. . . on Thursday, in reply to Mr. Sumner’s now famous speech, Senator Butler promised that he would do so in no spirit of recrimination, but, while he should confine himself strictly within the record, he should avail himself of all legitimate parliamentary privileges to place in a proper point of view a subject which had been greatly mistaken, as well North and South
WASHINGTON, June 2.—The following is Mr. Brooks’ letter to the President of the Senate, referred to in the Senate proceedings of yesterday.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 2, 1856
Sir:—I have seen in the public journals of this morning the report of the Senate Committee to whom was referred a resolution of the Senate Directing an inquiry into an assault made by me on the 22d inst., on a senator from Massachusetts. It is with unfeigned regret, I find in their report that what I had intended only as a redress for personal wrong, has been construed into, or must necessarily be held as a breach of the privilege of the Senate. Whilst making a full and explicit disclaimer of any such design or purpose, I ask leave to say that, for the occasion, considering myself only as a gentleman in society and under no official restraint as a member of the House of Representatives, I did not advert to or consider there was any alternative restraint imposed upon me by reason that the offence came from a member of the Senate. I had read attentively and carefully a speech delivered on the 19th and 20th ult. by a Senator of Massachusetts, and found therein language which I regard as unjustly reflecting not only on the history and character of South Carolina but also upon a friend and relative. To such language I thought I had a just right to take exception, under the circumstances,—the Senator from South Carolina, who was effected by these remarks being absent from the Senate and the city. I had reason to believe that the personal responsibility for wrongs in personal deportment which would have saved me the painful necessity of the collision which I sought; and in my judgement, therefore, I had no alternative but to act as I did.
That the assault was made in the Senate Chamber was caused only by the fact that, after a careful search elsewhere, on the previous as well as the same day, the offender could not be found outside of the walls of the Senate Chamber, and the Senate had just adjourned for more than an hour previous to the assault.
I submit the forgoing statement from high respect for the Senate of the United States, and ask that it may be received as a full disclaimer of any design or purpose to infract its privileges, or offend its dignity.
I cheerfully add, should the facts as reported by the Committee of the Senate be nevertheless necessarily considered as a breach of privilege, as a conclusion of law, my earnest desire to atone for it, so far as may be by this unhesitating and unqualified apology, and that you will oblige me by communicating this to the Senate as its presiding officer.
I have the honor to remain, sir, with great respect, your servant,
P. S. BROOKS.
Hon. Jesse D. Bright, Pres’t of the Senate.
The Majority report of the select committee of the House, to inquire into the assault, concludes as follows:
That this House is of opinion that it not only has the power to punish Preston S. Brooks for a breach of privilege, but for an act of disorderly behavior.
And whereas it further appears that Henry A. Edmundson and Lawrence M. Keitt, some time previous to the said assault, were informed that it was the purpose of the said Brooks to commit violence on the person of said Sumner, for words passed by him in debate as a Senator, in the Senate, and took no measure to discourage or prevent the same, but on the contrary, anticipating the commission of the violence, were present on one or more occasions to witness the same as friends of the assailant, therefore
Resolved, That Preston S. Brooks be and he is forthwith expelled from this House as representative from the State of South Carolina.
Resolved, That this House hereby declares its disapprobation of said act of Henry A. Edmunson and Lawrence M. Keitt in relation to said assault.
Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, presented a minority report; both reports were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. The minority report argues that no breach of privilege, under the Constitution, had been committed, and that the House has no power to go beyond the Constitution, in deciding that a breach of privilege had been committed.
The Majority report is signed by Messrs. Campbell of Ohio, Pennington and Spinner.
SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Wednesday Morning, June 4, 1856, p. 2
We are not partial to modes of violence for the settlement of differences of opinion, but we admit the propriety of resorting to such means under certain state of circumstances. The highest justification that has ever been urged on behalf of the “code of honor,” is that it tends to maintain the external decencies in social intercourse, and to preserve society from disreputable personalities and shameless brawls. The Code having been revoked and expunged within the jurisdiction of Congress, the two Houses of Congress have degenerated into arenas, where the greatest amount of course personal abuse and blackguardism is substituted for civility and argument. The immunity from personal accountability seemed to inflame in an especial manner the bile of the band of cowardly hypocrites, who, with professions of Christian love on their lips harbor hate to all God’s creatures. Free of the code of honor, and claiming freedom from personal chastisement of the ground that they were non-combatants, they gave full swing to their foul, calumnious tongues—vilifying and traducing the whole population of one section of the Union, denouncing them as robbers and murderers, and applying every other opprobrious epithet, which their base natures could devise. The Senator from Massachusetts has been one of the chiefs of this dastardly crew of wholesale traducers. Heretofore his vilifications and calumnies were general in their character, spread over the whole slave-holding portion of the Union. In his late speech, whoever, gathering courage from past indulgence, he became specific, and charges the Senator of South Carolina with the effrontery of defending prostitutes; and adding: “Nor was there any possible deviation from the truth, which he did not make.” The venerable Senator from South Carolina being absent, his kinsman, Mr. Brooks, took it upon himself to resent the indignity. We only regret the mode of his proceeding. Had he sent the foul-mouthed traducer word that he would cowhide him on sight, and selected the street instead of the Senate chamber as the scene for the administration of justice, the deed would be commended without reservation by good men all over the Union.
As it is, the castigation may not be unattended by wholesome results. We see it begins to make some of the Northern calumniators of the South put on their considering caps. The New York Times, one of the meanest and most detestable of the set, contemplates the transaction with horror and alarm. It says:
It shows that the Border Ruffian has become the type and the exemplar of a large portion of the law-makers of the republic;—that the revolver, the club and the bowie-knife are to be the weapons by which the champions of Slavery propose hereafter to silence their opponents:—that assassination is to be employed, not only by private ruffians as a means of redressing private wrongs, but by representatives of the slaveholding class as a mode of advancing their peculiar views and establish their own ascendency. It affords another and a very strong proof of the domineering insolence of the slaveholding interest, as an element in our Federal Government, and tends to confirm the impression which its uniform policy is calculated to make,—that it will stop at no extremity of violence in order to subdue the people of the Free States and force them into a tame subservience to its own domination. That success of Ruffianism in Kansas has emboldened the champions of Slavery to introduce it at the Federal Capitol—and everything indicates a purpose on their part to resort to force when argument fails.
What will be the result of such a policy remains to be seen. That men from Free States will be cowed and conquered by it is very probable, unless it is met and resisted. If Southern members are to use the bludgeon as the pistol with impunity, and their victims are to submit without resistance to all this brutality, as a matter of course. Northern men will avoid making issue or taking positions which involve the danger of such assaults. We repeat what we have often said this subject, that it is the imperative duty of Congress to protect its members from such assaults,—by expelling instantly any one guilty of making them, and by treating as a gross breach of its privileges all such personalities as may give occasion for them. Thus far, however, neither House of Congress have done anything whatever in this direction. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as Parliamentary bodies seem utterly insensible to all considerations of their indignity and self respect. Unless some reform can be introduced in this particular,—and we believe half a dozen earnest men, all of the right stamp, in either branch, could compel a radical and complete reform,—there is but this alternative: Northern men must suit their conduct to the company they are compelled to keep, and meet the Pro-Slavery bullies with their own weapons and upon their own ground, or they must continue to be the victims of their insolence and brutality.
This sounds hopeful! Northern men will avoid making issues
or taking positions, which involve the danger of such assaults! That’s all we ask. Behave like gentlemen, and
you will be treated like gentlemen. But if you expect to vilify Southern
members and their constituents, and to hold them up to the abhorrence and
execration of mankind, and that with impunity, you will be disappointed. We are
glad to see that the Times intimates
that the Northern hypocrites will no longer shelter themselves behind the
cowardly subterfuge of non-combativeness, but will arm themselves with
revolvers, bowie knives and bludgeons. The act of arming all round—and the
thing distinctly understood on all sides—will tend powerfully to civil speech
and universal peace. Better have a good order and respect for law and decency,
with an occasional outbreak, under the stern rule of the pistol, than the
disgraceful exhalations of blackguardism we now witness.
WASHINGTON, May 22.—Immediately after the adjournment of congress to-day, while Mr. Sumner of Mass., was still in the Senate Chamber, he was approached by Hon. Preston S. Brooks, member of Congress from South Carolina, who accused him of libeling his State and slandering his grey-headed relative, Judge Butler, and then immediately struck him with his cane. Sumner fell to the floor, and the blows were repeated until he was deprived of the power of speech. No one interfered until the chastisement was effected. Mr. Sumner was then conveyed to his room. It is not yet ascertained wither his injuries are of a serious character or not.
Mr. Brooks appeared before Justice Hollingshead and was held to bail in the sum of $500 for his appearance to-morrow.
[SECOND DISPATCH.]
WASHINGTON, May 22, P. M.—Some eye witnesses say that Mr. Brooks struck Mr. Sumner as many as fifty times, mainly on his head. Sumner, who was sitting in an arm chair when the assault was made, is suffering much from the effects of the chastisement.
SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Friday Morning, May 23, 1856, p. 3
I wish to say one or two words at this point of the debate, and to bring the attention of the Senate distinctly to the issue made by the senator from Wisconsin, (Mr. WALKER.) I understand, in any point of view in which this subject can be regarded, that if you obliterate or abolish what is called the Missouri Compromise line, you at least place upon an equality Nebraska, Utah, and New Mexico.
Now, northern gentlemen—I do not speak of the senator from Wisconsin particularly, but many gentlemen of the North—were reconciled to vote for the territorial governments given to Utah and New Mexico upon the ground that the Spanish law excluded slavery there. Suppose we ask to have the Missouri line obliterated, and give to the territorial government of Nebraska the right to determine this subject for themselves, and by that obliteration the old French law should be restored; would that not be fair? Gentlemen were willing to restore the old law when it excluded slavery and were willing to trust the territorial legislation under that law. But they are not willing to prohibit this Missouri restriction and confer upon the territorial legislature of Nebraska the power to regulate slavery when the old law, which it's said will be here revived, admits slavery. Congress, as the representative of sovereignty, has all the constitutional power over the subject; and, in parting with it to a territorial legislature, it appoints an administrator to discharge legislative functions, controllable by the constitution.
This, sir, is a fair and practical view of the subject. In Utah and New Mexico, the Mexican law, it was said, excluded slavery, and gentlemen then were willing to give exactly the same provisions to those Territories which are given in the bill under consideration. In Nebraska and Kansas, according to the view of the gentleman—I do not admit it, I do not believe one word of it—the French law is revived, and will establish slavery; and that being so, they are not willing to trust the people of these Territories at all upon the same subject. They are willing to make fish of one and flesh of another. I have not the least idea that the effect would be such as the gentleman supposes; but I am only showing the manner in which these issues are made. So long as the law is one way they are willing to go for one system; and when, in their opinion, it is another way, they are not willing to apply the same system. It is not fair to apply the same provisions in both cases.
Now, sir, I have not the least idea that, under the plenitude of the language of this bill, the territorial legislature may not act. The honorable senator from Connecticut [Mr. TOUCEY] put that in a very clear point of view. The truth is that both the Utah and New Mexico bills, and this bill, as I understand, are designed to make a blank leaf, and to give to the territorial legislature all the authority on the subject, whether there is French or Mexican law intervening. That is the fair meaning of it. Yet, though gentlemen were willing to give this power to a territorial government under Mexican law, they are not willing to give a territorial government the same power under the French law. Gentlemen cannot escape these two positions.
Sir, when I stand here as a southern man, I feel humiliated when I hear threats made that, unless we come to the terms of gentlemen, they will reopen this agitation until they expel us from every Territory of the Union, and even abolish the slave trade between the States. Sir, I am her to legislate to the best of my ability, in good faith, to preserve the institutions of the country; and yet I am threatened that if I do not do so and so the North will abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; and that they will assume a jurisdiction equal to their numerical power and strength; and that northern justice is not to be trusted. I do not believe one word of it.
But, sir, no man can stand up and read what I read in a paper this morning without indignation. It does not emanate, I know, from the gentleman who sits near me, [Mr. WALKER] for he has a heart incapable of it. But sir, I read this morning, what made my blood boil, that if this discussion went on and this bill were passed, the South should not only be prepared to give up all their power and surrender every inch of territory which they might claim for slavery, but that the scenes of San Domingo should be introduced, and their wives and daughters subjected to the lust of the black man. Sir, to such a state of things would the spirit of demonic agitation be reconciled. I read that statement in a New York paper to-day. I say to my neighbor, and senator from Wisconsin, who sits near me and for whom I have great respect, let him not make threats of that kind to me. I am willing to conduct this discussion in harmony, but when I am told that the scenes of San Domingo are to be opened to all the southern States, and our wives and daughters are to be subjected to the lust of the black man—my God! can it be that I sand in the Senate of the United States?
Mr. CASS. Will the honorable senator allow me to ask him if he does not give too much importance to these matters? Did not the very paper to which he refers abuse us all like pickpockets and rascals, over and over again? It does not speak for the North.
Mr. BUTLER. I believe it.
Mr. CASS. As a western man, I disavow its authority in toto.
Mr. BUTLER. I know you do, sir. You are a statesman, and have the sentiments of a Christian, and look to events with the views of an American statesman, and I know that my neighbor from Wisconsin has no such idea. No statesman could utter such sentiments, or dare to carry them out. But when the threat is made, and I am required to legislate under duress, per minas, I do feel that it was unfortunately introduced. I say this in all kindness; for though my manner may be impetuous, I have nothing but a kind feeling towards those who differ from my honestly. I have thus far endeavored to control my language. I have used none except upon general topics, and I have used no language of personal resentment towards any one, believing it would defeat its end. I must say, however that these are not matters which are to be lightly passed over. Whatever may be the fate of this bill—and I do not much care what it may be—my deliberate judgment is, that if this discussion is conducted fairly, the North and South will be reconciled to return to the original principles on which this government was administered; and the sooner their differences are reconciled the better.
Now, what could the North gain by excluding us from these Territories? If two States should ever come into the union from them, it is very certain that not more than one of them could, in any possible event, be a slaveholding state; and I have not the least idea that even one would be. Perhaps some good people will go there, and carry with them their old negroes and a few personal servants. Now, who would go and disturb a poor old negro reposing happily under the government of a hereditary master? Who would disturb the relation existing between a good master and his personal servant, willing to live contented with those whose habits and principles and feelings he understood? None, sir, but a criminal agitator, and one who does not understand the responsibility of his position when he undertakes to agitate matters of this kind.
I shall make no unkind remarks in reference to the senator from Ohio. He has disavowed that he had any knowledge of the resolution which was so justly commented upon by my friend from North Carolina this morning. Sir, this is enough for me. I never ask of a senator on this floor anything but a disavowal. He has said so, and, I believe it; and that is enough. Allow me to say, however, although he may not have the design of putting the torch to the temple of this confederacy, and becoming the incendiary himself, yet there is a crassa negligentia which, in using fire, may burn it down by his agency, though without his consent. How did that document come here? Through his hands. Did he revise it? He has said not; yet a paper of that kind was presented in the Senate of the United States, and an extract from it made and published in an abolition paper. How did that abolition paper get that extract? Not from the senator, of course, for he says not.
Mr. President, these are topics which have always touched me more deeply than anything like sectional power. As far as I am concerned, I must say that I do not expect this bill is to give us of the South anything, but merely to accommodate something like the sentiment of the South. It will, however, I hope, reconcile both the North and the South; and when that desirable end can be effected, why should it not be? The honorable senator from Wisconsin objects to the application of this law to territory acquired from France. Was he not willing to apply it to territory acquired from Mexico? What difference is there, except that the previous law in once case excluded, and in the other admitted slavery? Now, I believe that, under the provisions of this bill, and of the Utah and New Mexico bills, there will be a perfect carté-blanche given to the territorial legislature to legislate as they may think proper. I am willing, as I have said before, to trust discretion, and honestly, and good faith of the people upon whom we devolve this power; but I can never consent that they can take it of themselves, or that it belongs to them without our delegating it; for I think they are our deputies—limited, controllable deputies—not squatter sovereigns.
I am willing to say that the people of the territories of Nebraska and Kansas shall be deputed by Congress to pass such laws as may be within their constitutional competency to pass, and nothing more. Is not that an honorable, fair, liberal trust to an intelligent people? I am willing to trust them. I have been willing to trust them in Utah and New Mexico, where the Mexican law prevailed, and I am willing to trust them in Nebraska and Kansas, where the French law, according to the ideas of the gentleman, may possibly be revived.
But the gentleman said that he would sooner cut off his right arm than allow this institution to be revived in these territories, under the operation of the Spanish law, as I understood him. Now, I am willing to trust the territorial Legislatures to that extent; not, I must say, because I concur in the proposition that that delegation, that deputization, that lieutenancy of power which we confer on them shall not be controllable. I think that justice to myself requires that I should say that, if their action was flagrantly in violation of the constitution of the United States, I should insist upon its being controlled. I have said, however, as a southern man, that I am willing to make this advance towards restoring something like the harmony which once existed in this glorious republic. I do not believe it is anything but an advance to the sentiment of honor. I do not believe it is going to confer on the South any power. The North have the power, and we cannot take it from them; but if they had magnanimity with it, they would not use the language of reproach and threats and contumely. The belief that a deluded people cannot be informed is a mistake—that a tainted sentiment may not be saved from the putrefaction.
The senator has told us what dire consequences are to come in the future. Let them come. The sooner I know my fate under the threats which are made here the better for me. I shall not live, perhaps, to see the day when they will be fulfilled; but I have those dear to me who may be affected by them; and if I were upon my death-bed, I should inculcate upon them the necessity of standing true to the lessons of self-respect. I would tell every child, I would tell every relations I have, to perish sooner than to submit to the injustice which many seem disposed to heap upon them. But, sir, enough of this. I have not the least idea that the northern people, if fairly appealed to, would confirm the verdict indicated by some of their representatives. I have confidence in the public mind when it is fairly enlightened by intelligence and free discussion. I have read history, sir, and I know that any one who has peculiar notions, and cannot elevate his mind above the prevailing sentiment of the day, is not capable of understanding the distinctions of society. I am not one of those who are so partial as to make an ex parte decision. I had not the least idea of making this speech, Mr. President, but when I thought it fair, after what my neighbor [Mr. WALKER] had said, to say that much.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. President, I fear that hereafter when this debate shall be read, great injustice will be done to me, unless the senator from South Carolina Corrects his remarks; and I ask him to do it.
Mr. BUTLER. Not one word, as far as I think now.
Mr. WALKER. But I will satisfy the senator that, in justice to me, he ought to do it.
Mr. BUTLER. Certainly, then, I would do so.
Mr. WALKER. Any one who will read the senator’s remarks as he has delivered them, without reading what I said, would come to the conclusion that I had threatened him and his southern colleagues in the Senate. Now, what did I let fall from my lips which sounded like it? I, in the kindest terms which I knew how to use, spoke in warning to the South. I spoke in warning of what I thought might arise, and what I endeavored to express my great deprecation of, and which, as I said, I would greatly deplore. Yet the senator’s speech will appear as charging me with having stood up here and threatened men that, if they passed this bill, slavery should be abolished in the District of Columbia, the internal slave-trade between the States should be abolished, and the Wilmot proviso set up in the Territories. I never made any such threat, or intimated for an instant that I would be an advocate of any such thing. That, however, will be the construction of the senator’s speech.
Mr. BUTLER. Then allow me to put that right. I wish to be understood exactly in this way; that I expressly said I did not believe it of him, but that he was one of those who was beating the drum to make others fight.
Mr. WALKER. No; you did not say that at all, nor intimate it.
Mr. BUTLER. I said that the gentleman did not undertake to say that he would do the things which he mentioned; for I do not believe he would. I do not undertake to say that the North would do them; but he said that you might introduce such a state of things as would induce the North to do them. Is not that so?
Mr. WALKER. I said, what I shall continue to say, that I fear the result of this agitation being opened again. I fear it for myself—
Mr. BUTLER. I am not afraid of it.
Mr. WALKER. I fear it for those who are disposed to stand by the peace which was made in 1850. Why, sir, what harm was being done to our southern friends at the opening of this session of Congress? What agitation existed? Who was proposing any agitation? I am not threatening the honorable senator; God forbid that I should I never threaten. I know he is the last man to be moved by threats. He need not have posted of that here, for I know it was well as he.
Let me state another fact, however, to show how necessary it is for him to revise his remarks. Who that will read them will not suppose that I, who am his nearest neighbor in the Senate, expressly stated that I was willing to sacrifice my right arm rather than establish slavery, when in fact, I was simply quoting the language of Mr. Clay himself a slaveholder.
Mr. BUTLER. Did you not adopt it?
Mr. WALKER. You do not ask it expressly, I know, but you do impliedly.
