Talk:Preston Brooks

Inscription on replacement cane

I recall learning in school that one of the replacement canes sent to Brooks read "Hit him again." Is that apocryphal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true. See the article on Sumner as well as Puleo's excellent book on the caning. Southern lawmakers made rings out of the cane's remains. They wore the rings on neck chains. I'll update the article by next week. LesLein (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bias

This article very clearly is biased towards Preston Brooks. If it uses facts accurately (citations, citations, citations), it is one-sided and paints Brooks' beating of Sumner. I mean, the line, "Thereupon Brooks decided a cane was a more appropriate tool for a man of Sumner's breeding," is too much, implying that Sumner's breeding was actually poor, and that the opinions of Brooks (if they, indeed, are his opinions, since there are no citations) are general fact and not simply his person opinion which may not have been the prevalent view on Sumner, Brooks or the incident.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prottas (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if it's biased? He was an inbred hick who beat up somebody who had the balls to stand up for what was right. "Southern hospitality". Pffft. People like him give us a bad name. Nobody reads wiki for its opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.39.31 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can gather, the entire attack was the result of personal attacks in a principled setting by Sumner, which seem by all standards to be wholly inappropriate, which drew shame upon the chivalry and standing of Brooks family. I mean, while violence is hardly justifiable it is not as though Brooks randomly assaulted Sumner for no reason, nor for his antislavery views as this response seems to imply. 70.101.117.68 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, what you gather is garbage. As much of a dick as Sumner was, he used his words, so only Brooks' fragile ego was bruised. Brooks, on the other hand, being a cowardly piece of shit, attacked an unarmed Sumner with a phuqing cane, beating him to within an inch of his life. However, God is just, so Brooks' punishment was that he died before reaching the age of 40.ConservaLib (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Citations and importance

I changed this to start class. Needs citations. Brooks was an important character in South Carolina politics, further exemplfying the hot-hotheadedness of upcountry politicians that would lead to the Civil War. The family history stuff isn't as pertinent in an encyclopedic work as one might think, except where family members have links available elsewhere on the WikiIsmaelbobo (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sumner's political party

I'm trying to figure out how someone who was mentioned as a Democrat in the beginning of this page could later be classified as a "Radical Republican". I'm guessing this was done by someone with an agenda. Everyone knows the south were Democrats and the North were Republicans during the civil war years.

Sumner was originally a Democrat, though he was radically anti-slavery. When the Democratic Party split over slavery and the Republican party was formed, he became a Republican. 204.52.215.2 (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Butler

It is generally accepted that Andrew Butler was Preston Brooks' uncle, not his cousin.67.197.144.98 (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length and the exact relationship is disputed. I've changed it to "relative".   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nickname

I added a citation needed for his nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TikiTime (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. It makes no sense and was added by a one-shot anon IP (2009-09-29). Fat&Happy (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Sexual innuendo" in Sumner's speech.

I have edited out the claim that Brooks' reaction was caused by sexual innuendo in Sumner's speech. We don't have official versions of history in the U.S., but the version of this story on the Senate's Historical Minutes web site gives the following account:

"Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking 'a mistress . . . 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,' added Sumner, 'the harlot, Slavery.'"

Whatever you call this type of speech, it is not innuendo. I don't know if this is from Potter or Donald (the two historians referenced by the Senate for the story).

Also, the statement I modified claimed that Butler was humiliated. It is a likely supposition, but I don't think we actually know that. That Sumner gave a mocking speech we do know for certain. Let's stick to what we know and not speculate about personal motivations and feelings unless well documented. 68.80.133.140 (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone has reverted the edit mentioned above, and bolstered that reversion with a dubious citation. I agree that the assertion of "sexual innuendo" is entirely out of place. The speech itself is readily accessible; this article links to it. Various persons have interpreted the speech in various ways, but WP concerns itself with verifiable fact as opposed to subjective interpretations.

It is verifiable fact that Sumner compares Butler by name to Don Quixote, a literary figure, in this speech. It is verifiable fact that Don Quixote is a very old novel which is understood by literary scholars to mock chivalric traditions. It is verifiable fact that the terms and phrases Sumner employs in this speech to describe Butler's disposition toward slavery are the same terms and phrases Cervantes employs in his novel to describe Don Quixote's disposition toward his lady Dulcinea. It is verifiable fact that this is a classical rhetorical technique called allusion. It would be a matter of interpretation to assert whether Sumner employs this rhetorical technique successfully or appropriately, whether the speech is good or bad, whether it conveys political or sexual undertones, whether Preston Brooks grasped the meaning of the speech or missed it entirely, whether Brooks was motivated by a correct or delusional interpretation of the speech in choosing to attack its orator, or whether Southern historians who defend Preston Brooks today also grasp the meaning of the speech or miss it entirely. The Southern historian cited here as a source for an assertion of fact offers an interpretation.

My interpretation of that historian is that he shares Preston Brooks' failure to apprehend literary allusions employed for political effect. WP standards do not allow for such interpretations -- neither the Southern historian's nor mine -- to be asserted as statements of fact in an article.

I will leave this comment here for a day to see if it generates any discussion or prompts a change in the article. If there is no activity, I will change the article tomorrow.Brrryan (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"sexual undertones" it was very blatant & many historians emphasize that Sumner was explicit in a deliberately humiliating fashion. Sumner: he has "chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who . . . though polluted in the sight of the world is chaste in his sight — I mean the harlot Slavery" (harlot = prostitute). The line is often quoted by historians such as David Potter (Impending Crisis p 210) It was said "With malicious implications of sexuality" says The American heritage history of the making of the nation (1987); Williamjames Hoffer has written the most recent scholarly history, The Caning of Charles Sumner 2010) and he says on p 62 "It is also important to note the sexual imagery that recurred throughout the oration, which was neither accidental nor without precedent. Abolitionists routinely accused slaveholders of maintaining slavery so that they could engage in forcible sexual relations with their slaves." Rjensen (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

books.google.com - 2010

There are plenty of Confederate apologists with history degrees, and you quoted a few of them here, but you didn't approach addressing my point. Hoffer's assertion that abolitionists accused slaveholders of having sex with their human property may or may not have merit, but it has exactly zero bearing on whether Sumner levied any such implication against Butler in this speech. As I said, the speech is one click away. I'm making an edit that notes the existence of this interpretation, but it is exactly that: an interpretation.Brrryan (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Confederate apologists? now that's pretty absurd. Potter (Professor at Stanford) was the leadign expert in his day and won the Pulitzer Prize. Note that Brrryan has cited zero RS that endorse his fringe viewpoint. The leading specialist (Hoffer--a Yankee) says "It is also important to note the sexual imagery that recurred throughout the oration". as in "important" Rjensen (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The accusations of Sumner using sexual imagery began after the speech, and were refuted by David Herbert Donald, Sumner's leading biographer. Reacting to a congressman accusing Sumner of "lasciviousness and obscenity," Donald wrote "This charge against Sumner, which historians have often repeated, had no basis in fact. There was nothing obscene about any of his allusions, or anything lascivious about his quotations. It is hard to believe that (Stephen A.) Douglas, a rough Westerner, was so shocked by a word like 'harlot.'" (Donald, Charles Sumner. New York; Da Capo Press, 1996, p. 287) While it is true that abolitionists (accurately) attacked the system of legalized rape in slavery, Sumner's use of "harlot" was purely figurative and was (as Brrryan said) part of a lengthy allusion to Don Quixote. Sumner's alleged use of "sexual" imagery was used to rationalize the attack afterward, but Donald's authoritative biography refutes it clearly. At the very least, one should call it a "perception" by Brooks; to say otherwise ignores the historical record.--Idols of Mud (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

From the US. Senate page:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm

ocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "a mistress . . . 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," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery."

Words such as "chaste," "mistress," and "harlot" are clearly sexual innuendo. No need for qualifiers. If someone uses the N-word, we don't say "interpreted as racism," do well? The point is clear, the reference official US. Senate page.Ryoung122 18:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

But the Senate site doesn't say that. It merely recites the facts of the attack without interpreting the sexual imagery. Again, read the speech; Sumner is not attacking Butler's alleged sexual relations with slaves, but comparing him to Don Quixote and Quixote's dim perceptions of beauty. David Herbert Donald said there was nothing obscene in the speech.--Idols of Mud (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I still have some old college textbooks. An introductory textbook (The National Experience) co-authored by Woodward, Schlesinger, and others indicates that the sexual metaphors were very relevant to Brooks' assault. Also important was Sumner's reference to Butler's stroke along with the fact that an incompacitated Butler couldn't respond. According to Stephen Puleo's recent book, the rumors that slavemasters forced themselves on the slaves were often all too true. LesLein (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What type of cane?

I have added a 'citation needed' tag to the claim, in the section on the assault, that Brooks used a "heavy walking cane." I know the entire article needs referencing, but this point in particular is contentious because people want to use the type of cane to impute motive to Brooks—a heavy cane 'shows' murderous intent, a light one 'shows' that Brooks looked down on Sumner and wanted to "whip him as a dog is whipped." I have read both versions from respectable historians. The current version of the story on the U.S. Senate's Historical Minutes web page is the light cane version. I don't think that merely referencing one or the other version is an adequate solution to this problem. Probably a complete retelling of both versions, with some remarks as to why two versions exist, will be required. But at least a reference for this version of the story would be a start. 68.80.133.140 (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Death

I see that Brooks died at a relatively young age, only 37. What was the cause of his death? yorkshiresky (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It mentions what the cause of his death was in this section of hte article After the attack. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Separate article on caning - talk in Charles Sumner

I'd like to put the information regarding Brooks's beating of Sumner into a separate article, considering how important and symbolic an event it was, and that the vast majority of the information is repeated in separate articles: Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks, and Bleeding Kansas.

I have begun this "Main Article" by copypasting to Caning of Charles Sumner, and this note has been copied to the relevant Talk pages for discussion at Talk:Charles Sumner#Separate article on caning. Let me know what you think, and let's try to pin down title, article scope, and summary scope in the next 2 weeks. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. The new article can be expanded by the great deal of additional infor in Hoffer, Pfau and Gienapp = the best recent scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Revisionist History?

I can't help but think this page is bias.

It is well accepted that Brooks is a much more likable figure than Sumner. Sumner was an elitist, radical republican. Brooks served in the Army and was known for being a Gentleman. Both books in the references section say this nearly word for word.

Brooks' beating of Sumner was very popular in the South because Sumner was a large athletic Northerner with a big mouth. He had recently made claims of rape, virgins, and other sexual themes in his speeches. The final straw for Brooks was when Sumner insulted his sick, elderly uncle (technically his 2nd cousin, since Butler was his parent's cousin).

It also defines Brooks by slavery. Brooks NEVER once voted to expand slavery in Congress. After some thought, he finalized his opinion on Kansas and called for it to be admitted as a Free State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CivilWarBufftradition (talk • contribs) 01:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, many Northerners decided that Brooks was the best gentleman the South had--that the other Southern gentlemen were all worse than him and even more dangerous. The South became identified with unrestrained violence and inability to discuss issues. The result was to strengthen the Northern demand to end the Slave Power as it was now out of control and a threat to American values. Rjensen (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

CWB, in your version you claim "Brooks was known for being a level-headed, good-natured gentleman." As a college student, Brooks stormed the Columbia jail with a pair of loaded pistols over a rumor.[1] Brooks was known for drinking in excess and threatening people with his pistols.[2] Brooks was strongly in favor of the expansion of slavery, saying "The admission of Kansas into the Union is a now a point of honor with the South".[3] Edward321 (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preston Brooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129091444/http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_cp.html to http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_cp.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Family

Brooks was born in 1819, but the family section claims that his first kid was born in 1821. Being that Brooks would have been 2 at the time, I find this unlikely. 2600:1700:57AE:9000:FAB6:60CC:E7F3:C5B0 (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)