What a Difference a Few Years Can Make

John S. Rock was what we might call an over achiever. He was an indefatigable abolitionist, a teacher, a doctor, a dentist, and a lawyer. Some say he coined the term "black is beautiful" but I am not sure anyone can really substantiate that. Either way - Rock was an accomplished fellow.

In terms of significant firsts during the Civil War era, in February 1865 Rock was the first black lawyer to be admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court.

Keep in mind the rapidity of change forged in the crucible of war. Only eight years earlier, in the Dred Scott case, the Court had denied that any black person could be a citizen of the United States.

I would wager that no white American could have predicted Rock's (or any black person's) meteoric rise in March 1857. The mere suggestion of it would have made people look at you funny, to say the least.

Rock died in Boston in December, 1866 of tuberculosis.

The Caning of Charles Sumner

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So imagine you are a member of the United States Congress - pick the Senate or the House of Representatives....it matters not. Now imagine some senator gives a speech that does not sit so well with you. What would you do? I suppose beating that person senseless in the senate chamber is probably out of the question, right? Well, not if it is 1856 - they got to have all the fun!

This is a pretty well-known story but nevertheless, it's something to think about as we all sit around and complain about our own "do-nothing" Congress. These guys did plenty. As the story goes: Sumner had recently delivered a speech on the slavery issue in Kansas - a hot topic to be sure, that could easily get the ire up from either side of the debate. In this speech he named names - which included hurling insults at proponents of the pro-slavery  faction such as South Carolinian Andrew P. Butler. Preston Brooks, Butler's cousin and a congressman from the Palmetto State did not take so kindly to Sumner's insolent remarks.

Now, Brooks could have challenged Sumner to a duel, as some southerners were wont to do. But dueling was for social equals - and Brooks undoubtedly saw Sumner as nothing more than a weak abolitionist Yankee politician...hardly a gentleman of his caliber. (in case you are interested, - this is a great book on dueling) So instead he approached Sumner as he sat at his desk in the senate chamber, informed him of his offenses, and beat him bloody with a cane. He hit him 30 times if he hit him once. Sumner stood up, pulling the bolted chair out of the floor and collapsed covered with blood - the caning put him out of commission for the next several years.

Southerners rejoiced - hailing Brooks as a hero of southern principles. Some even sent him new canes that were inscribed with such phrases as "Hit Him Again." But the caning had perhaps unintended consequences that we might overlook. In ways this event galvanized the North. Many who might have been luke-warm on Sumner or the anti-slavery contingent suddenly saw things in a different light. The northern press portrayed Brooks as a typical southern hothead. In matters of contention, Brooks's actions proved that the proslavery South would do nothing less than resort to violence. Northerners who followed the story could easily concur with this perception - and many thus aligned accordingly.

Peace,

Keith

P.S - I understand that historian Michael Holt (author of The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party) does a fantastic recreation of this event, where he plays both roles. I have never seen this personally, but I hear it is quite the show.

Know Your Rights!

OK I know...it's the title of a Clash song. But it just sort of popped into my head during this morning's run. It got me to thinking about rights - and then state rights - and then the secession crisis and the war. Really...doesn't everything lead me to think about the Civil War era? (the answer is yes, of course).

So as you probably know, a lot of neo-Confederate and Sons of Confederate Veteran types like to talk about these so-called rights a lot. Indeed - they claim that these rights were what the war was all about. Forget about all that crazy slavery stuff. Slavery as the cause of the war was, I suppose, just the invention of a bunch of wimpy tree hugging college professors. (you know - those who practice the dreaded "revisionist" history).

Well, if you are in line with our Confederate sympathizing friends, you are probably just confused. Now I'm not saying that state rights were not important, they were. But the usurpation of any state right "principle" did not cause the Civil War.

Guess what did. Now brace yourself...it was slavery. Yep - you might want to write that down and refer to it if you are still confused. You see friends, the Republican party headed by Lincoln knew that they could not interfere with slavery where it already existed, but the territories were a different story. They wanted territories and any states formed from these territories to be reserved for free labor. That means - no slavery. Slave owners could not establish slavery or take their slaves there, no matter what.

Bummer for the slave holders. And they were pretty upset about it, too. They thought Lincoln and his crew were mad abolitionists (they weren't - but more on that later). Now the real problem was a little more complex - remember, all this carrying on about slavery had to do with places outside the South. But slave holders along with most of the rest of white southern society believed that if the Republicans could successfully go after slavery in one place, then it wouldn't be long before they went after it elsewhere. That means the glorious South - and the prospect of total abolition made white people very nervous.

Does secession make a little more sense now? Southern states seceded when the white citizenry perceived an eminent attack on the cornerstone of their society - slavery. That would mean the loss of enormous wealth and the upheaval of their social structure. Whether you believe it or not (you should believe it, because it's true), every white person in the South had a stake in the institution of slavery - and many supported secession to preserve it, no matter what stories the former Rebels came up with after they lost the war.

Now, if you ever run into one of these Johnnies who insist you have been brainwashed by a bunch of revisionists, just ask them to tell you exactly which rights the southern states seceded to protect. They can name any three. Be sure to give them a few minutes to think it over (I mean....come on, let's be fair).
Keith