Charles Sumner

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Charles Sumner
Before the famous incident on the caning of Senator Charles Sumner, he made a speech which opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The law arises a series of violent political conflicts as to whether Kansas should be regarded as a slave or a free state. He confronted Senator Butler who was amongst the persons who authored the act, accusing them of pretense and double standards.
One of the people who reacted maliciously was representative Preston Brooks. We can not necessarily conclude that Brooks became infuriated because his uncle Butler was being attacked, or he acted as a Southern Plantation owner. In his defense, Brooks claimed that he was protecting his reputation. He further claimed that Sumner’s speech was defamation, and was set to him confront in a fight. Senator Charles Sumner, an avowed abolitionist, had a stern position against slavery. More so the conflict between this two people depicted that there was already an opposition force because they held very much different views on how they look at the issues on slavery. It is so contrary that slavery was constitutionally protected institution at the same time illegal. It conspicuously showed the two warring sides of the national legislature. The Northerner, by all means, wants to keep the Southerner in that suppressed condition for the Northlanders benefit from the huge fertile plantation from the southern region (Berry, Stephen, and James, 16).
From the Northern Perspective, did he deserve the beating?
By all expression, Senator Sumner deserved the beating, first for slander, and he could have found a way to express his opinion not using vulgarity and attacking his opponent in a confrontation.

The Northerners further justified Brooks’s actions by electing him to another term to the legislature.
From the Southern Perspective, did he deserve the beating?
Senator Sumner did not deserve such kind of treatment from Brooks. He was articulating national issues which the Northerners would rather want it to remain hidden as long as they keep benefit from oppressing the southerner. It becomes apparent that Brook as Southern landowner never really wanted slavery to be aborted he would rather continue benefitting from it to the extent he shames Senator Sumner.
Works Cited
Berry, Stephen, and James Hill Welborn III. “The Cane of His Existence: Depression, Damage, and the Brooks–Sumner Affair.” Southern Cultures 20.4 (2014): 5-21.