This is an old revision of the document!
The assault of Charles Sumner was a pristine metaphor to African American slaves as to why emancipation and legal protection was necessary. The assaults barbaric nature was seen to slaves as what was too come even if freed. The way the South praised the attack was a sign to slaves as what would happen even if freed, brutal attacks would continue as well as unfair treatment unless strict legal policies were put in place. (Declan)
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 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.)