumer

This quote of Sumner's speech is a portion of the insulting language directed at Sen. Andrew Butler.

Preston Brooks knew this personal public insult required a response.


He was the most appropriate person to respond to Sumner. He was the nephew of the infirm 59 year old Andrew Butler. He was a South Carolinian.


Brooks was 37. Sumner was a well known athlete, and weighed 30 lbs. more than Brooks.

Context: The primacy of honor


In the contemporary cultural context of the incident in question, the sense of honor refers to both a person's self-image, as well as how community peers viewed the person. A person's honor could be forever damaged by public humiliation. In the Anglo-Celtic tradition of Brooks' contemporaries, honor was treated with the utmost seriousness, particularly among the landed educated class. Personal honor and status in society was directly related to a man's behavior in public. Insults and injustices required a verbal or physical response to satisfy the honor and dignity of the wronged party.

Context: Code Duello, mid 19th Century America


In 1838, John Lyde Wilson, the former governor of South Carolina, wrote a pamphlet called "The Code of Honor: Rules for the government of principals and seconds in duelling. In Chapter VIII of the the pamphlet, Wilson wrote:

"1. The prevailing rule is, that words used in retort, although more violent and disrespectful than those first used, will not satisfy,—words being no satisfaction for words.

2. When words are used, and a blow given in return, the insult is avenged; and if redress be sought, it must be from the person receiving the blow."

This pamphlet describes the accepted norm of behavior of men of Preston Brooks' social class in his native South Carolina, and provides insight into his behavior in the wake of Sumner's speech.

Charles Sumner

Preston Brooks

The incident


Two days after the speech, Brooks walked up to Sumner, who was seated at his bolt-anchored desk in the Senate chamber. Brooks stated his grievance and his intent, and without giving Sumner a chance to respond, he struck Sumner about the head numerous times with a gutta percha (natural plastic-hard rubber) cane. Sumner tried to ward off the blows, but was encumbered by the desk. In Sumner's struggle to rise, he pulled the desk's bolts out of the floor; Brooks' blows came in quick succession. Sumner fell unconscious with multiple scalp lacerations. Accounts of the attack are varied, despite numerous witnesses.


Some reports from the North describe a critically injured man. Others implied that Sumner was not seriously injured, and milked the publicity for his Sectionalist/abolitionist cause. Abraham Lincoln remarked cynically: "The outrage upon Sumner & the occurrences in Kansas," writing to Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, "have helped us vastly."


Contemporary reaction


Predictable outrage in the North was expressed in newspaper editorials:

Attack on Mr. Sumner.

Boston, Massachusetts, Bee [American]

(23 May 1856)

-- "...it will be seen that Hon. Chas. Sumner, M. C., of this city, was ferociously and brutally assaulted in the National Senate Chamber yesterday, by a cowardly scoundrel named Brooks. An outrage so gross and villianous was never before committed within the walls of the Capitol... This bully Brooks who has disgraced the name of man, ought to be branded as a villain of the blackest dye, and then mercilessly kicked from one end of the continent to the other."

Southern editorials were effusive in praising Brooks' behavior:

Public Approval of Mr. Brooks.

Columbia, South Carolina, South Carolinian [Democratic]

(27 May 1856)

"...Hon. Preston S. Brooks had not only the approval, but the hearty congratulations of the people of South Carolina for his summary chastisement of the abolitionist Sumner.

Immediately upon the reception of the news on Saturday last, a most enthusiastic meeting was convened in the town of Newberry, ... The meeting voted him a handsome gold-headed cane, which we saw yesterday, on its way to Washington,... At Anderson, ...a meeting was called, and complimentary resolutions adopted. We heard one of Carolina's truest and most honored matrons from Mr. Brooks' district... saying "that the ladies of the South would send him hickory sticks, with which to chastise Abolitionists and Red Republicans whenever he wanted them."

Preston Brooks' own speech in defense of his actions includes: " ...a senator from Massachusetts allowed himself, ...this uncalled-for libel on my State and my blood. Whatever insults my State insults me... I should have forfeited my own self-respect, and perhaps the good opinion of my countrymen, if I had failed to resent such an injury by calling the offender in question to a personal account. It was a personal affair, and in taking redress into my own hands I meant no disrespect to the Senate of the United States or to this House."

Fallout


One hears the opening shots of the War Between the States when one reads the newspaper editorials written about the caning incident in the Senate chamber.


The Pittsburgh gazette wrote pugnaciously:


"It can no longer be permitted that all the blows shall come from one side. If Southern men will resort to the fist to overawe and intimidate Northern men, blow must be given back blow for blow. Forbearance and kindly deportment are lost upon these Southern ruffians... Northern men must defend themselves..."

Historical memory

The histories have been written by the victors of the War to Prevent Southern Independence.

Preston Brooks was initially feted by his home state and community, and reelected to Congress.

He is now remembered as a villain.

For those of us who choose to look, Preston Brooks can be seen in the context of his times to be a Southern patriot, true to the expected code of public behavior of his community.