This document (which I gave you in class) is an excerpt from Sumner's "Crime against Kansas" speech.
What are Sumner's main points? Was his attack on South Carolina and Sen. Butler inappropriate? Did Rep. Brooks overreact to this speech?
Now that you know the story behind this speech, please share your thoughts as to whether the physical attack on Sumner was justified. Use specific examples from the speech to back up your argument.
Due: MIDNIGHT, Wednesday, Nov. 28
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
The main point of Sumner's speech is to vilify to the practice of slavery (particularly with regards to the bloody conflicts occurring in Kansas) and then to make out Senator Butler as a complete moron. The point of view is coming from a northern Republican who would despise the practice of slavery and likely despise and look down upon those in support of slavery (as evidence in his comments about Butler). Senator Sumner wrote and gave the address with the intention of further demoralizing the practice of slavery and making a point to humiliate a specific proponent of the institution. Since this is pretty much a senator embarrassing and calling another senator out while in Congress, I'm gonna have to say that this doesn't really bring to mind any other document that I've read before. I guess I learned that just because you were against slavery back in the day doesn't mean that you couldn't be a jerk, too. I only had one question-Sumner makes it seem like Butler had just given some kind of address or something concerning the Kansas issues, so is this address in response to Butler's initial comments or does Sumner just really not like Butler and decides to use the Kansas issues as a venue to publicly attack Butler?
I would definitely say that Sumner's remarks were uncalled for. While some of his criticisms were pretty witty (especially that whole extended metaphor comparing Butler to Don Quixote), it really wasn't necessary to attack another congressmen when the real purpose should only be to express his views on the events in Kansas and to not get so personal. While Sumner may have had a couple of punches or elbows coming, I don't think that he deserved to be beaten unconscious and to have so much damage done (but once again, getting compared to Don Quixote back in the day was probably pretty insulting so I'm sure he couldn't have been too surprised when someone wanted to beat the crap out of him). Also, Sumner made that whole claim about how Butler "shows an incapacity of accuracy, whether in stating the Constitution or in stating the law, whether in details of statistics or diversions of scholarship." That whole bit right there is nothing but a personal attack on someone else. It had very little to do with the larger point of the immorality of slavery and how it has caused all these disruptions in Kansas. So particularly for comments like the one above, Sumner probably deserved just a few hits with a cane (but like I said, he didn't deserve EVERYTHING that he got).
This speech by Charles Sumner entitled "Bleeding Kansas" is full of Charles Sumner's opinions on the issue of Kansas and slavery. Summer main point is that slavery is an evil practice that should be abolished. I think attacking slavery like this would have been ok if he would not have called Pierce Butler out like he did. It would have been fin to just express how he felt about this practice. In modern days ideals Preston Brooks did over react, however back in this time period I believe his actions were fine.
The attacks were justified because of the specific references Sumner makes to Butler, such as "from senators who have raised themselves to eminence on the floor in the championship of human wrong: I mean the senator from South Carolina." In that quote he is basically saying that Butler's entire ideal system is wrong and morally incorrect. By strongly implying Butler's name, Sumner brings the beating he recived upon himself.
Charles Sumner speaks out against slavery and Senator Butler's defficiency to deal with the conflicts in Kansas from an anti-slavery bias. He verbally attacks Senator Butler because of his actions, but also because Butler supported slavery. His speech was inappropriate because he belittled Senator Butler through his harsh diction, instead of professionally dealing with the slavery issue. As a result of Sumner's speech, Preston Brooks overreacted and violently attacked Sumner. Although Brooks's attack on Sumner cannot be justified, his anger can be easily understood. Sumner did not have to belittle Butler by putting a spotlight on his "egotism" and his "uncalculating fanaticism". Sumner also depricated Bulter by explaining his "incapacity of accuracy, whether in stating the Constitution or in stating the law, whether in details of statistics or diversions of scholarship". As Daniel said, since this is a senator calling out another senator, there is not really another document to compare it to except for, stretching it a litte, to Jonathan Edward's Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. It can be argued that these two call out a group; Sumner calls out Senator Butler on his mistakes while Edward calls out sinners for their defaults. Through this document I learned that Sumner's speech was not as harsh as his cane-beating would suggest. After reading this speech, I still wonder why Sumner chose to verbally attack Senator Butler instead of just addressing the slavery issue.
In Charles Sumner's speech "Bleeding Kansas", he makes a point to defame the state of South Carolina and its representative Andrew Butler in particular. He calls slavery the mistress of Rep. Butler and calls South Carolina a state “republican only in name”. He argues that South Carolina cannot continue to call itself a republic while it continues the process of human enslavement. For Sumner, slavery was a moral issue, not an economic one. The south relied on slaves heavily to support the economy, with harvesting cotton and such. Sumner is trying to completely take away all credibility from Butler so that he looks like an idiot for supporting slavery. The death blow for Sumner though, is when he says that if South Carolinian history was wiped off the map that we wouldn’t lose much. He DEFINITELY deserved to be beat up for that. Besides, who is Sumner to say that South Carolina was of no importance to the Union? Unless he is president, Sumner should have reserved judgment and reflected his views in his voting pattern rather than outright talking trash about South Carolina. His speech shows the deepening lines of sectionalism that were tearing the country in half. Maybe some of the other congressmen should have intervened when he was getting his but whipped by a guy with a cane though.
Hi its Jared.
The main idea of Charles Sumner's speech is that anyone who defends slavery has caused Kansas to bleed. The point of view comes from Sumner and the view of the Republican pary. Charles Sumner wrote this speech on "Bleeding Kansas". The purpose of the speech was to show that defending slavery has caused violence and division in Kansas and in America. Last year I read a speech on the reason why slavery should be in the South and a speech on the reason why there should not be no slavery in America. I have learned from reading this speech how divided and how ugly and cruel politically the North and the South have become. One of Sumner's main points is that "...men who strive to bring back the government ot its original policy when freedom and not slavery was national, while slavery and not freedom was sectional..." Sumner means that with freedom for slaves there will be national unity but with slavery this will be the result of sectionalism. Sumner attacks was mostly focused on Bulter's wife and his defense on slavery. The attack on Bulter's wife was an inapproiate remark. Brooks did have the right to attack Sumner for defending his family and his state.
Charles Sumner wanted to prove several points in his speech "The Crime against Kansas". He accuses South Carolina and the representative of the state, Pierce Butler, of “flagrant sectionalism". He also makes personal remarks about him with the comparison to Don Quixote and with the statement that "he cannot open his mouth but out here flies another blunder". I would probably say that Sumner's attacks were very inappropriate and he did deserve to be punished. But I don't think that a severe beating with a cane that caused three years worth of damage was really necessary. I can see the problem from both sides. I completely understand why Brooks wants to avenge his uncle and everything, but I also don't think that he should have gone as far as he did to do it.
Wow, what a way to solve arguments. So logical and calm- a great reflection of the American government. Personally, I think that I am going to look twice the next time that I see some old man with a cane or a lady carrying a giant purse. Sumner obviously didn’t. It was a good speech, but not exactly Senatey. Some of his points didn’t not focus on the issue, but on Butler’s so called faults. “...but the adventurous senator does not hesitate. He is the uncompromising, unblushing representative on this floor of a flagrant sectionalism now domineering over the republic...” Very subtle, Sumner. And what did he expect? I’m pretty sure that Southerners weren’t exactly known as level-headed back then. His points on slavery and the connection between Kansas were excellent, but already known. I think that he just wanted a chance to personally point of the faults of some of his fellow Senators. Now, Brooks was a character. It wasn’t even him that was insulted. But, oh, no- the family name was hurt. Gasp- now I must (because of course it was that important) go and thrash the dastardly man who dare insult my uncle with my...cane. I’ve heard of the whacking cheeks with gloves thing, but canes was new for me. Brooks completely overreacted and probably did the wrong thing if he wanted the speech to blow over. Whacking people with canes isn’t the greatest way to make an impression. But at least he got his point across.
hey its blair.
The speech,"Bleeding Kansas" made by Charles Sumner attacks slavery. In his speech, he explains that he believes slavery should be abolished. I believe in this time period that speaking out againist slavery is okay but Sumner should have been aware that when he calls out people/states directly, there is going to be a consquence. (idk about that spelling) Charles Sumner brought on the attack led by Preston Brooks because he called Butler and South Carolina out. If Charles Sumner can voice his opinion, Brooks can defend him self. Brooks's attack was harsh and very childish but it proved Brooks point.
blair again..
This attack seems to be like our presidental or any campaign today. all the canidadates do is attack each other, but not with canes.
Its Alice....
Sumner's main point in his speech is his opinions on Kansas and slavery. He believes that slavery should be abolished and that it is wrong. Sumner basically called out Pierce Butler, which i think was wrong. Sumner could have stated his opinions and thoughts without specifically pointing out anyone.
Because of his speech, Preston Brooks attacked Sumner. I don't think Brooks attack was justified but he did have reason to be mad. Butler didn't really have the right to call out Brooks like he did, and could have expressed his opinion in a more mature manner. There are not realy any documents that can compare to this since like Daniel and Sophie said it was a senator attacking another senator. I think Sumner could have just addressed his opinions on slavery without saying anything about Brooks, but i do wonder why he specifically called him out, but because he did I think Brooks could have handled it less violently.
Sumner's main point in his speech is to tell his views on slavery and its relation to the bloodshed in Kansas. He also calls out Sen. Butler. I think that Sumner's beating was justified because he was rude and gave his opinion in a way that was wrong. He should not Senator and shouldn't have said the things he said about South Carolina. He said he wanted South Carolina out of the Union and compared slavery to be Butler's mistress. Then also compared Butler to Don Quixote. Although his points on slavery were right and justified, he definately deserved a beating for his comments made on South Carolina and Butler.
Sumner's speech is in relation to Bleeding Kansas and his ideas on the abolition of slavery and that he is completly against it and it is inhumaine. During his speech he references to the South Carolina senator Pierce Butler that turned into attacks and insults. It was innapropiate in the way that he references to Senator Butler because he was honestly asking for a fight. He could have gotten his points across just as well if he had not brought up Butler's name directly.
Well Rep. Brooks may have overreacted but you can't blame him because he's from the south and your not supposed to mess with a southerner's family. He was just trying to protect their reputation and defend his family from being disrespected. Then again his reaction was a bit overrated and a little out of touch since he beat the living crap out of the dude... Oh well
THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!!
The main point of Sumner's speech is to single out South Carolina's, more specifically Senator Butler's, immoral support of slavery. He accuses them of being more concerned with their region than with the nation as a whole. He basically straight out degrades Butler and insults his character. I think his speech was not appropriate, only because he made it on such a personal level. He has every right to express his opinion, but I feel as if he crossed the line between freedom of speech and blasphemy. Representative Brooks was somewhat in the wrong for his lashing out at Sumner. I understand his anger and desire for justice, but seriously, physically beating a US senator is downright dirty. He only accomplished physical harm, and possibly the embarassment of Sumner. He could have totally gotten sweet revenge by creating an equally condemning speech.
In Sumner’s speech he basically is going over the recent events that took place in Kansas because of the controversy concerning slavery. Being that he is from the north he is against slavery and feels that it should be taken out of the United States. However, he takes it a step further by insulting South Carolina Senator Pierce Butler. I believe that yes, of course, slavery is wrong and should have been taken out he went a step too far in attacking Senator Butler. He showed very little character in doing this act. Though what he said was wrong and out of line I do believe that Butler’s nephew did over react when taking the news. But with that said I myself have no idea what I would have done in that situation. Maybe he shouldn’t have beaten Sumner almost to death. Personally I might have just taken a few swings at him…just kidding.
the beginning of sumner's speech was intended to call out mr. butler and mr. douglas and make fun of them refering to them as spanish heroes. this is very slandering in my view because all of these men are supposed to be equal in stature because they are all senators. sumner sort of predicted the future because he said south carolina was going to leave the union. sumner is also trying to take down slavery. since i am from the south i dont think brooks overreact and since it was his family he did the right thing by avenging him. some people believe that it may have been to much but he shouldnt have been talking so much crap.
whoa
Sumner's points were slavery is evil, inhumane, and unconstitutonal; and Senator Butler is an idiot. I agree with his points that with slavery the Constitution is "outraged, of the laws trampled down...of humanity degraded, of peace destroyed", but his attacks on Butler and South Carolina were unnecessary. He says "He cannot open his mouth but out here flies another blunder" insulting Butler's intelligence and then says "were the whole history of South Carolina blotted out of existence...civilization might lose-i do not say how little." insulting directly South Carolina and its people. Because of these direct attacks he deserves to get beat down with an 11 oz cane. If he is going to talk that kind of trash he has got to be ready to back it up with his fists and not hide under a desk like a panty-waist.
josh hammond
Nick Foister
Charles Sumners main points in "Crime against Kansas" consist of Slavery and Kansas. The way Sumner talked about Butler and his opinion was completely uncalled for. Sumners actions were completely inappropriate.
I think Preston Brooks was completely justified for beating up Sumner because that was his kin Sumner was talking about. Also in the speech Sumner says that everything Butler was saying was inaccurate. So, I think that Brooks was justified to beat up Sumner.
brian jones
First off I'm going to say that he deserved to get the crap beat out of him. His attacks on slavery and the evil of it were justified. He absoloutly ripped apart and insulted senator Butler in every way humanly possible. Many of his remarks weren't called for and ignorously biased. He insults his intelligence by calling him an idiot and mocks him by comparing him to a modern Don Quixote with his wench slavery. The quote that really got him in trouble was his remark that the obliteration of South Carolina's history would not be a loss the the world in any way. He insults all the people who live in SC despite the fact that the majority of them didn't even own slaves.
Sumner here mocks and insults Butler, South Carolina, and the general institution of slavery. His main purpose seems to be discrediting Senator Butler and his speeches. Sumner's speech is always on the edge, but at times crosses the line on what is appropriate and what is not. Firstly, both sides of the debate were sectional, because only their half of the country really prescribed to it. In that way, both senators are silly in accusing the others of being sectional and themselves national. Then saying South Carolina's history has done nothing for civilization while Kansas has already done much more is really just plain rude and sort of crosses the line. The bloodbath that Kansas represented then was surely not a testament to civilized life, even though South Carolina may not be either.
Anyway, I would say that Brooks did overreact, but not in a shocking way. Any beating on the senate floor is surely automatically an overreaction, but would be almost acceptable if such things were said in any other venue. The insult against South Carolina's history was sure to provoke a response if nothing else did, so every party in this conflict is to blame. Everyone sort of deserves what they get, besides all the hero/martyr status both groups attained afterwards.
This article is pretty much about the trashing of Senator Butler and the Senator from Virginia. This article is about the ideas Charles Sumner has on slavery and on what is going on in Kansas. Sumner was speaking from an abolitionist's view. I don't think it matters that Sumner was addressing slavery(becuase it is wrong), but the fact that he addressed certain people in it is what got him in trouble. This speech shows the tension that was building within the country(North and South). I somewhat agree with what Brooks did to Sumner. I probably would not have beat him senseless. Although Sumner was acting like a pansie hiding under his desk. The beating asisde, Sumner made some good points about how slavery had to stop.
The personal hatred that characterized bleeding Kansas was not limited to the masses. As Sumner's speech reveals, even members of the Senate were not above personal attacks to try and further their side's cause. The central point of the speech is to defend Kansas' antislaveryites from proslaveryite opponents, namely Senator Butler of S.C., who apparently often spoke ill of Kansas' representative and people on his proslavery platform. That being said, the majority of his speech was devoted to subjecting Butler to an endless barage of insult for his stance on slavery. Sumner even went so far as to say of Butler's state, "Were the whole history of South Carolina blotted out of existence, civilization might lose-I do not say how little, but surely less than it has already gained by the example of Kansas in that valiant struggle against oppression." I understand the point of view that Sumner has, being from Massachussetts, a firm free state. As an antislaveryite he would have equally strong opinions as his southern counterparts. But I have to admit, despite his excellent points on freedom being national and slavery being sectional, attacking not only Butler, but his entire state was definitely not going to help progress his own cause, and he should have expected some equally rash consequences. I think it's stupid that men who are elected to make rational decisions would resort to making speeches out of fighting words and beating each other up with canes, but no, I don't think Brooks *totally* overreacted, he just didn't make the situation any better than Sumner made it. I will say he could have stopped the beating once Sumner lost conciousness. Three years is a long time to recover over a dispute like that.
The primary point of the first few paragraphs of Sumner's speech appear to be entirley directed at Butler, and what he feels to be Butler's horrible misconceptions and views, and shows Butler's argument with anti-slavery as child-like and petty. He pretty much crucifies Butler's character, moral and mental capacities, and overall ability to discreen good from evil. Sumner is perhaps using a single person to signify the greater numbers of persons he feels to think this way and thus prove a hinderence to Republican views. He sets up Kansas as a proving ground for 'good' against 'evil' in many ways, the good, pure, abolitionists coming to save Kansas from being swallowed by an endless abyss of evil.
Sumner really aims for specific proponents of slavery, identifies them openly, and then procedes to publicly humiliate those proponents.
As to Sumner being beaten severely with a cane shortly after his speech, I disdain unnecessarly violence as much as anybody. But if someone is going to publicly humiliate another in such a fashion and in such a personal manner, one couldn't really help but believe that the other would most certainly retaliate in some form or another.
This speech made by Charles Sumner is filled with the many issues of slavery which were happening in Kansas and other midwestern states during this period of time. Obviously in the title bleeding kansas he is talking about the several bloody, cruel acts and affairs which happened between slave supporters and abolitionists. Obviously Sumner hates slavery because of his position as a Republican from the north. With his several statements on Butler it seems as if he despises every idea and person involved in slavery. Sumner puts slavery and the issue in Kansas on a very low pedestal and with these comments his opposition is shown greatly.
This speech is by Charles Sumner is about his opinion on slavery. His main point was show the evils of slavery. He wrote this speech to show his opinions on the subject. Senator Sumner is coming from the point of veiw of a republican. This doesnt remind me of any other documents. Sumner's attack on Senator Butler was very inappropriate. He could have shared his opinions without putting down another Senator. I think that Brooks overreacted just a little bit he didnt have to almost kill the guy to make his point. I believe that Brooks physical attack on Sumner was justified because like michael said Sumner called him out by saying "from senators who have raised themselves to eminence on the floor in the championship of human wrong: I mean the senator from South Carolina." Just for this I think that his attack was justified. I learned that Sumner deserved what he got. The way he said things confused me.
his main points were that slavery is wrong and that Butler is wrong on his political standings. The attack was uncalled for, he dissed his wife and that's pretty low. the attack by the South Carolina rep was okay and not okay at the same time. the guy deserved to get beat up for talking about someone's wife but to beat him with a cane and give him brain damage is a little overboard.
Hey Mrs. Stone this is
Brian Thompson
In "Bleeding Kansas" Charles Sumner expresses his views on slavery and the senator of South Carolina Mr. Butler. Sumner speaking out against slavery isn't bad that was his opinion, but he should not have pointed fingers at anyone. He especialy should not have insulted Mr. Butler directly like that, I believe that Sumner got what was coming to him. It just goes to show you, don't mess with South Carolina or you might get hit with a cane!
The main point of Charles Sumner's speech is to speak out against slavery, particulary aiming towards Senator Butler. The point of view is from a northerner who, obviously sees slavery as a demoralizing part of society. its pretty cool that another senator called one out becuase thats not exactly something that happens every day. I learned that its good to speak your mind on issues that you are against. It's also good to thrash someone with a cane because then people will think that you are a hero. If i had a cane I might beat someone down too. I think that even though Sumner's criticism was funny, it could have been a little out of line, but then his speech wouldn't have been as good.
In this article Sumner talks about the conflicts in Kansas, while also taking strikes on the south and particularly representative butler. In the speech he takes personal attacks on his family and tries to talk him down as much as possible. Just another common attack on someone from sc if you ask me. But yea i think he def. had a reason to go beat him up. He was just defending his honor
Its jake by the way
Main point: slavery is a horrible, evil, immoral, filthy (Sumner makes this point in personifying slavery as a harlot); if the SC senator is an advocator of slavery, then he is all of the aforementioned adjectives by association; and all this is polluting Kansas, which ought to be free of the corruption of slavery.
POV: From a zealous and biting Northern abolitionist's.
Purpose: To turn people against slavery, and to launch a personal attack on Butler
Links to other docs: Hmm, haven't read one this insulting
What I learned: Sumner could pull off a nice extended metaphor! Who knew!
;p[=-[
^Hey, my cat just wrote that.
Do I think his attack was appropriate: It was pretty mean, so no, I would say it was sort of an immature thing to do, and I would say he overstepped his limits and exaggerated more than a little. Then again, freedom of speech. . .
Did I think Brooks overreacted: HE BEAT THE MAN BLOODY UNCONSCIOUS!!! YES I THINK HE OVERREACTED! This was a pretty immature thing to do, too. I mean, I think a thousand lashes with a wet noodle would've been in order, but not such a beating that it took Sumner three years to recover. But I think Sumner could've fought back. Words are weapons. The pen is mightier than the sword. . .but I guess it isn't as mighty as the cane. Ha ha!
Do I think the physical attack was justified: violence in my opinon is rarely the answer to anything, and I think only a person with a sick mind would enjoy the spectacle of beating someone to that degree. But then again maybe I have no right to judge this.
My response to others: I think Brittany is right--Brooks could've fought back with the power of words, not canes.
Charles Sumner's speech, entitled "Bleeding Kansas", states Sumner's opinions on slavery and Kansas. The main point of his speech is to say how awful the practice of slavery is and how it should be abolised. He also makes particular reference to the bloody conflicts occurring in Kansas. Sumner, through his speech, makes the senator of South Carolina, Mr. Butler, to look like a total idiot. Sumner was hoping that his speech would futher tear down slavery while making a total fool of Butler. No particular documents really remind me of this speech. It seems to be pretty original. Like Sophie, I learned that this speech isn't as harsh as I was expecting considering the cane beating he received as a result of it. I am still confused as to why Sumner decided to point out Butler out of everyone present at congress. As a resulf of Sumner's speech, Butler decides to brutally attack Sumner with his cane. I feel like the remarks made by Sumner were uncalled for and unprofessional. He shouldn't have pointed out one particular congressman while making this speech. Although the speech was pretty harsh, the brutal beating was a littler too harsh. Butler beating him unconscious was a little too far. Yes, Butler had a right to beat Sumner, but not that hard. The beating was justified because Sumner shouldn't have talked crap about Butler, but Butler could have eased up with the cane a bit.
Liz Godwin...
The main point that Charles Summer is trying to get across is how he thinks slavery is wrong. Of course he is going to think its wrong seeing as he is a Republican from the north. He talks about"Bleeding Kansas" and all the bloodshed that happend between the abloitionists and those who supported slavery. He specifically calls out Butler which wasn't really a smart move since he got the crap beat out of him for saying it. In a way Butler was kind of justified because he was called a hero for doing it and gained supporters. But i do think Sumner made some good points about how slavery is wrong..after all it is.
As I read this document, I am going to list all the points and things that I read that could possibly jutify Brook's action...
1-Sumner insults Butler's wife; 2-He calls Butler ignorant and sarcastically exhalts him (which means he's really insulting him...i know you will understand what i mean by that, stone); 3- He pretty much tells him that he needs to shut up and close his mouth every once in a while; 4- he insults the state as a whole....
yep. if back in the day, someone wrote a speech belittling my uncle, i think i would beat him with a cane, too. he did not overreact, he was totally justified.... but i would picture a rep. writing an even better speech, totally hitting back at every point sumner made, instead of beating him with a cane. . . . although it was probably fun.
I think that Sumner had no right to specifically address anyone... he could have chosen to keep his victim anonymous.. or something else.. in a more professional way. But he didn't. So, Brooks, yippiekayay to ya, brother. Cheers to your cane.
shazam.
But, you know, actually, I just thought of A Clockwork Orange or whatever, so maybe violence is good where vengeance is concerned, I don't know, I don't have an opinion really
by THE Warren Johnson
Sumner's speech was made to verbally attack what was going on in Kansas with the slavery battle. Where he messed up was he talked trash about Butler in a completly unnecessary manner. Politically Sumner's speech was fine in my opinion because he has his right to his own views and if he was anti-slavery then he has the right to voice his opinion. But when you talk bad about South Carolina and call a mans wife ugly, (especially someone from South Carolina), you are gonna get hit with a cane, hide under a table for protection, and then be beaten unconscience. So although some of his comments were justified in my view, he got what he deserved for the rest of them.
Charles Sumner's speech about Bleeding Kansas starts out as a direct attack on the senators of South Carolina, Mr. Butler, and the senator of Illinois, Mr. Douglas. His main point is the fact that slavery is totally unnecessary and basically evil. He attacks these two senators because of their support of this practice. Like Michael said, it would have been okay to express his opinion without calling names or pointing fingers but the way he did this was very rude and obonoxious. I do believe that Sumner's opinions are justified, because I myself never have and never will agree with slavery, but calling someone out in a political matter such as this was just asking for the attacks he got. When Sumner says "...Were the whole history of South Carolina blotted out of existence,...civilization might lose-I do not say how little, but surely less that it has already gained by the example of Kansas..." he is not only attacking Butler, but the entire state as well. Not just saying this because I'm a proud South Carolinian, but we cannot blame one senators beliefs and actions on a whole state's foundation. I believe Sumner was totally and completely out of line with his smart-elic way of handling such a delicate issue, though he was just in his opinions, it still was not the polite(to say the least) thing to do.
this whole speech is just a lot of anti slavery propaganda, good propaganda. the whole point is to make supporters of slavery look like ignorant southerners and gain support for kansas as a free state. as far as being appropret it is not. congress is no place for personal attacks on individuals. it is really funny that this guy got beat up though. really funny. i guess it kind of gave some proof that southerners are a bit stupid. who beats up a guy for somthing like this. south carlinens yep. i am from this state but i wish i wasnt. actually given the current state of things i wish to be adopted by another country. when i feel better about things i will come back to being an american but untill then i ask any other country (besides thouse beginins with the letters ir) to call me and i will be happy to join them. i prefer those with cool flags and songs but what ever. countries that begin with ir includ: iraq, iran, and ireland. those can stay out of my wish list for obvious resons. actually we could just suceed again that would be cool
i really like the fact that tina referenced a clockwork ornge ive got the sound track on vinal
Ok, so this could be completely wrong but it seems like all Sumner wanted to achieve in his "Crime against Kansas" is bash Senator Butler. If his main idea and goal was to completely defame slavery, he did not accomplish it whatsoever. While Sumner does speak out against slavery in the last few sentences of his speech, the majority of the speech is devoted to attacking, deriding, bashing, criticizing, (pretty much any other word defined as making fun of or insulting) Butler.
Some interesting points:
1)Sumner parallels Butler with Don Quixote; therefore basically calling him crazy, using the phrase "sally forth" to indicate, what he views as, Butler's meandering through his term in the Senate.
2)Sumner makes fun of his wife! Thereby insulting his personal affairs, which if I was his wife, I would be right there with Rep. Brooks, beating him with my purse or my shoe or something.
3)Sumner basically refers to Butler as an unsuitable senator for an insignificant state.
Sumner's remarks are completely inappropriate. They have absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand and are certainly degrading and rude. I can understand the major disagreements over the subject but I do not think it should have gone this far.
HOWEVER, sticking to my roots and standing up for our wonderful state, I do believe Rep. Brooks's physical attack on Sumner was right and just. Though I'm usually the person that tells people to not care what other people say, to ignore such comments, and to be the bigger person. I feel like this situation is different. Sumner is like a little child who must be corrected for his mistake and the only way to do so is by discipline. He obviously made the mistake of mixing personal problems with politics, because it's pretty clear that he has serious issues with Butler and he brings that into his speech that is supposed to deal with "Bleeding Kansas." Thankfully, Rep. Brooks was there to be the caring parent, who doesn't want his child to make the same mistake again, and discipline him.
HAHAHA nice analogy huh mrs. stone? =)
I love everything about this story. It shows how hard core South Carolina truely is in a respectful way (haha). But the violent attack is justified. I mean, how can Sumner expect to talk crap to not only a state, but a certain individual without a punishment? I mean come on dude...your an idiot. I respect completely Brooks' decision of kickin his butt. He is standing up for his family, his state, and the pride of the southland. It shows that the south wont put up with crap from the north and obviously results in great tension between the two regions.
But his views on slavery were definately justified. He has the right to voice his opinion without disturbing peace so that part was fine. The singling out is where he messed up.
Sorry i forgot that part. And I should get major props for doin this because i had to pull some strings to get access to this computer at the hotel.
Sumner's main points was how awful slavery was,how awful SC was for having slavery, and how sen. butler supported slavery. He called slavery a harlot, basically something dispicable, that only desperate people want. I dont agree with all points of slavery but if the treatment had been better then it wouldnt have been as bad. Also he stated how much slavery affected the nation as a whole. He then verbally attacked Sen. Butler just because of his stance on slavery. It was unjustified and i believe he did out of malice and for no other reason. He then called south carolina out saying that compared to kansas, SC would be of no lose whatsoever if it was just eradicated. and people wonder why we seceeded. I believe the attack was justified, a little brutal but justified. He spoke against a good friend of his and his state, i would have beat the snot out of him too.
This is Amanda Darnell 7th period
Charles Sumner's speech "The Crime Against Kansas" was this insane attact against Senator Butler of South Carolina. Sumner refers to slavery as Butler's wife. And all of this is on the floor of the Senate. I, as a South Carolina resident, believe that Sumner had no right to bring this topic up in front of the Senate without Butler's approval. Even without his approval it would have been alright if he would not have brought up Butler's name in this argument. The fact that he made this matter personal and against Butler and South Carolina shows that he has a bone to pick with Butler indiviually. I think that the attack on Sumner was justified in that Sumner overstepped his boundaries and took advantage of his position in the Senate.
Hannah Mauldin!
The main point of Sumner's speech seems to be that slavery is wrong but another point he clearly makes is how much he dislikes Pierce Butler and the things he represents. The point of view is that of Sumner's who is a northerner. He agrees stronly with the Republican party as well. This document is unlike any speech I have ever read, which is sad because if there were more speeches that led to fights then I would read many more speeches than I have. I do belive, however, that Sumner's attacks on Butler were inappropriate because they did no good towards solving or helping the issue and got way off topic when he said "though ugly to others...", talking about Butler's wife. I also believe that Brooks may have over-reacted but who wouldn't get upset if someone was talking about their family and state in that way. Its okay....i like to think of it as an early version of the Jerry Springer show (minus the body guards).
hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi...
HI
gday trhsapush.blogspot.com blogger discovered your blog via search engine but it was hard to find and I see you could have more visitors because there are not so many comments yet. I have discovered site which offer to dramatically increase traffic to your site http://explode-your-site-traffic.com they claim they managed to get close to 4000 visitors/day using their services you could also get lot more targeted traffic from search engines as you have now. I used their services and got significantly more visitors to my website. Hope this helps :) They offer best services to increase website traffic at this website http://explode-your-site-traffic.com
To your success your friend
James
http://eekshop.com
A Kansas City head hunter will want to explore discuss going to be the kind to do with do just as well all your family members are do you need and what with safety in mind regarding company your family really do not think your family rrs going to be comfortable leaving If all your family members grab a multi function head seeker who asks all your family an all in one a bit of simple and fast questions and then falls off off to explore buy all your family members a multi function if you love then that is not at all the sort regarding head seeker this is the fact going to learn more about find your family do just fine A a fact staffing professional is required a multi functional lot to do with things back and forth from all your family members in order for you to understand more about go and buy the entirely match,therefore be prepared for more information regarding supply the item enough detailed information online.
Post a Comment