The Crime Against Sumner: The Caning of Charles Sumner and the Rise of the Republican Party

Gienapp, William E.

doi:10.1353/cwh.1979.0005

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This event coupled with the infamous attack on the Massachusetts Senator, Charles Sumner, by the Southern congressman, Preston Brooks, did much to convince the North that Southerners were dangerous fanatics, educated by slavery to violence, and determined to dominate the free states.I3 To New York lawyer, George Templeton Strong, the caning of Sumner offered positive proof that 'civilization at the South is retrograde', and he was appalled that Southern editors and Congressmen should 'talk about the "chivalry", "gallantry", and manliness of the act' (Nevins and Thomas 1952: 2 7 4 5 ; 278). It would be a mistake, however, to argue, as some have done, that it was this episode alone which produced a marked anti-Southernism in Strong (Gienapp 1979).14 Distinctly anti-Southern elements were evident in Strong's thinking before 1856. South Carolina, in particular, was described by Strong in 1850 as a 'preposterous little state', which was utterly inferior to the 'city of New York or Boston or Philadelphia in resources, civilization, importance, and everything else'.…”

Section: Defining the Nationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Northern horror at the attack was only exacerbated by the Southern response to this incident, which on the whole was to send Brooks a quantity of new canes, since his had been broken over Sumner's head. On Kansas, Rawley (1969); on the Sumner-Brooks case, and reactions to it, see Gienapp (1979). 14 Gienapp (1979) argues that Strong had, previous to the Sumner-Brooks episode, defended the South, and only came to regard Southerners as barbarians following Brooks's attack in May 1856.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On Kansas, Rawley (1969); on the Sumner-Brooks case, and reactions to it, see Gienapp (1979). 14 Gienapp (1979) argues that Strong had, previous to the Sumner-Brooks episode, defended the South, and only came to regard Southerners as barbarians following Brooks's attack in May 1856. Certainly, Strong defended the Southerner's ownership of slaves against what he regarded as 'false, foolish, wicked and unchristian' designs of Northern abolitionists, but he even then drew a distinction between 'slave-holding' and 'the expediency of slave-holding', and his more general comments on the South were far from favourable (Nevins and Thomas 1952: 22).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

When is a Nation not a Nation? The Crisis of American Nationality in the Mid‐Nineteenth Century

Grant

1996

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The United States of America is conspicuous by its absence from most studies of nations and nationalism. The reasons for this omission are essentially twofold: America is a ‘nation of immigrants’, and therefore clearly lacks the ethnic homogeneity that sustains many modern European nations; more importantly, the focus, the core of the American nation has, since the late‐nineteenth century, become obscured as American society has continued to diversify and expand. In those studies which do examine the American case, an over‐concentration on the colonial and revolutionary periods has led both scholars of nationalism and historians of the United States to miss the most crucial period in the development of the American nation, the early to mid‐nineteenth century. Evidence is offered here that this period witnessed an identifiable process of ‘nation building’. In order to demonstrate this, the period 1854 through 1856 has been isolated for particular attention, since those years witnessed the emergence of a new political party, the Republicans, whose ideology and rhetoric were aggressively national, yet whose appeal was essentially sectional.

show abstract

Section: Defining the Nationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%