Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
I added a citation needed for his nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TikiTime (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.