Palmetto Past & Present: Bully Brooks

Mr. Powell,
In researching the history and politics of our state and attempting to understand “how we got here,” I became familiar with the story of Preston Brooks’ caning of Charles Sumner. While it appears we read from the same source material, our perceptions of Preston Brooks and his actions on May 22, 1856 wildly differ.

You referred to Brooks as “the Bad Boy of South Carolina history.” I would not call Preston Brooks a “Bad Boy,” I would call him an intemperate, base coward who attacked an unarmed man.

You wrote Brooks was, “highly intelligent.”

I would argue that a “highly intelligent” individual would not bring a cane and an accomplice to a WORD fight, but rather a cogent argument based on facts.

You wrote Brooks was “fiercely loyal to his family.” I would argue Preston Brooks shamed his family and was loyal only to those members who celebrated conflict. I would argue many members of the Brooks family did not condone his behavior and did not wish his example to be the one set for their younger generation.

You wrote Preston Brooks was loyal “to principle.”
What principle?
That one is entitled to own another human being based on the pigmentation of one’s skin?
Or that violence is an acceptable response to a perceived offense against one’s second cousin once removed?

You wrote Charles Sumner was ‘[f]ull of the smug self-righteousness that typified Boston Brahmins” and was “very much like the haughty Charles Emerson Winchester in the M*A*S*H sitcom.” Again, I read the same source material as you and adjectives like “smug” and “haughty” never crossed my mind.

It is 2024. It is past time to stop villainizing those who fought against slavery. It is past time to stop romanticizing antebellum slaveholders.

You wrote, “Not only did [Sumner] attack slavery, but he also shattered Senate decorum by personally attacking two senators by name.”

I would argue it was not Sumner, but Brooks who “shattered Senate decorum” by attacking an unarmed man with such viciousness, he bloodied himself during a frenzied upswing of his splintered cane.

You wrote, “. . . although history has given Sumner a hall pass in the matter, he bears responsibility as well. He deliberately baited the Southerner with his over-the-top rhetoric. . .”

Respectfully, an unarmed man who is beaten so badly he requires three years to recover, who suffers chronic pain from the attack for the rest of his life, bears NO responsibility for being targeted in such a vicious attack.

If you believe Sumner bears responsibility for baiting Brooks through his “over-the-top rhetoric.” then politicians today would also bear responsibility for “baiting” physical attackers who consider their rhetoric “over-the-top.”

Respectfully, Sumner bore no responsibility for his injuries then. Politicians in 2024 would bear no responsibility as victims of a physical attack today.

In 1856, Preston Brooks should have been arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and with intent to kill. Lawrence Keitt should have been arrested as an accomplice. Both should have been tried and convicted as felons. Preston Brooks never should have been allowed to run for office in South Carolina again.