[yellowline]

Originally posted by fastpat

I don't think you can construe, at least not logically, that that single event characterised the South as looking for war with he North. In fact, the opposite is true. The supporters of Lincoln wanted war and took every opportunity to foment it.

Absolutely not. It was more of a symptom of the South than a reason. And if you can construe Southern aggression as Union fault, I think your conclusions are lacking.

In particular, Sumner lambasted Brooks' kinsman, Senator Andrew Butler, who was not even in attendance when the speech was read, describing slavery as a harlot, comparing Butler with Don Quixote for embracing it, and mocking Butler for a physical handicap.

At first intending to challenge Sumner to a duel, Brooks consulted with fellow South Carolina Rep. Laurence M. Keitt on dueling etiquette. Keitt instructed him that dueling was for gentlemen of equal social standing, and suggested that Sumner occupied a lower social status comparable to a drunkard due to the coarse language he had used during his speech. Thereupon Brooks decided that it was appropriate to sneak up on Sumner and beat him with his thick cane.

From your source, Pat. How is that Sumner's fault? It's in very poor taste and I wouldn't have made those remarks, but he had First Amendment rights. Brooks infringed upon them. If he was so radical and such a lunatic, would anybody construe his remarks as libel?

The South showed some serious maturity issues during this time. If you can't argue, then injure someone. If you can't win an election, secede. If you can't gain necessary Congressional seats to ensure slavery, throw a fit until a compromise is made.