John C. Fremont wins the US Presidency in 1856

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,746
SoCal
#31
Supposedly, months before his death, there was still a plan to colonize slaves in South America, even though congress had cut funding to the plan... this is in spite of the fact that a sort of experimental colony in Haiti failed badly (illness, starvation, the few survivors needed to be rescued). It seems like a very callous plan in retrospect, but at the time people saw it as humane. It provided a new start and a new life - offering the same benefits that European colonists sought when they came to America. So, as much as it seems underhanded now, it wasn't necessarily a completely nefarious plan.
Yeah, AFAIK, the logic was that blacks would be better off if they lived in their own country. That said, though, it's quite interesting that the failure of some black-majority countries was noticed as early as the 1880s:

The Negro Problem

I linked to the article above because it shows a good and extremely detailed perspective of people's attitudes towards blacks in 1884. 1884 was over a decade after the passage and ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments).

Being able to balance heart and mind - pathos and logos - is a valuable quality. I don't think that Lincoln's ability to calculate and think in a more dispassionate way about the situation was necessarily a bad thing. He was foremost wanting to preserve the peace of the Union and preserve human life. He may not have been a passionate abolitionist, but if he had been and threw all caution and forethought to the wind... would he have been a good leader for the US?
That's certainly a good point.

One of the reasons I love Teddy is because he was so completely wanting to see himself and all men as equals. When he invited Booker T. Washington to the White House, I think he confessed later that he had a moment of some sensation that he recognized as basically what we'd call racism. He shut that feeling out and had Washington dine with his entire family - he never considered the repercussions, it seems. In the south, one politician said that it would take them lynching 1000 blacks "before they will learn their place again" after Roosevelt allowed one man of African descent into the White House for dinner... which is an absolutely horrifying sort of response!
Yeah, it's certainly interesting what happened in regards to this--Teddy's thought processes, Teddy's action, and the Southern response to this. Southerners back then (though not necessarily only Southerners) were often really backwards. I mean, for goodness sake, is treating people as individuals and not abusing and murdering people too much to ask for? :(
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,978
Caribbean
#32
From what I read of the speech, Sumner was underhandedly attacking slavery and slave holders and was paying careful attention to add quite a few sexual allusions that were most likely aimed at the practice of slave owners raping their slaves. He was directly attacking that Kansas-Nebraska Act, and indirectly (but also hitting quite the nerve in Brooks) the two senators backing it. So his statements of "a rape of a virgin territory" and "the hateful embrace of slavery" he was winding up for the best bit, where he accused senator Andrew Butler of taking "a mistress, the harlot, Slavery". Two days later, Brooks (who happened to also be Butler's cousin) caned him after getting him alone in one of the galleries of the Senate chamber.
Possibly the cousin, but I tend to think the idea of the white slave owner addicted to debauching his Negro servants (more the Hollywood version), and related to that, the Illuminated Jefferson type of slave owner would be the exception. IMO, the majority of southern men would not consort with a Negro woman, mulatto, quadroon etc ever. That's abomination. And that Brooks was insulted at being accused of being one of the former and not the latter. Otherwise, he would not have been PO'd. If you call a Playa a Playa, he doesn't get mad, he fronts. Well, you know what I mean.

That cartoon always stuck me as not realistic. Brooks supposedly hit Sumner with a walking stick. In the cartoon, Brooks is holding a lunge position, which seems unlikely for a man who needs a walking stick, and the stick seems to short to use as a walker, but long enough to make a good cudgel. I suspect either Fremont or Lincoln could have given Brooks much more of a tussle.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,978
Caribbean
#33
Supposedly, months before his death, there was still a plan to colonize slaves in South America
Not supposedly. There was a meeting at the White House. I am sure I have read official statements on it. The first time in history representatives of so-called "black America" were addressed by a US President, and it was suggested they leave the country. Now, there's a Great Emancipation.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,746
SoCal
#34
Possibly. I tend to think the idea of the white slave owner addicted to debauching his Negro servants is more the Hollywood version, and related to that, the Illuminated Jefferson type of slave owner. IMO, the majority of southern men would not consort with a Negro, mulatto, quadroon etc ever. And that Brooks was insulted at being accused of being one of the former and not the latter. Otherwise, he would not have been PO'd. If you call a Playa a Playa, he doesn't get mad, he fronts. Well, you know what I mean.

That cartoon always stuck me as not realistic. Brooks supposedly hit Sumner with a walking stick. In the cartoon, Brooks is holding a lunge position, which seems unlikely for a man who needs a walking stick, and the stick seems to short to use as a walker, but long enough to make a good cudgel. I suspect either Fremont or Lincoln could have given Brooks much more of a tussle.
You're suggesting that Fremont and Lincoln would've fought back against Brooks much harder than Sumner did?

Also, off-topic, but out of curiosity--are you yourself black? You're from the Caribbean, and a lot of the people who live in the Caribbean are blacks--which is why I am asking you this question.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,585
#36
..

FWIW, I think this is a lot bigger than Brooks-Sumner. BTW, do you know what Sumner said that caused Brooks to throw him a beating? I am wondering, by that time, had anyone started enforcing the laws against dueling?
There was very nearly a duel over the caning of Sumner. Anson Burlingame, a Congressman from Massachusetts, later delivered a scathing rebuke in a speech intended to provoke a duel challenge from Brooks. When the challenge came, Burlingame accepted and as the challenged party named the Canadian side of Niagara falls as the place for the duel and rifles as the weapons that would be used. Canada was chosen as the setting to skirt U.S. laws against dueling.

The duel would never come to pass however because both the northern press and a friend of Brooks who had spied on Burlingame while he was practicing with his rifle, reported that he was a crack shot. Evidently unnerved, Brooks had a change of mind and bowed out of the appointed duel with the rather weak excuse that he might be ambushed by assassins while traveling to Canada. That created great amusement in the north, where the papers mocked him for being a coward.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,746
SoCal
#37
There was very nearly a duel over the caning of Sumner. Anson Burlingame, a Congressman from Massachusetts, later delivered a scathing rebuke in a speech intended to provoke a duel challenge from Brooks. When the challenge came, Burlingame accepted and as the challenged party named the Canadian side of Niagara falls as the place for the duel and rifles as the weapons that would be used. Canada was chosen as the setting to skirt U.S. laws against dueling.

The duel would never come to pass however because both the northern press and a friend of Brooks who had spied on Burlingame while he was practicing with his rifle, reported that he was a crack shot. Evidently unnerved, Brooks had a change of mind and bowed out of the appointed duel with the rather weak excuse that he might be ambushed by assassins while traveling to Canada. That created great amusement in the north, where the papers mocked him for being a coward.
What do you mean by "crack shot"?
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,585
#38
What do you mean by "crack shot"?
He had a reputation for being a good shot with rifles, which is why he provoked a duel challenge from Brooks with his speech. As the challenged party, he could choose the weapons used)

Although a representative from Massachusetts he had grown up in Ohio & Michigan when those two states were still part of the frontier, and was very familiar with rifles. On his way to Canada he stopped at a shooting gallery in New York where out of the ten shots he fired, nine were dead center in the bullseye and the tenth was a half inch from center. The press filed reports about the marksmanship display and Brooks (who was passing through Philadelphia at the time) received the same report from a friend who had watched Burlingame on the firing line. Brooks immediately turned back toward Washington D.C. and rolled out a flimsy excuse about it not being safe for him to travel across the northern states to Canada, despite being in a northern city when he had received the telegram.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,746
SoCal
#39
He had a reputation for being a good shot with rifles, which is why he provoked a duel challenge from Brooks with his speech. As the challenged party, he could choose the weapons used)

Although a representative from Massachusetts he had grown up in Ohio & Michigan when those two states were still part of the frontier, and was very familiar with rifles. On his way to Canada he stopped at a shooting gallery in New York where he fired 10 shots, hit dead center of the bullseye with nine and tenth was half an inch from center. The press filed reports about the display and Brooks (who was passing through Philadelphia at the time) received the same report from a friend who had watched him on the firing line. Brooks immediately turned back toward Washington D.C. and rolled out a flimsy excuse about it not being safe for him to travel across the northern states to Canada, despite being in a northern city when he had received the telegram.
So, Brooks the tough guy turned out to be a coward! It was easy for him to beat up poor Charles Sumner, but when he had to face a real man, he chickened out! He sort of reminds me of the chickenhawks in the present-day.
 
Likes: Scaeva

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,978
Caribbean
#40
So, Brooks the tough guy turned out to be a coward! It was easy for him to beat up poor Charles Sumner, but when he had to face a real man, he chickened out! He sort of reminds me of the chickenhawks in the present-day.
Current politics?

I like the idea of duels. It's preferable to gangland slayings, driveby shootings, or war. In the beginning of that Troy movie, when the two champions are going to duel, Achilles says - Imagine a King who fights his own battles. Wouldn't that be a sight?
Later in the movie, Odysseus tells Achilles - You know war is old men talking and young men dying.
So, there is nothing new about your so-called chicken hawks. But be careful not to make "poor" Sumner's mistake. Some of them, old though they may be, might still be more game cock than you, and crack shots. Me? I prefer edged weapons or bare hands. Automation, not so much.

One of the main recurring under-currents in my posting is that it never ceases to amaze me how easily the politicians manipulate the masses. How few chicken hawks did it take to create WW1 and WW2?
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist