This article argues that the caning of Senator Charles Sumner by Congressman Preston Brooks in 1856 was a staged event, or at least heavily exaggerated, serving as propaganda to inflame tensions between the North and South leading up to the Civil War. The author questions the mainstream historical narrative, citing inconsistencies in accounts of the attack and Sumner’s subsequent prolonged recovery, which involved extensive travel and activities that contradict claims of severe injury.
The article analyzes the backgrounds of key figures:
-
Charles Sumner: Portrayed as a humorless, emotionally detached individual with potential homosexual tendencies. His family background, education at Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and early views on slavery are examined. His extensive European travels, funded by Boston elites, are interpreted not as for education but as establishing him as an agent. His personal relationships with George Stillman Hillard and Samuel Gridley Howe, as well as his complex relationship with Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, are discussed, with suggestions of a homosexual inclination. His marriage to Alice Mason Hooper and subsequent separation, including rumors of impotence, are also detailed. His oratorical style, characterized by memorization and lengthy speeches, is noted.
-
Preston Brooks: Described as a hotheaded Southerner with a focus on honor and duels. His background in South Carolina, his attendance at South Carolina College, and his military service in the Mexican War are mentioned. His illness during the war and his eventual death from croup are presented as potentially suspicious.
-
Laurence Keitt: Another South Carolina congressman and planter, who shared lodgings with Preston Brooks and participated in the caning incident, as well as a later brawl on the House floor.
-
Francis Lieber: A German expatriate who taught at South Carolina College (where Brooks and Keitt were students) and later at Columbia College. He was friends with Charles Sumner and is suggested to have been involved in an intelligence network, possibly connected to the Knights of the Golden Circle. His “Lieber Code” of war is discussed.
The insult that supposedly provoked Brooks is detailed, including Sumner’s “Don Quixote” comparison of Andrew Butler to slavery and remarks about Butler’s speech impediment. The article points out that Sumner and Butler were initially on good terms. The physical disparity between Sumner and Brooks is addressed, with evidence suggesting Sumner was larger and stronger. The nature of Brooks’s cane is analyzed, and the author questions the narrative of it breaking into many pieces.
The article highlights the limited punishment Brooks received (a $300 fine) and raises suspicion about the role of prosecutor Philip Barton Key, son of Francis Scott Key, in the trial. Brooks’s swift death from croup shortly after the incident is deemed suspect, potentially orchestrated.
Sumner’s extended absence from the Senate following the caning, his travels in Europe, and his claims of illness are presented as evidence of faking his incapacitation. The author suggests Sumner was an agent of Boston elites and that his prolonged absence and European activities served their interests.
The article concludes by reiterating that the caning, along with other staged incidents like the “(fake) Southern raid on the free-state town of Lawrence, Kansas”, were part of a propaganda effort to divide the nation. The author critiques mainstream historians, like David Herbert Donald and Stephen Puleo, for perpetuating this narrative, suggesting they are part of a propaganda machine. The author also touches upon the potential for outing historical figures for political agendas, referencing the LGBTQ+ community. The article references historical accounts from books by David Herbert Donald, Kenneth A. Deitreich, David C. Keehn, and Holt Merchant.
Summary with Marked Entities:
This article argues that the caning of Senator Charles Sumner by Congressman Preston Brooks on May 22, 1856 was a staged event, or at least heavily exaggerated, serving as propaganda to inflame tensions between the North and South leading up to the Civil War. The author questions the mainstream historical narrative, citing inconsistencies in accounts of the attack and sumner’s subsequent prolonged recovery, which involved extensive travel and activities that contradict claims of severe injury.
The article analyzes the backgrounds of key figures:
-
Charles Sumner: Portrayed as a humorless, emotionally detached individual with potential homosexual tendencies. His family background, education at Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and early views on slavery are examined. His extensive European travels, funded by Boston elites, are interpreted not as for education but as establishing him as an agent. His personal relationships with George Stillman Hillard and Samuel Gridley Howe, as well as his complex relationship with Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, are discussed, with suggestions of a homosexual inclination. His marriage to Alice Mason Hooper and subsequent separation, including rumors of impotence, are also detailed. His oratorical style, characterized by memorization and lengthy speeches, is noted.
-
Preston Brooks: Described as a hotheaded Southerner with a focus on honor and duels. His background in South Carolina, his attendance at South Carolina College, and his military service in the Mexican War are mentioned. His illness during the war and his eventual death from croup are presented as potentially suspicious.
-
Laurence Keitt: Another South Carolina congressman and planter, who shared lodgings with Preston Brooks and participated in the caning incident, as well as a later brawl on the House floor.
-
Francis Lieber: A German expatriate who taught at South Carolina College (where Brooks and Keitt were students) and later at Columbia College. He was friends with Charles Sumner and is suggested to have been involved in an intelligence network, possibly connected to the Knights of the Golden Circle. His “Lieber Code” of war is discussed.
The insult that supposedly provoked Brooks is detailed, including sumner’s “Don Quixote” comparison of Andrew Butler to slavery and remarks about Butler’s speech impediment. The article points out that sumner and Butler were initially on good terms. The physical disparity between sumner and Brooks is addressed, with evidence suggesting sumner was larger and stronger. The nature of Brooks’s cane is analyzed, and the author questions the narrative of it breaking into many pieces.
The article highlights the limited punishment Brooks received (a $300 fine) and raises suspicion about the role of prosecutor Philip Barton Key, son of Francis Scott Key, in the trial. Brooks’s swift death from croup shortly after the incident is deemed suspect, potentially orchestrated.
sumner’s extended absence from the Senate following the caning, his travels in Europe, and his claims of illness are presented as evidence of faking his incapacitation. The author suggests sumner was an agent of Boston elites and that his prolonged absence and European activities served their interests.
The article concludes by reiterating that the caning, along with other staged incidents like the “(fake) Southern raid on the free-state town of Lawrence, Kansas” on May 21, 1856, were part of a propaganda effort to divide the nation. The author critiques mainstream historians, like David Herbert Donald and Stephen Puleo, for perpetuating this narrative, suggesting they are part of a propaganda machine. The author also touches upon the potential for outing historical figures for political agendas, referencing the LGBTQ+ community. The article references historical accounts from books by David Herbert Donald (specifically Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War and Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man), Kenneth A. Deitreich (The Short Life and Violent Times of Preston Smith Brooks), David C. Keehn (Knights of the Golden Circle), and Holt Merchant (South Carolina Fire-Eater).