sign in sign up
<<
Home , Caning of Charles Sumner, Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks

Southern Honor and the Brooks-Sumner Affair Dallas Hanbury (Dr. Ruth Truss) History, University of Montevallo

In May 1856, a young Representative from walked into the Senate

chamber in search of Senator . Finding Sumner seated at his

desk, beat the senator unconscious. This Brooks-Sumner Affair was one of many incidents associated with “Bleeding ,” often viewed by historians as one of the crucial stepping stones of the 1850s toward . In studying the coming of secession and

Civil War, political events provide a key element to understanding the division that arose between sections of the . From the , to the Kansas-Nebraska

Act in 1854, to the 1857 Dred Scott decision, and finally to the 1859 raid on Harper’s Ferry by

John Brown, events propelled the pace of the developing chasm in politics as well as other areas of life. The Kansas-Nebraska Act and the associated acts of violence were especially important in drawing the lines that would eventually result in the fracturing of American life.

This incident known as the Brooks -- Sumner Affair, can be viewed in light of the culture of the American South by the mid -- 1850s. This culture was one that was both unique and complex, emphasizing independence, an economy based on agriculture, and society that valued personal honor. Thus, to Southerners, Preston Brooks’s response to Charles Sumner’s speech was warranted and understood.

Historian James McPherson argues that by the mid-1850s it was not the South that was unique, but rather the North. In his collection of essays Drawn With the Sword, McPherson contends that the agriculturally based South was like the majority of the world economies at the

time and further contends that the American North was an anomaly in its aggressive push to industrialize.1Although the majority of the world was agricultural, the South’s culture was further complicated by the issue of slavery. The complexities of slavery affected every aspect of

Southern life; including honor. As one South Carolinian said: “We are an agricultural people, pursuing our own system, and working out our own destiny, breeding up women and men with some other purpose than to make them vulgar, fanatical, cheating Yankees.”2

Preston Brooks was a product of this culture, steeped in the ideas and ideals of honor,

tradition, and the expectations of a Southern gentleman. The agrarian South in the 1850s was

being threatened with the winds of change, which Southerners such as Preston Brooks saw --

whether consciously or not -- as a threat to their way of life. Indeed, McPherson writes in

“Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism”: “A good many historians insist not only that a unique

south did exist before the Civil War, but also that its sense of being under siege was an

underlying cause of secession.”3 In Southern culture, a gentleman would not hesitate to defend

honor. If one was attacked or threatened, the culture accepted the premise that a vigorous defense

was both necessary and expected. As a result, the lashing out at Sumner was a response to this

state of siege.

Hopes of lifting the Northern siege of Southern slavery and Southern economic interests

came in the initial form of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Kansas-Nebraska Act would repeal the

Missouri Compromise, which stated that slavery would not be allowed to expand past the

parallel of 36; 30; and instead would allow popular sovereignty to decide the slave issue in

1James McPherson, Drawn With the Sword: Reflections on the (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 22.

2Scrapbook kept by Mrs. Brooks. South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

3McPherson, 5. Kansas; Nebraska would be a free territory.

By ensuring that Nebraska would not support slavery, Douglas was cementing his plans

to have a northern route for a transcontinental railroad. Popular sovereignty can be blamed for

igniting the violence in Kansas, for by allowing slavery to be supported or not by the people of

Kansas the situation quickly escalated into violence between pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups

within the territory. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions were attacking each other as both sides sought to gain control of the government of Kansas and thereby settle the slave question within the territory. In fact, the violence reached the point that “Bloody Kansas” became the moniker for the issue.

Sumner’s speech “The Crime Against Kansas” was intended to show support for the anti-slavery position in the territory of Kansas. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the territory were attacking each other as both sides sought to gain control of the government of

Kansas and thereby settle the slave question within the territory. The speech, however, added nothing to the debate over Kansas; it instead was an attack on prominent Democratic leaders, including Stephen Douglas and . As McPherson says: “Language had become an instrument of division, not unity.”4 However, the speech did unite all in temporary agreement

that it was crude and that it violated a sense of decorum; even anti-slavery supporters condemned

the tone and content of the speech.

The long term political impact of was a key element in this crucial

decade prior to the coming of the war. Brooks’s attack on Sumner, two years before the Freeport

Doctrine, was not lost on Southerners in 1858 who felt that the Freeport Doctrine was a reminder

that it was indeed North against South, even within the Democratic Party; hence, Stephen

4 McPherson, 9-11. Douglas was deprived of Southern votes which allowed Lincoln to win the Presidency. One only

has to examine the vote totals of the 1860 Presidential election to realize the effect of the

Freeport Doctrine, and to a lesser extent the fracturing of the Democratic Party beginning in

1856.

Electoral College Popular Vote

Republicans: 180 1,866,000 Southern Democrats: 72 849,800 Constitutional Union Party: 39 589,000 Democratic Party: 12 1,377,000

The results indicate that Stephen Douglas in attempting self-preservation on the question

of slavery in the territories was deprived of electoral votes. Looking at the popular vote, Douglas must have realized the enormity of the political mistake he had made in supporting the idea of popular sovereignty, for he would have garnered more electoral votes if the South had not

rejected the Freeport Doctrine.

Sumner was a member of the new Republican Party. Although his speech deemed ill-

judged by his peers, the speech did not appear to hurt the fledgling party in the 1856 presidential

election. The Republicans put forth as their candidate John C. Fremont who carried eleven states.

The argument might be made that Sumner’s speech hurt the Republican Party in the Southern states. But this argument is unfounded, as a political party with checking the expansion of slavery as one of its platforms would have garnered little support in the South. The true value of

Sumner’s speech came later, as the national Democratic Party experienced division in reaction to the assault on Sumner, the issue of Kansas, and the larger question of the expansion of slavery.

A prime example of such a split is seen on the lower level of national politics, as the

Democratic Party from state to state was divided on the Kansas conflict. The

Democratic Party voiced their opinion in the form of a resolution at their convention in 1856: That we sympathize with the friends of the slavery cause in Kansas, in their

manly efforts to maintain their rights, and the rights and interests of the

Southern people, and that we rejoice at their recent victories over the paid

adventurers and jesuitical[sic] hordes of Northern abolitionism; that the

deep interest felt and taken by the people of in the settlement of

Kansas, and the decision of the slavery question in it, is both natural and

proper, and that it is their right and duty to extend to their Southern brethren

in that territory every legitimate and honorable sympathy and support.5

As the Democratic Party began to split along sectional lines, the larger effect of the conflict

in Kansas on national politics is seen in the assertion that the Freeport Doctrine, set forth by

Democratic leader Stephen Douglas, may have cost the Democrats the presidency in 1860. The

Freeport Doctrine put forth by Douglas in 1858, was that the question of slavery in the territories be taken out of the hands of Congress and decided upon by the people of the territories.6 Widely published, the Freeport Doctrine cemented Southerners’ mistrust of all things Northern,

including Stephen Douglas. As McPherson further notes in “Southern Exceptionalism”:“On the subject of slavery....the North and South....are not only two Peoples, but they are rival, hostile

Peoples.”7

5Democratic and Anti-Know-Nothing State Convention of Alabama. January 8th and 9th 1856, Montgomery Alabama. Page six, Resolution 1.3. Alabama State Archives, Montgomery Alabama.

6Clark E. Carr, Stephen A. Douglas: His Life, Public Services, Speeches, and Patriotism. (Chicago: A. C. McClure, 1909), 55.

7McPherson, 16. It is to be noted that this excerpt from “Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism” was originally published in the Charleston Mercury in 1858. The Charleston Mercury was notorious for being radical. For further inquiry regarding the Charleston Mercury see George Rable’s The Confederate Republic. The actual committing of the assault itself provides an immense amount of information

regarding social customs of the day, the political divisions of the country, and excellent quotes

by some of the most prominent politicians of the 1850s. Having been present during Sumner’s

speech, Stephen Douglas remarked: “That damn fool will get himself killed by another damn

fool” 8 One un-named Tennessee Congressman noted regarding Sumner and his speech: “Mr.

Sumner ought to be knocked down, and his face jumped into.”9

May 22, 1856, Brooks chose to confront Charles Sumner; however he waited as the

Senate emptied out- as Congress had adjourned early that day (12:45p.m.). His reason for waiting was that there were ladies present who had not yet cleared the chamber.10 Finally Brooks

entered the Senate chamber and addressed Sumner who sat writing at his desk: “Mr. Sumner, I

have read your speech twice over carefully, it is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is

a relative of mine.”11Brooks then began to beat Sumner with his gutta-percha cane until Sumner was unconscious. Senator John Crittenden of said to Brooks: “Don’t kill him.”12

Stephen Douglas who had also been insulted in the speech by Sumner, noted that as he thought

about offering to “...help put an end to the affray...it occurred to my mind in an instant, that my

relations with Mr. Sumner were such that if I came into the Hall my motives would be

misconstrued, perhaps, and I sat down again.”13

8Donald, 286.

9Ibid., 289.

10Ibid., 293.

11Ibid., 294.

12Ibid., 296.

13Ibid. Reaction came swiftly. Northern politicians condemned the assault. Representative was

the reaction of Massachusetts Congressman Robert Hall: “Sir, the evidence further shows that

this attack was calmly premeditated...when the weapon of the member from South Carolina fell

on the devoted head of the Senator from Massachusetts, it was not so much Charles Sumner that

was stricken down - it was not so much the sovereignty of Massachusetts that was overpowered,

but it was of debate which was assaulted.”14The Post, a Northern

Democratic paper, described Brooks’s actions as: “Disgraceful.”15 Worse than the Northern

Democratic presses denouncing the assault was Northern Democrats who condemned the assault, such as who visited Sumner and declared Brooks a “Coward and assassin.”16

Southern reaction was opposite that of Mr. Hall and the people he represented: “The time

has long since arrived for Southern men in Washington to punish their traducers.”17 And: “The

telegraph has recently announced no information more grateful to our feelings than the classical

caning which this outrageous abolitionist received on Thursday at the hands of the chivalrous

Brooks of South Carolina.”18

Historian W. J. Cash, author of the influential The Mind of the South, sheds some light on why Brooks committed his violent act: “The essence was the boast, voiced or not, on the part of

every Southerner, that he would knock the hell out of whoever dared to cross him. This character

14Robert Hall, “The assault on Sumner.” July 12, 1856 pg. 5. (Speech) South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

15 Donald, 303.

16Ibid., 304.

17Scrapbook kept by Mrs. Brooks. South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

18Ibid. is of the utmost importance. For its corollary was the perpetuation and acceleration of the tendency to violence which had grown up in the Southern backwoods as it naturally grows up on all frontiers.” 19

One key in this statement is “As it naturally grows up on all frontiers.” Much of the South was indeed still frontier-- type in environment, a place where the main defense against an attack on one’s personal honor was violence. Preston Brooks was raised in a culture that was tied to the land, was rural, and was still influenced by frontier ways. Hence, the Southern understanding of and praise for the “classical caning”, which Brooks’s peers considered an acceptable and understandable reaction. Perhaps Louis Whigfall of Texas described best the unique agricultural and frontier environment of the South: “We are a peculiar people, sir! ... We are an agricultural people. We have no cities - we don’t want them....We want no manufactures: we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufacturing classes.... As long as we have our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, and our cotton, we can command wealth to purchase all we want.... But with the

Yankees we will never trade - never.”20

Within the North, of course personal violence often occurred as well. Yet in Northern environments, violence was heavily discouraged, especially among the social elite, because resorting to violence was thought to be crude and lacking in refinement. In the South, however, resorting to violence to defend personal honor was considered the epitome of culture and refinement; the practice of dueling remained in the South as one outgrowth of this culture.

Dueling, however, was limited to peers, and Brooks (a mere Representative) saw Sumner (a

Senator) as no gentlemen and therefore not a candidate for such a challenge. Instead, Brooks

19W. J. Cash, Mind of the South (New York: Random House, 1941), 42-43.

20McPherson, 8. chose a “classical caning” such as one would use, in Brooks’s words, for a dog. The difference in

sectional viewpoints regarding violence as a means to defend personal honor is highlighted in a

letter written in 1928 by Northington Ford who wrote in regards to Brooks’s attack: “There is

still some feeling that he used the wrong method of retorting to Sumner’s ill-judged speech; but we have to recognize that the practices of the South in that respect were quite different from those of the North.”21

The attack was viewed by Northerners as a sign of Southern aggression, but the letter sent

to Brooks by the man who was the main target of the speech, Andrew Butler, displays a train of

thought that is quite the opposite: “The great defect in the Northern mind is the absence of whole

souled frankness. The descendants of the Puritans seem to be practically acting up to the rule that

the end in view justifies any means to reach it.”22

Even in his younger years while attending the University of South Carolina, Preston

Brooks displayed a willingness to act quickly (and some would say rashly) when it came to a

matter of honor. The faculty minutes from the university, dated November 27, 1839, detail

Brooks’s final misbehavior that resulted in his permanent expulsion: “In hearing that his brother

had been arrested and caned, [Brooks] took a pair of dueling pistols, proceeded to the courthouse

with the design of carrying his brother from his supposed ignominious treatment. After he found

his brother he continued to display his pistols in a threatening manner.”23 That a man with

21Northington Ford, to Mr. James E. Forth, May 14, 1928, letter. Preston Brooks Collection, Box 9, 12 November 1920-1938. South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

22Andrew Butler, to Preston Brooks, June 3, 1856, letter. Preston Brooks Collection, Box 9, 28 May - June 3, 1856. South Caroliniana Library, Columbia.

23University of South Carolina Faculty Minutes, November 27-29, 1839. South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia. minimal and faulty information of the situation would bring loaded weapons into a courthouse in

order to defend his family’s honor illustrates how important honor was in the South, in general, and to Preston Brooks in particular.

Preston Brooks, in striking Charles Sumner, unconsciously displayed his and the agrarian

South’s fears that their way of life was changing and that the only choice was to defend this affront to their honor with violence. Bertram Wyatt-Brown in Southern Honor: Ethics and

Behavior in the Old South wrote: “Honor is the first inner conviction of self worth.”24Brooks

struck because he was striking a blow not only for his uncle but for his people. He struck with

the outer confidence of self worth, but beneath, he struck with the fear of one who felt the winds

of change. In a letter dated May 27, 1856, written to Brooks to congratulate him on the assault,

fellow Southerner W. T. Holmes said: “I heard one of your whilom strenuous defamers say today

that he would vote for you to fill the distinguished post of president to a Southern

Confederacy.”25

Many of these letters written to Brooks have this congratulatory and occasionally

prescient tone to them. The United States would in a few years fight a civil war to determine a settlement to their issues. From the South’s point of view, men who would fulfill the Southern sense of honor were going to be needed. Even more convincing to this point is the letter to

Brooks dated May 26, 1856: “All feel this is a time of peculiar interest of the South.”26 Thus,

along with the laudatory tone, a sense of uneasiness for the future also permeates these letters of

24Bertram Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983)14.

25W. T. Holmes to Preston Brooks, dated May 27, 1856, letter. Preston Brooks Collection, Box 10, 27 September 1854 - 28 May 1856. South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

26Joel (last name not on letter) to Preston Brooks, dated May 26, 1856, letter. Ibid. contemporaries.

An excerpt from an article gathered from the scrapbook kept by Mrs. Brooks illustrates

one opinion of both the affair and Charles Sumner personally: “His recent career in Congress

turns upon a simple principle- hatred of the South. If the South had a thousand lives, his sweet

revenge has stomach for them all.”27Strong words from a good writer who understood how to sell newspapers, but the fanciful rhetoric displays a hidden truth— that there were those in the

South who were afraid of being “gobbled up” and their way of existence disappearing. Preston

Brooks by his actions showed he was one such person, and hence he reacted in the way he had

been brought up to think-- a show of strength in order to defend what was being threatened.

Another letter to Brooks, written June 13, 1856, noted: “It is already war between gentlemen, the

gentlemen cannot, too soon, take the initiative.”28

Perhaps the most thought provoking quote about the whole affair and what it represented

was what Ford said further in the letter about Brooks: “It is a curious speculation to estimate how

far the assault can be held responsible for the events that led up to 1860. It is always stated as

one of the four major causes and in that I believe the estimation to be correct. So often those who

write History realize the personal element, very strong at the time, gradually ceases to be

considered and the incident takes its place with others rather as an impersonal act than a personal

act.”29

Shortly after the caning, the House of Representatives voted on the question of expulsion

27Newspaper clipping from Mrs. Brooks’s scrapbook on the . South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

28 Henry Beddings to Preston Brooks, June 13, 1856, letter. Preston Brooks Collection, Box 9, 28 May - 3 June 1856. South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

29Ford. for Preston Brooks. Among the Representatives voting for expulsion were only six Democrats

(all from Northern states) and the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party and the

Northern Whigs. The Southern Whigs voted with all other Democrats in opposing expulsion...

The six Democrats who voted for Brooks’s expulsion were from New York, Pennsylvania, New

Jersey, and Wisconsin.30 Only thirteen free-state men out of the 134 represented in Congress

would vote against Preston Brooks’s expulsion. These men were from Indiana, Pennsylvania,

New York, , and . 31

Thus, the final tally was 95 against and 121in favor of expulsion. Only one vote for expulsion came from a slave state- . As one newspaper editorial noted: “The vote on this resolution is the most united sectional vote on the part of the South ever given.”32 The vote,

however, failed to result in expulsion because the necessary two-thirds majority was not reached.

Brooks nonetheless resigned and returned home- where he was promptly reelected.

After the attack and the vote on the expulsion resolution, one would think that Brooks

was a disgraced man. To the dismay of his political enemies he was not. Like many years before

while Brooks attended college and was expelled, he received praise from his fellow Southerners

for defending honor. Again and again similar letters came: “My dear sir, I am to you a perfect

stranger, it is even possible that you may never have heard of me in your life... Therefore I beg

that you will allow me the liberty of thanking you with all sincerity of my heart for the summary

and admirable manner in which you resented the filthy and cowardly assault...by that wretched

30Ibid.

31Ibid.

32Scrapbook kept by Mrs. Brooks. Traducer: To cause humiliation or disgrace to by making malicious and false statements. South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Yankee Charles Sumner.”33

Preston Brooks lived less than a year after the incident. The wife and children Brooks left

behind and those who saw trouble ahead perhaps realized that they had lost a leader who was

steeped in the Southern code of honor. The letters written to Mrs. Brooks upon her husband’s

death in January of 1857 display a true sense of mourning and loss: “My dearest Madam, the

intelligence of the sad event that causes the communication will have already reached you. In

your grievous bereavement I tender you the warmest sympathy of my own heart. You have also

the sympathy of many, many known and unknown friends for the idol of your affections was

warmly cherished by the largest circle of friends I ever know any man to have.”34

Preston Brooks from first glance seems a basic man and his attack on Charles Sumner

just another minor incident in history. A glance at the secondary sources that mention the

incident seem few and generic. It is through the primary sources, the letters, the articles, the

diaries which for the most part have been ignored by historians, however, that we realize the

complexity of Preston Brooks. The direct thoughts and feelings of Brooks, his uncle, and others

come alive through the treasures they have left behind. Such a treasure is the diary of Brooks, in

which he wrote: “I endeavor to be a better man.”35 Although this statement was written in 1854, two years prior to the Brooks - Sumner Affair, the statement is an invaluable glimpse into the

true inner nature of Preston Brooks. This diary entry shows that Brooks was not some ruthless

barbarian as depicted in the Northern press, but a man who was earnest in what he wanted to

33Beddings, 2.

34James Orr, to Mrs. Brooks, January 28, 1857, letter. South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

35 Personal Diary of Preston Brooks. Preston Brooks Collection, Box 10, 27 September 1854 - 28 May 1856. South Caroliniana Library, Columbia. accomplish. In penning the words “I endeavor to be a better man,” Brooks has given history an insight into the reason he attacked Sumner; endeavoring to be a better man meant better fulfilling his obligation to upholding honor. Brooks may never have realized that he had more than fulfilled his obligations and defended his convictions. He had, in fact, surpassed them, for through a study of the documents that remain, Brooks made clear why he attacked Sumner; it was a matter of honor.