Talk:Charles Sumner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Charles Sumner has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

I noticed that the description of the kinship between Butler and Brooks, has mutated to "cousin, once removed", which is none too adequate: if we are to be precise, it should be first cousin once removed, or third cousin once removed, etc. I suggest we switch back to the amiably vague "kinsman" until someone can actually provide exact details of their kinship. - Nunh-huh 08:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The original text, imperfect though it be, used the simple "relative." "Kinsman" is an uncommon usage. Any objection to going back to where we started? Cheers, -Willmcw 08:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to "kinsman" or "relative", though I think "kinsman" more accurately portrays the nebulousness of the relationship. - Nunh-huh 18:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon me if I'm a bit touchy - an anonymous editor came through a while back and made a very POV edit. As for facts, here are some reputable citations for the relationship, none of which mention the cousinship that user:Tlbenson insisted on:

• "Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina believed that Sumner had insulted his uncle, Senator Andrew Butler." [1]
• "Two days later, Butler's nephew, South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks, entered the Senate chamber and beat Sumner unconscious." [2]
• "Two days later he was assaulted in the Senate chamber by Preston S. Brooks, Butler's nephew." [3]

I accomodated Tlbenson, but now that I look into it further, I think we should revert to uncle until that editor provides a citation for a different relationship. -Willmcw 22:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt for a moment that you've seen Preston Smith Brooks and Andrew Butler referred to as uncle and nephew, but that's pretty clearly wrong. If it's a blood relationship, to be Brooks's uncle, Butler would have to be a brother of his father (and so would be surnamed Brooks) or a brother of his mother (and so would be surnamed Carroll). Alternatively, he could have married a sister of Brooks's mother or father, but this also seems not to be the case: Andrew Pickins Butler married a Harriet Hayne or Haynes, not a Brooks or a Carroll.

I suspect the relationship actually is a cousinship: Preston Smith Brooks's paternal grandmother, who married Zachariah Smith Brooks, was Elizabeth Butler, the daughter of James Butler. Andrew Pickins Butler's paternal grandfather was also named James Butler, though I don't know if the two James Butlers are the same man or two different men.

Genealogical relationships are often confused when they are not delineated, and therefore are often confused in written histories. Until we can name the common ancestors of Brooks and Butler we should probably keep it nebulous. - Nunh-huh 00:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jeepers, you must have their family tree on hand! What's your source? I'm surprised it has so much detail, but not the exact relationship between the two. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is just from the family trees on ancestry.com (they're not utterly dependable, but when they agree they're reasonably safe.) Once you trace back to either James Butler, there are no dates, no wive's names, and it's about 1730, so even if they said both James Butlers were the same it would be a bit iffy. (But I'll bet that's where the connection is... you gotta love this "wounded Southern family pride" justification for a beating in Congress, though....it's classic!) - Nunh-huh 00:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about the lack of source attribution. I am just getting used to the local customs. The nature of the Brooks-Butler kinship relation is discussed in the article for Andrew Pickens Butler in American National Biography, vol. 4, p. 88. Brooks himself described Butler variously as "a relative" (see his apology to the Senate, Congressional Globe, 29 May 1856, and a "venerable friend" (see his resignation speech, Congressional Globe, 14 July 1856). Butler referred to Brooks as his "kinsman" (see Congressional Globe 12 June 1856). The relationship is also described in Vernon Burton, In My Father's House are Many Mansions: Family and Community in Edgefield, South Carolina. especially p. 66. Since Butler used "kinsman," would it make sense to preserve the description he used? --Tlbenson 00:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still think that "kinsman" is hopelessly quaint, and no different from the more common "relative." But since it seems impossible to agree on their exact relationship, and since at least two editors like "kinsman", "kinsman" it shall be. Say, is all this scholarship recorded in the articles of the gentleman themselves? -Cheers, -Willmcw 22:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Terminology 2 Sexual references 3 Civil Rights 4 Break with Grant and Chronology 5 GA Re-Review and In-line citations

[edit] Terminology

Why in the article do we make nonquoted references to "negroes"? Such use of the term is not only taboo and archaic but is also bordering on the prejudicial. Is there any reason this has been done? Wally 19:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other than some re-writing of the attack in the Senate chamber, this article is entirely 1911 EB. Please edit freely. -Willmcw 19:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

---

Removed old bibliography; am placing it here if anyone needs it. I also cleaned up the article to update the English usage a bit (changed negroes to blacks for example). User:FeanorStar7

See Sumner's Works (15 vols., Boston, 1870–1885), and Edward L. Pierce's Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner (4 vols., Boston, 1877–1893). Briefer biographies have been written by Anna L Dawes (New York, 1892); Moorfield Storey (Boston, 1900); and George H Haynes (Philadelphia, 1909).

[edit] Sexual references

An editor added that the "Crime Against Kansas" speech contained "...several sexual references regarding Butler." What "sexual references" are those? Here's the text [4]. -Willmcw 23:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of sexual imagery to describe Butler's support of slavery was one of the main things that made this speech so controversial, Will: "The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight--I mean the harlot, slavery. For her his tongue is always profuse in his words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then to great for this senator."

First off, that is in reference to slavery, not Butler. Secondly, it is not a "sexual reference" but part of an extended metaphor comparing Butler and Douglas to Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. Here's the entire paragraph:

• But, before entering upon the argument, I must say something of a general character, particularly in response to what has fallen from Senators who have raised themselves to eminence on this floor in championship of human wrongs. I mean the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Butler), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas), who, though unlike as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, yet, like this couple, sally forth together in the same adventure. I regret much to miss the elder Senator from his seat; but the cause, against which he has run a tilt, with such activity of animosity, demands that the opportunity of exposing him should not be lost; and it is for the cause that I speak. The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentimcuts of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight I mean the harlot, Slavery. For her, his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote, in behalf of his wench, Dulcinea del Toboso, is all surpassed. The asserted rights of Slavery, which shock equality of all kinds, are cloaked by a fantastic claim of equality. If the slave States cannot enjoy what, in mockery of the great fathers of the Republic, he misnames equality under the Constitution in other words, the full power in the National Territories to compel fellowmen to unpaid toil, to separate husband and wife, and to sell little children at the auction block then, sir, the chivalric Senator will conduct the State of South Carolina out of the Union! Heroic knight ! Exalted Senator! A second Moses come for a second exodus!

Do editors really think that he is making a sexual reference when he compares Bulter to Quixote, who certainly did not have sexual relations with Dulcinea del Toboso? -Willmcw 02:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong as usual, Will. Sumner refers to Butler directly in his sexual references: "The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentimcuts of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight I mean the harlot, Slavery. For her, his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator." The subject of Sumner's analogy is indeed slavery, but the analogy itself contains a profusion of sexual images: harlotry, mistresses, pollution of the chaste, tongues, wantonness, extravagence etc. Though perhaps of little note by our standards today, open references to harlotry on the Senate floor were considered a breach of decorum under 19th century standards, hence Brooks' listing of them among the reasons he attacked Sumner. You should also take greater care in reviewing the Don Quixote elements of the analogy, as Sumner clearly states Quixote's "fenzy" toward Dulcinea del Toboso "is all surpassed." Rangerdude 19:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please show a reliable source which considers the speech to have sexual references. Otherwise this appears to be original research. Also, please don't make personal attacks. Also, please don't revert blindly - you undid a necessary copyedit and the addition of a link. -Willmcw 19:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not original research to state the obvious, Will. Being intentionally obtuse, OTOH, can constitute a form of disruption. Needless to say, sources are plentiful:

• [5] "Sumner directed his fire at two Democratic senators. Seeking frankness "within the limits of parliamentary propriety," he characterized Illinois' Stephen Douglas to his face as a "noise some, squat, and nameless animal ... not a proper model for an American senator." South Carolina's Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment with extensive use of sexual imagery." (United States Senate homepage)
• [6] - "He (Sumner) not only attacked Butler's intelligence and, implicitly, his sexual mores, but also assailed the lack of culture of South Carolina itself." (Willamette University)
• [7]"Of Senator Andrew R Butler of South Carolina, Sumner said, "He has chosen a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him,--though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight: I mean the harlot Slavery.” [12] The trope, like Whitman's own, admits multiple substitutions and replacements, with rape and slavery interpenetrating one another's semantic space and circling through various other states of meaning. Read allegorically, it comes down to this: the "harlot Slavery is forced upon the virgin Kansas by the depraved pimp, Senator Butler, representative of the slaveholding South.” In this ad hominem vein, Sumner went further yet, drawing upon alliteration and onomatopoeia in his complaint that Butler "overflows with rage. . . . and, with incoherent phrase, discharges the loose expectoration of his speech" upon the representatives and people of Kansas" (Texas A&M University) Rangerdude 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Rights

This article could use a separate section on Sumner and his views on race. He was unusually far-sighted for his time in pleading for suffrage and equal access for blacks, and this ought to be addressed. I'll add it, unless someone else would prefer to do it.--Idols of Mud 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. -Will Beback 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. It's in. I used David Herbert Donald's book for most of it -- any comments or criticisms are appreciated.--Idols of Mud 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Break with Grant and Chronology

I edited the opening section which contained the statement that Sumner had been removed from his Chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee by Grant's Congressional forces on account of his support of the Liberal Republicans in the 1872 campaign, whereas (relying on Donald and the EB) he was stripped on his chairmanship in 1871 because of his opposition to Grant's Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) scheme. This harmonizes with information presented later as well.Meb53 23:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ~

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)