Chapter V: Injuries and Continued Disability of Mr. Sumner (1)

I.

THE ASSAULT.

On Friday, May 23, the day after the assault, Hon. Henry Wilson, colleague of Mr. Sumner, rising in his seat immediately after the reading of the Journal, made the following remarks.

“Mr. President,--The seat of my colleague is vacant to-day.
That seat is vacant to-day for the first time during five
years of public service. Yesterday, after a touching tribute
of respect to the memory of a deceased member of the House of
Representatives, the Senate adjourned. My colleague remained
in his seat, busily engaged in his public duties. While thus
engaged, with pen in hand, and in a position which rendered
him utterly incapable of protecting or defending himself, Mr.
Preston S. Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives,
approached his desk unobserved, and abruptly addressed him.
Before he had time to utter a single word in reply, he received
a stunning blow upon the head from a cane in the hands of
Mr. Brooks, which made him blind and almost unconscious.
Endeavoring, however, to protect himself, in rising from his
chair his desk was overthrown; and while in that condition, he
was beaten upon the head by repeated blows, until he sunk upon
the floor of the Senate, exhausted, unconscious, and covered
with his own blood. He was taken from this Chamber to the
anteroom, his wounds were dressed, and then by friends he was
carried to his home and placed upon his bed. He is unable to
be with us to-day to perform the duties that belong to him as a
member of this body.

“Sir, to assail a member of the Senate out of this Chamber,
‘for words spoken in debate,’ is a grave offence, not only
against the rights of the Senator, but the constitutional
privileges of this House; but, Sir, to come into this Chamber,
and assault a member in his seat until he falls exhausted and
senseless on this floor, is an offence requiring the prompt and
decisive action of the Senate.

“Senators, I have called your attention to this transaction.
I submit no motion. I leave it to older Senators, whose
character, whose position in this body and before the country,
eminently fit them for the task of devising measures to redress
the wrongs of a member of this body, and to vindicate the honor
and dignity of the Senate.”

Mr. Seward followed with a resolution.

“_Resolved_, That a Committee of five members be appointed by
the President to inquire into the circumstances attending the
assault committed on the person of the Hon. Charles Sumner, a
member of the Senate, in the Senate Chamber yesterday; and that
the said Committee be instructed to report a statement of the
facts, together with their opinion thereon to the Senate.”

On motion of Mr. Mason, of Virginia, the resolution was amended, so that the Committee should be elected by the Senate. It was then adopted. Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, Mr. Allen, of Rhode Island, Mr. Dodge, of Wisconsin, Mr. Geyer, of Missouri, and Mr. Cass, of Michigan, were elected. Mr. Seward, who introduced the resolution, and Mr. Wilson, who announced the assault, were excluded.

On the 28th of May Mr. Pearce made a report from the Select Committee, which, after a brief statement of facts, says, that “the Senate, for a breach of its privileges, cannot arrest a member of the House of Representatives, and, _a fortiori_, cannot try and punish him”; that “that authority devolves solely upon the House of which he is a member”; and that “the Senate cannot proceed further than to make complaint to the House of Representatives of the assault committed by one of its members.” It was ordered that “a copy of this report, and the affidavits accompanying the same, be transmitted to the House of Representatives.”

Nothing further was done in the Senate on this matter.

In the House of Representatives, on the day after the assault, Hon. Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, moved a Select Committee of five “to investigate the subject, and to report the facts, with such resolutions in reference thereto as in their judgments may be proper and necessary for the vindication of the character of the House.” The resolution was adopted, and the following Committee was appointed by the Speaker: Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, John Allison, of Pennsylvania, Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Alfred B. Greenwood, of Arkansas, and Francis E. Spinner, of New York. Alexander C. M. Pennington, of New Jersey, was substituted for Mr. Allison. To this Committee were referred the proceedings of the Senate.

* * * * *

In the testimony taken and reported by the Committee will be found an authentic account of the assault. The Committee visited Mr. Sumner at his house.

“HON. CHARLES SUMNER, being sworn, testified.

“_Question_ (by Mr. Campbell). What do you know of the facts
connected with the assault alleged to have been made upon you
in the Senate Chamber by Hon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, on
Thursday, May 22, 1856?

“_Answer._ I attended the Senate as usual on Thursday, the 22d
of May. After some formal business, a message was received
from the House of Representatives, announcing the death of a
member of that body from Missouri. This was followed by a brief
tribute to the deceased from Mr. Geyer, of Missouri, when,
according to usage, and out of respect to the deceased, the
Senate adjourned.

“Instead of leaving the Chamber with the rest on the
adjournment, I continued in my seat, occupied with my pen.
While thus intent, in order to be in season for the mail,
which was soon to close, I was approached by several persons
who desired to speak with me; but I answered them promptly
and briefly, excusing myself, for the reason that I was much
engaged. When the last of these left me, I drew my arm-chair
close to my desk, and, with my legs under the desk, continued
writing. My attention at this time was so entirely withdrawn
from all other objects, that, though there must have been many
persons on the floor of the Senate, I saw nobody.

“While thus intent, with my head bent over my writing, I was
addressed by a person who had approached the front of my desk
so entirely unobserved that I was not aware of his presence
until I heard my name pronounced. As I looked up, with pen in
hand, I saw a tall man, whose countenance was not familiar,
standing directly over me, and at the same moment caught these
words: ‘I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is
a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative
of mine----’ While these words were still passing from his
lips, he commenced a succession of blows with a heavy cane
on my bare head, by the first of which I was stunned so as
to lose sight. I no longer saw my assailant, nor any person
or object in the room. What I did afterwards was done almost
unconsciously, acting under the instinct of self-defence.
With head already bent down, I rose from my seat, wrenching
up my desk, which was screwed to the floor, and then pressed
forward, while my assailant continued his blows. I have no
other consciousness until I found myself ten feet forward, in
front of my desk, lying on the floor of the Senate, with my
bleeding head supported on the knee of a gentleman, whom I soon
recognized, by voice and countenance, as Mr. Morgan, of New
York. Other persons there were about me offering me friendly
assistance; but I did not recognize any of them. Others there
were at a distance, looking on and offering no assistance, of
whom I recognized only Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, Mr. Toombs, of
Georgia, and I thought also my assailant, standing between them.

“I was helped from the floor and conducted into the lobby of
the Senate, where I was placed upon a sofa. Of those who helped
me to this place I have no recollection. As I entered the
lobby, I recognized Mr. Slidell, of Louisiana, who retreated;
but I recognized no one else until some time later, as I
supposed, when I felt a friendly grasp of the hand, which
seemed to come from Mr. Campbell, of Ohio. I have a vague
impression that Mr. Bright, President of the Senate, spoke to
me while I was lying on the floor of the Senate or in the lobby.

“I make this statement in answer to the interrogatory
of the Committee, and offer it as presenting completely
all my recollections of the assault and of the attending
circumstances, whether immediately before or immediately after.
I desire to add, that, besides the words which I have given as
uttered by my assailant, I have an indistinct recollection of
the words, ‘old man’; but these are so enveloped in the mist
which ensued from the first blow, that I am not sure whether
they were uttered or not.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Greenwood). How long do you suppose it was
after the adjournment of the Senate before this occurrence took
place?

“_Ans._ I am very much at a loss to say whether it was half
an hour or fifteen minutes: I should say ranging from fifteen
minutes to half an hour, more or less; perhaps not more than
fifteen minutes. I have already testified that I was so much
absorbed with what I was doing at my desk, that I took very
little note of anything, not even of time.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Cobb). Was the first blow you received from
Mr. Brooks before he had finished the sentence?

“_Ans._ I have no recollection beyond what I have stated.

“_Ques._ My question was, whether a blow was struck before Mr.
Brooks finished the remark to you which you have just quoted?

“_Ans._ The blow came down with the close of the sentence.

“_Ques._ Then the sentence was closed before the blow was
struck?

“_Ans._ It seemed to me that the blow came in the middle of an
unfinished sentence. In the statement I have made I used the
language, ‘While these words were still passing from his lips,
he commenced a succession of blows.’ I heard distinctly the
words I have given; I heard the words ‘a relative of mine,’ and
then it seemed to me there was a break, and I have left it as
an unfinished sentence, the sequel of which I did not hear on
account of the blows.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Campbell). Did you, at any time between the
delivery of your speech referred to and the time when you were
attacked, receive any intimation, in writing or otherwise, that
Mr. Brooks intended to attack you?

“_Ans._ Never, directly or indirectly; nor had I the most
remote suspicion of any attack, nor was I in any way prepared
for an attack. I had no arms or means of defence of any kind.
I was, in fact, entirely defenceless at the time, except so
far as my natural strength went. In other words, I had no arms
either about my person or in my desk. Nor did I ever wear arms
in my life. I have always lived in a civilized community,
where wearing arms has not been considered necessary. When
I had finished my speech on Tuesday,[141] I think it was,
my colleague came to me and said, ‘I am going home with you
to-day; several of us are going home with you.’ Said I, ‘None
of that, Wilson.’ And instead of waiting for him, or allowing
him to accompany me home, I shot off just as I should any other
day. While on my way from the Capitol, I overtook Mr. Seward,
with whom I had engaged to dine. We walked together as far as
the omnibuses. He then proposed that we should take an omnibus,
which I declined, stating that I must go to the printing-office
to look over proofs. I therefore walked alone, overtaking one
or two persons on the way. I have referred to this remark of my
colleague in answer to your question, whether I had in any way
been put on my guard?

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Cobb). What do you attribute the remark of
your colleague to? In other words, was it founded upon an
apprehension growing out of what you had said in your speech?

“_Ans._ I understand that it was. He has told me since that
a member of the House had put him on his guard, but he did
not mention it to me at the time. I suspected no danger, and
therefore I treated what he said to me as trifling.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Pennington). Have you ever defied or invited
violence?

“_Ans._ Never, at any time.

“_Ques._ State what was the condition of your clothing after
this violence, when you were taken from the Chamber.

“_Ans._ I was in such a condition at the time that I was
unaware of the blood on my clothes. I know little about it
until after I reached my room, when I took my clothes off. The
shirt, around the neck and collar, was soaked with blood. The
waistcoat had many marks of blood upon it; also the trousers.
The broadcloth coat was covered with blood on the shoulders
so thickly that the blood had soaked through the cloth, even
through the padding, and appeared on the inside; there was also
a great deal of blood on the back of the coat and its sides.

“_Ques._ Were you aware of the intention of Mr. Brooks to
strike or inflict a blow before the blow was felt?

“_Ans._ I had not the remotest suspicion of it until I felt the
blow on my head.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Campbell). Do you know how often you were
struck?

“_Ans._ I have not the most remote idea.

“_Ques._ How many wounds have you upon your head?

“_Ans._ I have two principal wounds upon my head, and several
bruises on my hands and arms. The doctor will describe them
more particularly than I am able to.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Cobb). You stated, that, when Mr. Brooks
approached you, he remarked that he had read your speech, and
it was a libel upon his State and upon his relative. I will ask
you, if you had, prior to that assault, in any speech, made any
personal allusions to Mr. Brooks’s relative, Mr. Butler, or to
the State of South Carolina, to which Mr. Brooks applied this
remark?

“_Ans._ At the time my assailant addressed me I did not know
who he was, least of all did I suppose him to be a relative
of Mr. Butler. In a speech recently made in the Senate I have
alluded to the State of South Carolina, and to Mr. Butler; but
I have never said anything which was not in just response to
his speeches, according to parliamentary usage, nor anything
which can be called a libel upon South Carolina or Mr. Butler.”

HON. HENRY WILSON, the colleague of Mr. Sumner, first heard of the assault as he was passing down the street, and hastened back. As to threats of violence before the assault, he testified:--

“I know of none, of my own knowledge. Mr. Bingham, of the
House of Representatives, said to me just about the time the
Senate adjourned: ‘You had better go down with Mr. Sumner; I
think there will be an assault upon him.’ Said I, ‘Do you think
so?’ He said, ‘I have heard remarks made from which I think an
assault will be made.’ I afterwards said to Mr. Sumner that
I would like to talk with him, and I spoke to Mr. Burlingame
and to Mr. Colfax to walk down with us. While I was standing
talking to Mr. Burlingame, Mr. Sumner went to Mr. Sutton’s[142]
desk, and then went out of the side door. I waited, supposing
he would come back and go down with us. But he did not come,
and we left the Capitol, but waited some time near the porter’s
lodge, until we heard he had gone home. That is all I know, and
it is merely hearsay. I gave myself little trouble about it. I
went up to his room afterwards, but did not find him at home.
Mr. Sumner paid no attention to what I said. I merely said I
wanted to walk down with him,--that I wanted to talk with him.”

HON. JOHN A. BINGHAM, of Ohio, being sworn, testified.

“_Ques._ Had you any reason to apprehend that an assault would
be made on Mr. Sumner after the delivery of that speech?

“_Ans._ I can only say that I had no reason to apprehend danger
to Mr. Sumner, except what I inferred from the language of
Senators at the time he closed his speech. What they said then
led me to believe that an attempt to assail him was intended,
or was intended to be encouraged.

“_Ques._ Were the threats of Senators, of which you speak,
uttered in debate or outside?

“_Ans._ They were uttered in debate. I do not recollect hearing
anything of the kind except what was uttered in debate, coupled
with the manner of Senators. These are all the reasons I had
for apprehending an assault.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Cobb). Did you communicate to Mr. Wilson your
apprehensions in reference to Mr. Sumner?

“_Ans._ I did, before the Senate adjourned, communicate with
Mr. Wilson. I said to Mr. Wilson that it was my opinion an
assault was intended upon Mr. Sumner, and that he had better
see to it that no assault was made.”

JAMES W. SIMONTON, ESQ., reporter of the _New York Times_, being sworn, testified.

“I was standing in the Senate Chamber near Mr. Clayton’s seat,
conversing with Mr. Morgan and Mr. Murray of the House, when
I heard a blow. I exclaimed, ‘What is that?’ and immediately
started. One step brought me in view of the parties. My
attention was directed at once to Mr. Sumner, with a view to
notice his condition. I saw that he was just in the act of
springing forward. As he came upon his feet, I noticed him spin
around, and then stagger backwards and sideways until he fell.
Mr. Brooks was striking him with his cane, which then seemed
to be broken off one third its length. I rushed up as rapidly
as possible, with other gentlemen, and, as I reached him, or
near him, Mr. Keitt rushed in, running around Mr. Sumner and
Mr. Brooks with his cane raised, crying, ‘Let them alone! let
them alone!’ threatening myself and others who had rushed in to
interfere. Mr. Brooks continued to strike until he was seized
by Mr. Murray, and until Mr. Sumner, who had lodged partly
against the desk, had fallen to the floor. He did not fall
directly, but, after lodging for an instant upon, then slipped
off from his desk, and fell upon the floor. I do not know of
anything further.

“_Ques._ How often did Mr. Brooks strike?

“_Ans._ With great rapidity: at least a dozen, and I should
think twenty blows. Mr. Sumner, at the first moment when I
looked at him, seemed to me to be unconscious.

“_Ques._ (by Mr. Pennington). Do you know of any concert
between Mr. Brooks and any other person, a member of Congress,
to attack Mr. Sumner?

“_Ans._ I do not know anything of my own knowledge. I noticed
several persons who were there. I saw Mr. Keitt there. I have
a distinct recollection of seeing several parties, perhaps not
distinct enough to mention them. I saw several Senators present
immediately afterwards, but whether they were there at the time
of the occurrence I could not say. My attention was directed
especially to Mr. Sumner, and to Mr. Keitt, who seemed to be
acting in concert with Mr. Brooks.

“_Ques._ State, if you can, what Mr. Keitt said or did from
first to last.

“_Ans._ I saw him as I was approaching the parties. I noticed
him run in from the centre aisle, and raise his cane. He used
the words I have spoken; or rather, my impression is that the
precise expression was, ‘Let them alone, God damn you!’”

This is only a portion of the evidence.

* * * * *

The Committee, after taking evidence, made a report, signed by Mr. Campbell, Mr. Spinner, and Mr. Pennington, which, after setting forth the facts, concludes with the following resolutions.

“_Resolved_, That Preston S. Brooks be, and he is forthwith,
expelled from this House as a Representative from the State of
South Carolina.

“_Resolved_, That this House hereby declare its disapprobation
of the said act of Henry A. Edmundson and Lawrence M. Keitt in
regard to the said assault.”

A minority report, signed by Mr. Cobb and Mr. Greenwood, concluded with the following resolution.

“_Resolved_, That this House has no jurisdiction over the
assault alleged to have been committed by the Hon. Preston
S. Brooks, a member of this House from the State of South
Carolina, upon the Hon. Charles Sumner, a Senator from the
State of Massachusetts, and therefore deem it improper to
express any opinion on the subject.”

In the House, the substitute moved by Mr. Cobb was lost,--yeas 66, nays 145. The resolution of expulsion was lost,--yeas 121, nays 95,--the two thirds required for expulsion not voting in favor thereof. The other resolution, declaring disapprobation of the act of Henry A. Edmundson and Lawrence M. Keitt, was divided, and the censure of Keitt was voted,--yeas 106, nays 96; that of Edmundson was lost,--yeas 60, nays 136. A long preamble, setting forth the facts, was adopted,--yeas 104, nays 83.[143]

Immediately after the vote upon the resolution of expulsion, Mr. Brooks, with some difficulty, obtained leave to address the House. Mr. Giddings objected, but, at the request of friends, withdrew his objection, contrary to his own judgment. In the course of a speech vindicating his conduct, Mr. Brooks took credit to himself for not beginning a revolution.

“Sir, I cannot, _on my own account_, assume the
responsibility, in the face of the American people, of
commencing a line of conduct which in my heart of hearts I
believe would result in subverting the foundations of this
Government and in drenching this Hall in blood. No act of
mine, and on my personal account, shall inaugurate revolution;
but when you, Mr. Speaker, return to your own home, and
hear the people of the great North--and they are a great
people--speak of me as a bad man, you will do me the justice
to say that a blow struck by me at this time would be followed
by revolution,--and this I know. [_Applause and hisses in the
gallery._]”

Afterwards he seemed to take credit for using the instrument he did.

“I went to work very deliberately, as I am charged,--and this
is admitted,--and speculated somewhat as to whether I should
employ a horsewhip or a cowhide; but, knowing that the Senator
was my superior in strength, it occurred to me that he might
wrest it from my hand, and then--for I never attempt anything I
do not perform--_I might have been compelled to do that which I
would have regretted the balance of my natural life_.”

At these words, according to the papers of the day, there was a voice from the House:--

“He would have killed him!”

The speech concluded:--

“And now, Mr. Speaker, I announce to you, and to this House,
that I am no longer a member of the Thirty-Fourth Congress.”

On which the _Globe_ remarks:--

“Mr. Brooks then walked out of the House of
Representatives.”[144]

In fact, his resignation was already in the hands of the Governor of South Carolina, to take effect on his announcing his resignation to the House. In this way he avoided any other censure, after the failure of the resolution of expulsion.

Returning to South Carolina, Mr. Brooks presented himself again to his constituents, and was triumphantly reëlected. On the 1st of August, 1856, his commission was presented to the House, when, according to the _Globe_, he “came forward and the Speaker administered to him the oath to support the Constitution of the United States.”

While proceedings were pending in the House, Mr. Brooks was indicted by the Grand Jury of the District of Columbia. The following letters of Mr. Sumner, written at Silver Spring, near Washington, where he was the guest of F. P. Blair, Esq., show his indisposition to take part in the proceedings.

“SILVER SPRING, June 30, 1856.

“DEAR SIR,--I find myself unable to attend Court to-day. Since
the summons of the Marshal, I have suffered a relapse, by which
I am enfeebled, and also admonished against exertion. Being
out of town, I have not had an opportunity of consulting my
attending physician; but a skilful medical friend, who has
visited me here, earnestly insists that I cannot attend Court
for some time without peril to my health.

“I have the honor to be, dear Sir,

“Your faithful servant,

“CHARLES SUMNER.

“P. BARTON KEY, Esq., Attorney of the United States.”

“SILVER SPRING, July 1, 1856.

“DEAR SIR,--I have your letter of 30th June, in which you ask
my consent with regard to the course you shall take in the
conduct of a criminal proceeding now pending in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District of Columbia. I am
surprised at this communication. In giving my testimony before
the Grand Jury, I stated that I appeared at the summons of
the law, and that I wished it distinctly understood that the
proceeding was instituted without any suggestion on my part,
and that I had nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with its
conduct. Nothing has occurred to change my relation to the
proceeding. Its whole conduct belongs to the Attorney of the
United States.

“I am, dear Sir,

“Your faithful servant,

“CHARLES SUMNER.

“P. BARTON KEY, Esq., Attorney of the United States.”

When the trial came on, Mr. Sumner had left for Philadelphia. Mr. Brooks was sentenced to pay a fine of three hundred dollars.

William Y. Leader, of Philadelphia, who testified before the magistrate, drew up the following account of the assault, which is now published for the first time.

“I arrived in Washington City on the morning of the 22d of
May, 1856. It was my first visit to Washington. After attending
to some business, I visited the Capitol. It was about twelve
o’clock, and both Houses of Congress were in session. I went
to the Hall of the House of Representatives first. I remained
until the House adjourned, which was in a short time, as no
business was transacted further than the passage of some
resolutions in relation to, and several addresses on, the
death of Hon. John G. Miller, of Missouri. I next went to the
gallery of the Senate Chamber. Hon. Mr. Geyer, of Missouri, was
delivering a eulogy on the death of Mr. Miller, after which a
series of resolutions on the same subject were passed, when
the Senate adjourned. I then went into the Senate Chamber, for
the purpose of delivering a letter to Hon. J. J. Crittenden,
but, finding him engaged talking to the Hon. L. S. Foster, of
Connecticut, I walked up and down the Chamber, waiting until he
would be disengaged. While doing so, a gentleman mentioned the
name of Mr. Sumner. I had never seen Mr. Sumner, but, having
read several of his speeches, I was anxious to see him, and,
looking in the direction from which the voice came, I observed
Dr. Madeira, of Philadelphia, introducing to Mr. Sumner
one of the then editors of the Chambersburg, Pennsylvania,
_Transcript_. Mr. Sumner then shook the person by the hand and
begged him to excuse him, as he was writing on time, that he
might get a number of documents, which he was franking, ready
for the mail, and told the gentleman he would be pleased to see
him at his residence at any time he might call. The gentleman
left him, and I walked to the seat of Senator Seward, which was
vacant, and which is next but one from Senator Sumner’s, in
the same row. Senator Sumner was writing at his seat. On his
table was a large pile of documents, and he was writing very
rapidly, with his head very close to the desk. While he was
thus engaged, I observed a gentleman come in the door and walk
to the seat of Mr. Sumner. He came up in a quiet, easy manner,
and spoke, saying, ‘Mr. Sumner.’ Mr. Sumner did not rise, but
merely turned up his head, as if to see who was speaking to
him, when the gentleman continued, saying, ‘I have read your
speech twice, and have come to the conclusion that it is an
insult to my native State, and my gray-haired relative, Judge
Butler,’--and before he had finished the sentence, he struck
Mr. Sumner a blow on the top of his head, which was uncovered,
which must have stunned him. He struck him two or three times
after, when Mr. Sumner raised himself in his chair, not, as
has been said, to defend himself, but with his head bent down,
as if trying to extricate himself from his chair and desk.
While in this position he received several more blows, when he
fell against his desk, which upset, and he fell to the floor.
While lying here, he was struck until the cane broke into
pieces. _Mr. Sumner uttered no word_, and no one attempted
to interfere, though a number of persons gathered around,
crying, ‘Don’t interfere!‘ ‘Go it, Brooks!’ ‘Give the damned
Abolitionists hell!’ &c. Mr. Crittenden was the first man to
seize the perpetrator of the outrage, and take him off his
victim. Several of his friends led him off, while Mr. Sumner
lay on the floor until Mr. Morgan and Mr. Simonton and one or
two others came in and took him into an adjoining room. I was
the only person who saw the whole of the transaction, and,
being so close to Mr. Sumner, I heard and saw all that was said
and done. I afterwards had Mr. Brooks arrested for the offence,
and on the trial of the case gave my testimony as I have here
related it, and which is substantially correct. I had never
known Mr. Sumner, and, as we belonged to different political
parties, I had no prejudice in his favor. From beginning to
end it was one of the most cold-blooded, high-handed outrages
ever committed, and had Mr. Sumner not been a very large and
powerfully built man, it must have resulted in his death. No
ordinary man could possibly have withstood so many blows upon
his bare head.”

General James Watson Webb, afterwards Minister to Brazil, and at the time editor of the New York _Courier and Enquirer_, made the following report to his paper.

“Those who witnessed the assault say, that, in receiving the
blows, given in quick succession and with terrible force, Mr.
Sumner attempted to rise from his seat, to which he was in a
measure pinioned by his legs being under the desk,--the legs of
which, like all the desks of the Senate Chamber, have plates of
iron fastened to them, and these plates are firmly secured to
the floor. His first attempt to rise was a failure, and he fell
back into his chair, and the blows of his assailant continued
to fall mercilessly upon his uncovered head. His second attempt
ripped up the iron fastenings of his desk, and he precipitated
himself forward, but, being blinded and stunned, wide of the
direction in which Mr. Brooks stood. Prostrated on the floor,
and covered with blood as I never saw man covered before,
the assault continued, until Mr. Murray and Mr. Morgan, both
members of the House of Representatives from New York, had time
to come from the extreme southeast angle of the Senate Chamber,
and who, forcing their way through the crowd of Senators, and
others, in the midst of whom Mr. Sumner was lying senseless and
being beaten, they seized the assailant and rescued the body of
Sumner.”

On the morning of January 28, 1857, the country was startled by the telegraphic news that Mr. Brooks had died suddenly on the evening before, in great pain, at his hotel in Washington. The terms of this despatch belong to this note.

“The Hon. Preston S. Brooks died this evening at Brown’s Hotel.
He had been in bed for a day or two, suffering from the effects
of a severe cold. He was telling his friends that he had passed
the crisis of his illness, and felt considerably improved in
health, when he was seized with violent croup, and died in
about ten minutes afterwards. He expired in intense pain.
The event, so sudden, has caused much surprise and sympathy
throughout the city.

“Dr. Boyle, who was called to dress the wounds of Mr. Sumner,
was his physician. Considerable excitement was produced by
this visitation of Providence. His personal friends seem
smitten, while the mass of those who crowd the hotels come to
the general conclusion that the wrath of man is avenged in the
justice of God. There are numerous knots of people in each of
the hotels, talking about the death of Brooks. He died a horrid
death, and suffered intensely. He endeavored to tear his own
throat open to get breath.”

Later advices revealed that Mr. Keitt, with others, was by his bedside. His death was announced to the House of Representatives, January 29th, when his funeral took place in the House.

Senator Butler died at home, in South Carolina, May 25, 1857. Mr. Keitt, after an active and vindictive part in the Rebellion, died in battle in Virginia, in June, 1864.

II.

ADOPTION OF THE ASSAULT BY EMINENT SLAVE-MASTERS, AND BY THE SOUTH GENERALLY.

More significant even than the assault was the evidence, which soon accumulated, showing its adoption at the South. Had it been disapproved there, it would have stood as the act of an individual. Had it been received even in silence, without formal disapprobation, there would have been at least a question with regard to the sentiment there, and charity would have supplied the most extenuating interpretation. But the spirit of Slavery was too strong, making haste to speak out by its representatives of every degree. It began at once.

On the publication of Mr. Sumner’s testimony, there were some explanations in the Senate.[145] Hon. John Slidell, of Louisiana, described himself as in conversation with several gentlemen, in the anteroom of the Senate, when he first heard of the assault.

“We had been there some minutes,--I think we were alone in the
antechamber,--when a person (if I recollect aright, it was
Mr. Jones, a messenger of the Senate) rushed in, apparently
in great trepidation, and said that somebody was beating Mr.
Sumner. We heard this remark without any particular emotion;
for my own part, I confess I felt none.”

He then describes meeting Mr. Sumner in the doorway of the reception-room, “leaning on two persons whom I did not recognize. His face was covered with blood.” He adds:--

“I am not particularly fond of scenes of any sort. I have no
associations or relations of any kind with Mr. Sumner; I have
not spoken to him for two years.”

Hon. Robert Toombs, of Georgia, said:--

“As for rendering Mr. Sumner any assistance, I did not do it.
As to what was said, some gentleman present condemned it in
Mr. Brooks. I stated to him, or to some of my own friends,
probably, _that I approved it. That is my opinion._”

Hon. Benjamin P. Wade, of Ohio, followed.

“If the principle now announced here is to prevail, let us come
armed for the combat; and although you are four to one, I am
here to meet you. God knows a man can die in no better cause
than in vindicating the rights of debate on this floor; and
I have only to ask, that, if the principle is to be approved
by the majority, and to become part and parcel of the law of
Congress, it may be distinctly understood.”

Hon. Henry Wilson followed, saying:--

“Mr. Sumner was stricken down on this floor by a brutal,
murderous, and cowardly assault.”

At this point he was interrupted by Hon. A. P. Butler, of South Carolina, according to the unamended report of the newspapers, by the exclamation from his seat,--

“You are a liar!”

In the _Globe_ it is said:--

“Mr. Butler, in his seat, impulsively uttered words which
Senators around advised him were not parliamentary, and he
subsequently, at the instance of Senators, requested that the
words might be withdrawn.”

Hon. Lafayette S. Foster, of Connecticut, followed.

“As I understood the honorable Senator from Georgia to remark
that he approved of striking forcibly down in this Chamber a
member of the Senate, I think it incumbent on me, recently
a member of this body, and not having participated in its
debates, to say a word.”

Mr. Foster then proceeded to vindicate liberty of speech.

* * * * *

Shortly afterwards, in another speech, Senator Butler said of Mr. Sumner:--

“Though his friends have invested him with the dress of
Achilles and offered him his armor, he has shown that he is
only able to fight with the weapons of Thersites, _and deserved
what that brawler received from the hands of the gallant
Ulysses_.”[146]

The declaration of Mr. Wilson, that the attack upon Mr. Sumner was “a brutal, murderous, and cowardly assault,” incensed the friends of Mr. Brooks, and many threats of personal violence were made. General Lane, of Oregon, afterward Democratic candidate for Vice-President, called upon Mr. Wilson, and placed a challenge from Mr. Brooks in his hands. Mr. Wilson promptly placed in General Lane’s hands, contrary to the urgent advice of Mr. Giddings and other friends, who thought his reply might bring on a personal conflict, an answer to his hostile note, in which he said:--

“I characterized, on the floor of the Senate, the assault
upon my colleague as ‘brutal, murderous, and cowardly.’ I
thought so then: I think so now: I have no qualification
whatever to make in regard to those words. I have never
entertained, in the Senate or elsewhere, the idea of personal
responsibility, in the sense of the duellist. I have always
regarded duelling as the lingering relic of a barbarous
civilization, which the law of the country has branded as
crime. While, therefore, I religiously believe in the right of
self-defence in its broadest sense, the law of my country and
the matured convictions of my whole life alike forbid me to
meet you for the purpose indicated in your letter.”

The Hon. James M. Mason, a Senator from Virginia, already odious as author of the Fugitive Slave Bill, and afterwards so conspicuous in the Rebellion, thus declared his approbation of the assault:--

“SELMA, FREDERICK COUNTY, VA.,
29th September, 1856.

“GENTLEMEN,--I have had the honor to receive your letter of
the 13th instant, inviting me, on behalf of the constituents
of Colonel Preston S. Brooks, to a dinner to be given to him
by them, on the 3d of October next, in ‘testimony of their
complete indorsement of his Congressional course.’

“It has been my good fortune to have enjoyed the acquaintance
of your able and justly honored Representative, on terms both
of social and political intercourse, from his entrance into
the House of Representatives, and I know of none whose public
career I hold more worthy the full and cordial approbation of
his constituents than his.

“He has shown himself alike able and prompt to sustain the
rights and the interests of his constituents in debate and
by vote, or to vindicate in a different mode, and under
circumstances of painful duty, the honor of his friend. I would
gladly, therefore, unite with you, were it in my power, in the
testimonial proposed by his generous constituents, but regret
that the distance which separates us, and my engagements at
home, must forbid it.

…

“But, in reverse of all this, should a dominant sectional
vote be directed to bring into power those pledged in advance
to break down the barriers interposed by the compact of
federation for the security of one section against the other,
then, in my calmest judgment, but one course remains for the
South,--_immediate, absolute, and eternal separation_.

…

“Again regretting, Gentlemen, that I cannot be with you,

“I am, with great respect,

“J. M. MASON.”

The Hon. Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War, and afterwards President of the Rebel States, thus declared his approbation:--

“WASHINGTON, Monday, September 22, 1856.

“GENTLEMEN,--I have the honor to acknowledge your polite and
very gratifying invitation to a public dinner, to be given
by the people of the Fourth Congressional District to their
Representative, Hon. P. S. Brooks.

“It would give me much pleasure, on any occasion, to meet you,
fellow-citizens of the Fourth District of South Carolina;
and the gratification would be materially heightened by the
opportunity to witness their approbation of a Representative
_whom I hold in such high regard and esteem_. Circumstances
will not permit me, however, to be with you, as invited, and I
have only to express to you my sympathy with the feeling which
prompts the sons of Carolina to welcome the return of a brother
who has been the subject of vilification, misrepresentation,
and persecution, _because he resented a libellous assault upon
the reputation of their mother_.

“With many thanks to you and those whom you represent for your
kind remembrance of me,

“I am very truly your friend and fellow-citizen,

“JEFFERSON DAVIS.

“ARTHUR SIMPKINS, JAMES GILLAM, and others.”

Here may properly be introduced the language of Mr. Savage, of Tennessee, in the House of Representatives, in his eulogy of Mr. Brooks.

“To die nobly is life’s chief concern. History records but one
Thermopylæ: there ought to have been another, and that one for
Preston S. Brooks. Brutus stabbed Cæsar in the Capitol, and,
whatever we may now think of the wisdom and justice of the
deed, the world has ever since approved and applauded it. So
shall the scene in the Senate Chamber carry the name of the
deceased to all future generations, long to be remembered after
all here are forgotten, and until these proud walls crumble
into ruins.”[147]

These uttered words were modified in the _Globe_.[148]

* * * * *

In these adhesions it will not fail to be observed that Toombs, Slidell, Mason, and Davis, afterwards chiefs in the Rebellion, made themselves conspicuous by their positive and unequivocal language.

Mr. Buchanan, the Democratic candidate for the Presidency, deserves to be added to this list. At the Commencement of Franklin and Marshall College, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, July 23, 1856, one of the students, W. W. Davis, of Sterling, Illinois, made an address on “The Decline of Political Integrity,” where he described modern politicians as “so truckling in their character and destitute of moral courage and political integrity, that men are found who applaud the attack of _Canine_ Brooks upon the noble Sumner for defending Freedom.” The scene that ensued, and the remarks of Mr. Buchanan, who was present on the stage, were given by a correspondent of the _New York Tribune_.

“During the delivery of this sentence, the whole house was
still as death, and at its close it was heartily applauded.
Mr. Davis finished his oration and retired from the front of
the stage amid thunders of applause and showers of bouquets
from his lady friends. For him it was truly a triumph. But
on retiring to his seat, next to that of Mr. Buchanan, did
he receive congratulation of the Sage of Wheatland? No, no.
Mr. Buchanan said to him, loud enough that the whole class
could hear: ‘_My young friend, you look upon the dark side of
the picture. Mr. Sumner’s speech was the most vulgar tirade
of abuse ever delivered in a deliberative body._’ To which
the young orator replied, that he ‘hoped Mr. Buchanan did
not approve of the attacks upon Mr. Sumner by Brooks and
others.’ To which Mr. Buchanan rejoined, that ‘_Mr. Brooks
was inconsiderate, but that Senator Butler was a very mild
man_.’ Mr. Davis expressed his regret at the moderation of
Mr. Buchanan’s views, and dropped the conversation. After the
close of the exercises, the friends of Mr. Davis related what
I have written. Mr. Davis himself said, he ‘did not think for
a moment that he was not in conversation with James Buchanan,’
but now learns that it was the Representative of the Cincinnati
Platform he was addressed by.”

With such words of approbation from eminent leaders of the South, it was natural that other organs of opinion there should be stronger in their language. The people by formal acts, and the press by a succession of articles, signalized their adhesion.

The following extract from a letter of a young gentleman, said to be of “high respectability,” at Charleston, South Carolina, was communicated for publication.

“I suppose you have heard of the lambasting Mr. Brooks gave
Mr. Sumner. Well, the Charlestonians have subscribed ten cents
each and bought a splendid cane, with the words ‘_Hit him
again_’ engraved on the head; and if Mr. Sumner troubles South
Carolina or Mr. Brooks again, he will get something _engraved
on his head_ which will be very apt to make him a _grave_
subject.”

At a meeting at Martin’s Depot, South Carolina, the following resolution was adopted.

“_Resolved_, If Northern fanatics will persist in meddling with
our private institutions, we deem it expedient that Southern
members should reply to them by the use of _gutta-percha_.”

At a meeting in Clinton, South Carolina, the following resolutions were adopted by acclamation.

“_Resolved_, That we, as a portion of the constituents of
the Hon. Preston S. Brooks, do heartily agree with him in
chastising, coolly and deliberately, the vile and lawless
Sumner, of Massachusetts.

“_Resolved_, That, for the high respect and full appreciation
of Colonel Brooks’s conduct, we present him a cane from the
soil of his own Congressional district, with this inscription:
‘_Use knock-down arguments_’: feeling that none other can be
effectual on a perverted mind and degenerate race.”

The Columbia _South Carolinian_, of May 28, spoke thus:--

“We learn that some of the gentlemen of Charleston have
provided a suitable present, in the shape of a cane, to be
given to Mr. Brooks, to show their appreciation of his late
act of ‘hiding’ the Abolition Senator Sumner. It is to bear
the inscription, ‘_Hit him again_.’ Meetings of approval and
sanction will be held not only in Mr. Brooks’s district,
but throughout the State at large, and a general and hearty
response of approval will reëcho the words ‘_Well done_,’ from
Washington to the Rio Grande.”

_The Richmond Enquirer_, of May 30, reports a response from the University of Virginia.

“ANOTHER CANE FOR MR. BROOKS.--We understand that a very
large meeting of the students of the University of Virginia
was held on Tuesday evening, to take into consideration the
recent attack of the Hon. Preston S. Brooks on Charles Sumner,
in the United States Senate Chamber. Several very eloquent
speeches were delivered, all of which fully approved the course
of Mr. Brooks, and the resolution was passed to purchase for
Mr. Brooks a splendid cane. The cane is to have a heavy gold
head, which will be suitably inscribed, and also bear upon
it a device of the human head, badly cracked and broken. The
chivalry of the South, it seems, has been thoroughly aroused.”

The _Richmond Examiner_, of May 30, testifies thus:--

“The chastisement of Sumner, in spite of the blustering
nonsense of the regiments of Yankee Bob Acres, who have been
talking about ‘avenging his wrongs,’ will be attended with good
results. The precedent of Brooks _vs._ Sumner will become a
respected authority at Washington. It will be a ‘leading case,’
as it clearly defines the distinction between the liberty of
speech as guarantied to the respectable American Senator and
that scandalous abuse of it by such men as Charles Sumner.

…

“Far from blaming Mr. Brooks, we are disposed to regard him
as a conservative gentleman seeking to restore to the Senate
that dignity and respectability of which the Abolition Senators
are fast stripping it. His example should be followed by every
Southern gentleman whose feelings are outraged by unprincipled
Abolitionists.”

The _Richmond Enquirer_ thus spoke, June 9th:--

“It is idle to think of union or peace or truce with Sumner
or Sumner’s friends. Catiline was purity itself, compared to
the Massachusetts Senator, and his friends are no better than
he. They are all (we mean the leading and conspicuous ones)
avowed and active traitors.… Sumner and Sumner’s friends must
be punished and silenced. Government which cannot suppress
such crimes as theirs has failed of its purpose. Either such
wretches must be hung or put in the penitentiary, or the South
should prepare at once to quit the Union. We would not jeopard
the religion and morality of the South to save a Union that had
failed for every useful purpose. Let us tell the North at once,
If you cannot suppress the treasonable action, and silence
the foul, licentious, and infidel propagandism of such men as
Stephen Pearl Andrews, Wendell Phillips, Beecher, Garrison,
Sumner, and their negro and female associates, let us part in
peace.

…

“Your sympathy for Sumner has shaken our confidence in your
capacity for self-government more than all your past history,
full of evil portents as that has been. He had just avowed
his complicity in designs far more diabolical than those of
Catiline or Cethegus,--nay, transcending in iniquity all that
the genius of a Milton has attributed to his fallen angels.
We are not surprised that he should be hailed as hero and
saint, for his proposed war on everything sacred and divine, by
that Pandemonium where the blasphemous Garrison, and Parker,
and Andrews, with their runaway negroes and masculine women,
congregate.”

The _Richmond Enquirer_ again spoke, June 12th:

“In the main, the press of the South applaud the conduct of
Mr. Brooks, without condition or limitation. Our approbation,
at least, is entire and unreserved. We consider the act
good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in
consequence. The vulgar Abolitionists in the Senate are getting
above themselves. They have been humored until they forget
their position. They have grown saucy, and dare to be impudent
to gentlemen! Now, they are a low, mean, scurvy set, with some
little book-learning, but as utterly devoid of spirit or honor
as a pack of curs. Intrenched behind ‘privilege,’ they fancy
they can slander the South and insult its representatives with
impunity. The truth is, they have been suffered to run too long
without collars. They must be lashed into submission. Sumner,
in particular, ought to have nine-and-thirty early every
morning. He is a great strapping fellow, and could stand the
cowhide beautifully. Brooks frightened him, and at the first
blow of the cane he bellowed like a bull-calf. There is the
blackguard Wilson, an ignorant Natick cobbler, swaggering in
excess of muscle, and absolutely dying for a beating. Will not
somebody take him in hand? Hale is another huge, red-faced,
sweating scoundrel, whom some gentleman should kick and cuff
until he abates something of his impudent talk. These men are
perpetually abusing the people and representatives of the
South, for tyrants, robbers, ruffians, adulterers, and what
not. Shall we stand it?

…

“Mr. Brooks has initiated this salutary discipline, and he
deserves applause for the bold, judicious manner in which he
chastised the scamp Sumner. It was a proper act, done at the
proper time, and in the proper place.”

In a Democratic procession at Washington, one of the party banners had this inscription:--

“SUMNER AND KANSAS: LET THEM BLEED.”

Texts like these might be multiplied; but here are more than enough to exhibit the brutal spirit of Slavery, and the extent of its sympathy with the assault. This head may be properly closed by the words of the _Charleston Standard_ on the death of Mr. Brooks.

“Within the last year his name has transcended the limits
of tongues and nations. What will be the verdict of posterity
upon him will depend upon the question of power between the
North and South. If the North shall triumph, if the South shall
be gradually ground under, if Slavery shall be smuggled out
of sight, and decent people shall be ashamed to own it, he
will be condemned and execrated; but if the South shall stand
firm in her integrity, if Slavery shall not fall before its
antagonist, but shall stand, as it is capable of standing, _the
great central institution of the land for all other interests
to climb upon_, and shall give law to opinion, as it shall
give regulation to Liberty, then his memory will be loved and
venerated; _he will be recognized as one of the first who
struck for the vindication of the South_; and as, like those
who seized the tea in Boston Harbor, he had no other warrant of
authority than that afforded _by his own brave heart_, he will
only the more certainly be placed among the heroes and patriots
of his country.”

Here is a plain and most interesting recognition of the assault as belonging to the glories of Slavery, while the author is one of its heroes.

III.

PREVIOUS PERSONALITIES AND AGGRESSIONS.