Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- sinha_the_caning_of_charles_sumner [2025/01/21 17:27] – 199.111.65.11
+++ sinha_the_caning_of_charles_sumner [2025/04/17 17:00] (current) – 199.111.138.113
@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 In his speech, “The Crime Against Kansas”, Charles Sumner, a South Carolinian Senator, criticizes the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Preston Brooks believes that Sumner’s speech is an insult to South Carolina and beats Sumner in retaliation. Sinha believes that “the assault became a departure point for contemporaries to explore the meaning and relationship among slavery, race, democracy, and republican government in nineteenth century."(p.235) -Ian Tiblin
-I thought the different reactions to the caning was really interesting. The Northerners were outraged over it and saw it as an act of violence against someone who was openly supporting the abolishment of slavery. Whereas the Southerners supported Brooks because he defended the honor of the South. So both very opposing views. (Hannah E.)
+I thought the different reactions to the caning was really interesting. The Northerners were outraged over it and felt for Sumner. They also saw it as an act of violence against someone who was openly supporting the abolishment of slavery. Whereas the Southerners supported Brooks because he defended the honor of the South. So both very opposing views. (Hannah E.)
+I believe that the violence of the caning reflects the greater picture of violence around the subject of slavery. It is clear that there was growing tension over the issue, and the caning emphasizes the brewing conflict between the North and South. (Hannah E.)
+The caning of Charles Sumner created a divide amongst Americans in the North and in the South. Many Northerns viewed this caning as a barbaric assault on Sumner and on American democracy. Southerners, however, viewed this act by Preston Brooks as an honorable and vindictive act in response to Sumner’s “The Crime Against Kansas” speech. This event also further displayed the Abolitionist-Secessionist divide within the country. (Hank L.)
+This event in the Senate further demonstrates the political divide between Northerners and Southerners in the years leading up to the Civil War. Many Southerners viewed abolitionists and antislavery “radicals” as threats to their beliefs and political world.  In contrast, Northerners viewed violent-proslavery men, like Congressman Brooks, as threats to the norm of republican government. (Hank L)
+The fact that Preston Brooks chose to cane Charles Sumner, therefore punishing him as if he were enslaved, pulled the bitterness of conflict between pro and anti-slavery forces to the forefront in Congress. The explanation of Brooks viewing Sumner as beneath him, as a human and a man, is also a commentary on how strict the wealthy and powerful white Southerners were when it came to their social conduct. (Sarah M)
+Charles Sumner was not only anti-slavery but was also devoted to racial equality, which was not a common position even among abolitionists. He argued against the idea of separate but equal, something that would come more into play later as slavery ended and civil rights for Black Americans became a more pressing issue. Separate but equal would eventually be echoed later in Plessy v. Fergeson and overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. (Ezra C.)
+Something that struck me in particular about how people reacted to the attack on Sumner, specifically Northerners, was how they thought it was weaker of a man to attack rather than to be attacked. They believed that Sumner was the better man because even if they did not agree with his views, he did did not react with physical violence. (Caty)
+Sumner believed that slavery alone did not threaten the republic, but the power and corruption of money did as well. Sometimes when so much effort is focused on slavery, you forget other things came into play during those times. (Lexi)
+I found it interesting how Sumner referred to the law as a bill. He didn’t recognize its legality or constitutionality. (Lexi)
+Slaveholders whipping their slaves was not just a way to keep them in check but was a way to constantly remind them of the position they were in. I had never really thought of it this way, but after reading it this makes sense. It was a form of “social control” as the reading put it. (Lexi)
+Sinha makes the argument that the caning of Charles Sumner reflected greater ideological differences about manhood and gender between the North and the South. The North’s view was that manhood is built upon restraint and not giving in to emotion/temptation, and saw Brooks’ actions as brutish and heinous. The South’s view of manhood was one of retaliation, where it was expected that one would fight back after getting struck, which caused them to think of Sumner as a non-masculine figure. - Ewan H
+The caning of Sumner also represented a widespread realization among Northerners that the question of slavery undermined the republic. The idea was that slavery as an institution in a land of supposed equality would bring about inequality everywhere. The South had already been oppressing abolitionist rhetoric in several forms, and the caning was an extreme and violent example that brought that idea to the forefront. - Ewan H
+What is interesting about it is that under the code of Southern Honor, a normal dispute between equals would have been settled by a duel (Brooks had previously been involved in two duels), but caning or beating would have been reserved for “unequals” (I.E slaves). Therefore, the beating of Charles Sumner was meant to reduce him to no more than an unequal in the eyes of law and society for his association with Black Americans and abolition. His defenders claimed that it was not his intention to kill, just to degrade. -Sophia
+Before coming a politician, Sumner was wildly unpopular with Harvard and Boston elites for his views on abolition and racial equality, especially by mill owners, who used cotton imported from plantations. This demonstrates why a northern white business man might not be so against slavery. -Sophia
+For many Black Americans in the North, this event further cemented that the US needed to abolish slavery to redeem American democracy.The event immediately strengthened the position of Black abolitionists and further radicalized certain White Northerners against slavery, especially Sumner himself.- Sophia
+Sinha explained that southerners would base their judgements of how “manly” a person was based on their willingness to use force. Sinha further explained that many thought of Brooks as extremely manly due to his willingness to beat up Sumner. Sinha explained that Sumner on the other hand was deemed to be weak and therefore feminine. Sinha further explained that not only was this behavior seen as feminine, but “slavish” as well. - Lauren V.
+I found it interesting how Sumner, unlike most other antislavery supporters, fought for equal rights among all Americans. He didn't want to just end the existence and expansion of slavery, but also bring a new equality to the states between all citizens of the growing nation. (Lexi)