Part 21

“_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.