Emerson’s The Assault Upon Mr. Sumner was delivered before the citizens of Concord in a town hall meeting on May 26, 1856. The meeting and speech were prompted by the near beating to death of the Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner on May 22nd in the Senate chamber.
On May 19 and 20, Sumner, always an outspoken abolitionist and one of the few in the Senate from either the North or the South to not support the Compromise of 1850, took the opportunity to denounce the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It was a three-hour oration that did not just stick to the issue at hand. Sumner went from politics to personal attacks against Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. His attack on Butler was particularly cruel, moving from insult to mockery of Butler’s speech and physical impairments which were a result of a stroke he had suffered.
On May 22nd, Sumner was working at his desk in an almost empty Senate chamber when he was approached by Preston Brooks, a congressman from South Carolina and the nephew of Butler. Brooks attacked Sumner with a cane, trapping him beneath his desk which was bolted to the floor. Brooks continued attacking him until he had broken the desk. Sumner tried to get away up the aisle, but he was blinded by his own blood and collapsed, unconscious. Brooks continued to beat Sumner until his cane broke. Other senators tried to help Sumner but Brooks had brought some muscle with him, one of whom had a pistol.
It took three years for Sumner to recover from the beating. He suffered head trauma, nightmares, and severe headaches. During that time his chair in the Senate sat empty and the people of Massachusetts even re-elected him, believing that the empty chair was a good symbol for free speech and resistance to slavery.
Brooks was not arrested. His constituents considered him a hero and he received dozens of new canes. The House voted to expel him but couldn’t get enough votes to do it. Nonetheless, Brooks resigned his seat only to have his supporters vote him back into Congress.
Emerson’s speech at the Concord town hall is short and to the point. He begins by declaring
I do not see how a barbarous community and a civilized community can constitute one state. I think we must get rid of slavery, or we must get rid of freedom.
He goes on to praise Sumner as a man who “has never faltered in his maintenance of justice and freedom.” Emerson asserts that there is no one in the whole state of South Carolina who can be measured against Sumner; no one in that state even comes close to his worth.
The only way any of Massachusetts’ representatives will be safe in Washington is if they send stupid, worthless ones. But, Emerson says, they will not do such a thing, their good state will not be cowed. He urges the city council to send their support to Mr. Sumner, to
Let him hear that every man of worth in New England loves his virtues; that every mother thinks of him as the protector of families; that every friend of freedom thinks him the friend of freedom. And if our arms at this distance cannot defend him from assassins, we confide the defence of a life so precious to all honorable men and true patriots, and to the Almighty Maker of men.
It is a speech that gives a lovely spin to the whole situation, isn’t it? Before Brooks began beating Sumner he pretty much said it was because of what Sumner had said about his uncle. Emerson and Massachusetts and the North turned Sumner into a hero for standing up and speaking out against slavery. And the incident seems to have only served to further vilify the South. While Sumner really was a hero of sorts on the issue of slavery–he worked hard for abolition and after the Civil War worked for equal civil and voting rights for the freed slaves (though he also had ulterior motives in that he hoped this would squash the Confederacy)–in the instance of his beating, it was a rather extreme payback for insults.
Tensions were running high between North and South. The beating and Emerson’s speech along with all kinds of other related tidbits you can find linked in Wikipedia articles I’ve linked to, make an interesting study on how an incident can be used by both sides to support their cause.
These Emerson speeches of late aren’t necessarily the best or most interesting, but they have served as a jumping off point for history lessons on fascinating events and details I never learned about in school. It’s a shame the teaching of history tends to be so limited in school. Names and dates don’t inspire curiosity. But a Senator being beaten by a Congressman, there’s something to get your attention.
Next week’s Emerson: Speech on Affairs in Kansas
What a fascinating story! You’re right about history education — a good story would go a long way, wouldn’t it? It’s interesting, also, to see Emerson spinning the story — is it kind of a new role for him after all you’ve read?
Dorothy, a good story does go a long way. At first I was surprised at Emerson’s spin, but the more I’ve thought about it and your question, the more I realize it is nothing new. He is always very careful about his words and all those eulogies and speeches he gave about his friends have spin too. This particular speech he was just more blatant.
Your closing remarks made me laugh out loud! One of my colleagues was once complaining about the history of art lessons her 15-year-old son was having and how dull he found them. I thought a course on the classic nude ought to have awakened his attention
I’m always intrigued to see where Emerson decides to weigh in. I get the feeling he was quite drawn to an eye-catching headline himself!
It seems that Sumner, while supporting a noble idea, branched well off target to attack his enemies. Ridiculing someone with physical handicaps would be considered no better than promoting racism in today’s (more civilized?) world.
Brooks could also have been considered noble for defending one who could not defend themselves; however, his rage seems extreme and was probably motivated by hatred for Sumner’s noble traits.
Staying on track with our noble intentions would keep us out of a lot of trouble.
Galileo had a bad habit. He would debate the philosophers, spending the first half of his argument building up their side, stroking their egos, encouraging them to waste time laughing at him; and then he would bring the hammer down, tearing their arguments to pieces, resulting in their public ridicule. These men had powerful connections and used their influence to bring the church against him. In the end, no debating skill would save him, and his rude treatment of his enemies was his undoing.
I think we engage in these behaviors because we are selfish and arrogant and weak. When we humble ourselves before God, we tend more to seek a way to deliver the noble message, with the abusive, retributive, “justice”-seeking sides stripped away.
I noticed myself engaging in similar behavior. An acquaintance speaks about his sexual partner in very unflattering terms on a regular basis. Rather than confining my remarks to her defense, I find myself knocking his points of pride (and trying to put myself above him.) Clearly, this is not the best, loving response, to help her… and him… and me.
Thanks for the history lesson.