A lessoned learned from THE GREAT ABOLITIONIST: CHARLES SUMNER AND THE FIGHT FOR A MORE PERFECT UNION, by Stephen Puleo

 

Answering political disagreements with political violence poisons the entire system.

            We live in a time when political violence is greatly feared across the country, and we especially feel it weigh down upon us with a presidential election imminent. From one side’s candidate getting shot at, to another side remembering the trauma of the January 6th Riot, the national mood right now is sour and fearful, with many people believing a victory by the other side will result in permanent national degradation. It is a climate very similar to the 1850’s, when the growing power of the free North over national politics terrified and enraged the slaveholding South, and eventually the nation tore itself apart and embraced a bloody Civil War. One of the defining acts of that era was The Caning of Charles Sumner, an event that author Stephen Puleo wisely makes as the centerpiece of his excellent new book The Great Abolitionist: Charles Sumner and the Fight for a More Perfect Union. Historians have flagged numerous events as the most important ones leading up to the Civil War, but Puleo sees the caning as an embrace of violence to political disagreements, as the moment which America was incapable of returning from.

            Charles Sumner was a fascinating 19th century politician, at different turns inspiring and beloved, and odd and unlikable. Born into a cold, Puritanesque New England family, Sumner bonded little with his parents or many siblings, and was a man of deep emotion who often seemed to have difficulty expressing it—Puleo compellingly argues there is solid evidence that Sumner, by our modern definitions, would have been somewhere “on the spectrum.” He was deeply uncomfortable in the presence of women, and only married late in life (and it ended in disaster). He bonded deeply with a small circle of close friends, and felt increasingly alone as they married and eventually died off (this being the 1800’s and all that). However, one of Sumner’s defining traits was a passionate hatred of slavery, which at the time was generally accepted across the nation, and was openly embraced by presidents and politicians from across the political spectrum. He convinced the people of Massachusetts to elect him a senator in 1852 largely on a platform of resisting the national influence of slaveowners, who in response to a growing North had become increasingly angry and militant in their defense of white supremacy.

            The defining event of Sumner’s life was in response to crimes slaveowners committed in an effort to violently seize control of the free territory of Kansas, and enable the further expansion of slavery. At the peak of the conflict, Sumner delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate, where he nobly begged the government to intervene to prevent the spread of slavery and protect the people of Kansas from their aggression. Less nobly, he personally insulted the state of South Carolina and its slavery-loving senator Andrew Butler, going so far as to mock his physical disabilities and to suggest that slaveowners loved their system so much so they could assault their female slaves (a charge which was true on a wide scale, even if not for Butler personally). With such rhetoric, Sumner alienated even some of his allies, and he generated seething contempt from the Southern slaveowners. This culminated later in the week with Butler’s cousin Preston Brooks walking up to Sumner as he worked at his Senate desk, taking out a wooden cane, and violently striking Sumner dozens of times on the floor of the Senate. The surprised and unarmed Sumner collapsed helplessly and was quickly drenched in a puddle of blood; he was so unpopular that it was a minute before people finally rushed to his aid.

            The event had a permanent impact, both on Sumner and on the nation. Sumner himself struggled with health problems for the rest of his life (Puleo argues an element of PTSD was likely at play), but more stunning was the national reaction—the North responded with shock and horror, while the South celebrated the event and declared Brooks a hero (Brooks died horribly not long after of a bacterial throat infection, in perhaps an event of poetic justice). People began to contemplate the point of remaining in the same nation with those who could react to the same event in such radically different ways, and the nation continued its grim march toward Civil War; all an act of political violence did, was to beget yet more spectacular violence, and history eventually remembered Sumner as a martyr of political expression.

            Sumner himself remained a Senator for the rest of his life, and did his best to fight for the cause of justice after the horrific event. His hatred of slavery eventually morphed into a fight for racial equality, once President Abraham Lincoln embraced Sumner’s abolitionist vision and made it a cornerstone of national policy during the Civil War. As is the fate of so many of us, Sumner became increasingly prickly and inflexible as he aged, and eventually voiced serious objections to the pivotal achievements of the 14th and 15th Amendments (putting civil rights into the Constitution and attempting to open up voting to black men respectively), on the grounds they did not go far enough to ensure racial equality. Sumner died in 1874 while passionately fighting for national civil rights protections for African-Americans across the nation, a cause that would not be fully realized until nearly a century after his death.

            Sumner’s story shows both the dangers of political violence, and everything that people can still accomplish when they keep fighting for what they believe through the proper channels. As frustrating and unsatisfactory as it often is, the peaceful battles of the democratic process are the only productive way in which lasting positive change can be brought to the country, and acts of angry violence can only ever bring more destruction down upon us. As odd and unlikable as he could be, America needs more Charles Sumners and fewer Preston Brooks.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A lesson learned from “LONGSTREET, by Elizabeth Varon”

A lesson learned from INCOMPARABLE GRACE: JFK IN THE PRESIDENCY, by Mark Updegrove

A lesson learned from "Einstein: His Life and Universe," by Walter Isaacson