Ohio History Journal

SUMNER -- BROOKS -- BURLINGAME

--or--

THE LAST OF THE GREAT CHALLENGES

BY JAMES E. CAMPBELL

The purpose of this paper is to throw light upon one

of the most famous of the many thrilling episodes which

preceded the Civil War -- thereby reversing some ac-

cepted history; to mark the finish of the long congres-

sional quarrel between Massachusetts and South Caro-

lina; and incidentally, to note the collapse of the

"Duello."

When the thirty-fourth Congress met, on the third

day of December, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, it

registered the initial appearance of a political party de-

voted to the territorial restriction of slavery. The

House of Representatives was a chaotic jumble of di-

verse elements which had been elected more than a year

before as Whigs, Anti-Slavery Whigs, Liberty Whigs,

Democrats, Anti-Slavery Democrats, Coalition Demo-

crats, States-Rights Democrats, Republicans, American

Republicans, Union Republicans, Anti-Nebraska men,

Free-Soilers, Union men and Americans. The Ameri-

cans were commonly called Know-Nothings and, at the

time of their election constituted the largest party. Since

the election, in 1854, a majority of the Anti-Slavery

members had taken part in nationally organizing the

Republican party to which they had transferred their

allegiance. Rhodes, in his History of the United States,

says that

(435)

436       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

The Congressional Globe, which was accustomed to indicate

the partisan divisions by printing the names of the members in

different type, now gave up the classification in despair.

Woodrow Wilson, in his History of the American

People, says:

What with Anti-Nebraska men and Free-Soilers, Democrats.

Southern Pro-Slavery Whigs and Know-Nothings, the House of

Representatives presented an almost hopeless mixture and con-

fusion of party names and purposes.

The election of a Speaker was the first thing in order.

With the exception of the regular Democrats, it is un-

certain whether any of the numerous parties was suffi-

ciently well organized to hold a nominating caucus.

Henry Wilson, afterwards Vice-President, in his Rise

and Fall of the Slave Power, says that

Richardson was the caucus nominee of the democrats. * * *

The opposition scattered their votes which, on the first calling

of the roll, were distributed among no less than twenty candi-

dates. Campbell of Ohio received the largest number. On the

sixth of December he withdrew his name.

Mr. Campbell had led on six ballots, and gave as his

reason for withdrawal that he could not be elected with-

out repudiating his well-known principles on the subject

of slavery. He transferred his following to N. P. Banks

of Massachusetts who had been elected as a Coalition

Democrat and an American in a strong anti-slavery dis-

trict, but who was now a Republican. After that the

contest ran on until the sixth day of February with Mr.

Banks in the lead. There being no possibility that any

candidate could get a majority, an agreement was made

that on the one hundred and thirty-third ballot, a plural-

ity should nominate. Upon that ballot Mr. Banks received

438      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

one hundred and three votes out of a total of two hun-

dred and fourteen. In the meantime the President's

message was withheld, the Senate had been wholly idle

for two months and much of the public business was at

a standstill.

Thus, after a contest, unequalled for duration and

acrimony in national politics, the various anti-slavery

elements were successfully combined into a heterogene-

ous coalition which elected the Speaker by a minority

vote. Such a complete break-up and re-alignment of

political parties has no parallel in history, and could

have resulted only from the acute crisis arising over the

passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the fugitive slave

act, the repeal of the Missouri compromise and the at-

tempted extension of slavery.

The people of the North, as a general thing, acqui-

esced in the constitutional protection of slavery in the

southern states, although sometimes they were locally

riotous when fugitive slaves were arrested in their

midst. The slaveholders, however, had begun to claim

the right of owning and holding slaves in the territories

-- especially the Territory of Kansas. When it was

sought to further extend the actual domain of slavery,

a moral question came into politics and immediately

overshadowed all other issues.

The people of the South, conscious that the death of

their "Peculiar Institution" would be the ultimate result

of its territorial limitation, met this paramount issue

with a heat born of desperation. In the North, it was

a case of quickened conscience; in the South, a case

largely of apprehended financial ruin, but, also, to some

extent, it was an honest belief in the beneficence of Afri-

440       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

can slavery, for the Richmond Enquirer, the organ of

the simon-pure protagonists of slavery, had laid down

the doctrine that

If slavery be not a legitimate, useful, moral and expedient

institution, we cannot, without reproof of conscience and blush

of shame, seek to extend it.

For almost two years a brisk guerrilla warfare, entail-

ing much loss of life and property, had been waged in

the disputed territory of Kansas -- known to this day

as "Bleeding Kansas." Both sections of the country

were contributing men, money and the famous "Sharp's

Rifles" to this conflict, of which the most conspicuous

figure was that of "Old John Brown of Osawatomie."

In the Senate, Seward of New York had said that

Two candidates, each claiming to have been elected to repre-

sent that territory in Congress, had presented themselves at the

bar of the House. One had received some three thousand votes

cast by the Missouri invaders, when there were not fifteen hun-

dred voters in the territory.

Mr. Giddings wrote, later, that

These high-handed transactions were consummated with

the express purpose of establishing African slavery by force, in

violation of the rights of the people solemnly guaranteed to them

by the Congress of the United States.

In the slave states, especially in South Carolina,

threats of secession were freely and publicly proclaimed;

and, in the North, there were abolitionists who, by

speech and in print, denounced the Federal Constitution

as a "Covenant with Hell." Henry Wilson says that

Unfortunately the evidence is far too conclusive to leave any

doubt as to the anarchical sentiment that prevailed too generally

at the South and far too largely, indeed, at the North.

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame        441

As to the situation at that time in Washington he

adds that

To the extreme arrogance of embittered and aggressive words

were added the menace and actual infliction of personal violence.

* * * Members of congress went armed in the streets and sat

with loaded revolvers in their desks.

These preliminary facts are recited in order that the

present generation may approximately realize the fierce

sectional and political rancor which preceded the Civil

War; for, while the cost of that struggle may be stated

in blood and treasure, the bitter animosities of which it

was the culmination are almost incapable of adequate

portrayal.

One of the senators from Massachusetts was Charles

Sumner, then in the prime of life, who, although elected

to the Senate by a combination of Democrats and Free-

Soilers, was now a member of the recently organized

Republican party. His leonine head and strong face

bespoke the ability and courage with which he had been

amply endowed by his Puritan ancestors. His polished

oratory, erudite scholarship and unsympathetic tempera-

ment had united to develop an inordinate egotism; and,

in his own estimation, the senatorial mantle of Daniel

Webster (which had descended upon him) was none too

large. He valued himself so highly that he failed to

recognize the merit of his opponents; and his manner

of speaking was often distinctly offensive.  In order

properly to understand the events hereinafter described,

the following symposium of opinions in regard to Mr.

Sumner is submitted. Representative E. R. Hoar of

Massachusetts, later Attorney General of the United

States, spoke of

442        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

His commanding presence, his stalwart frame six feet and

four inches in height, the vigor and grace of his motions, the

charm of his manners, the polish of his rhetoric, the abundance

of his learning, the fervor and impressiveness of his oratory.

* * * He never seems to have known fear. * * * He

was of an imperious nature, intolerant of differences of opinion

by his associates, and has been called an egotist.

Senator George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, says:

In him the egotism, often fostered by a long senatorial career,

seems to have been natural. *  *  *  He could not understand

the state of mind of a man who could not see as he did. *  *  *

It seems as if he thought the rebellion itself was put down by

speeches in the senate, and that the war was an unfortunate and

most annoying though trifling disturbance -- as if a fire engine

had passed by.

Rhodes, the historian, says:

He was vain, conceited, fond of flattery and overbearing in

manner.

But he also truthfully adds that he was "the soul of

honor."

Charles Francis Adams wrote that

Sumner was a tremendous egotist, and woefully lacking in

common sense.

Senator Morrill, of Vermont, said that

To his conclusions, sincerely reached, he gave regal preten-

sions, and for them accepted nothing less than unconditional sub-

mission.

General Grant, who never wasted words, when told

that Sumner had no faith in the Bible, replied, "That is

because he didn't write it."

John Sherman expressed the opinion of Sumner that

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame           443

The central idea of his political life was hostility to slavery.

His hatred of slavery was fierce, intense and morbid -- evinced

by such language of bitterness and denunciation that no wonder

the holders of slaves construed his invectives against the system

as personal insults demanding resentment.

In spite of his vindictive hatred of slavery, Senator

Sumner had no animosity toward the Southern people.

After the war he moved that there be stricken from the

regimental flags of our army the names of all battles

fought against our countrymen. For this a "bloody

shirt" legislature in Massachusetts censured him; but,

later, stricken with proper shame at such unpatriotic

action, it expunged the resolution of censure.

Andrew Pickens Butler was a senator from       South

Carolina, elected as a States-Rights Democrat, sixty-

two years of age, trembling with partial paralysis, of

convivial habits and habitually referred to in the South-

ern press as the "aged relative of Mr. Brooks." Rhodes

says that

He was a man of fine family, older in looks than his sixty

years, courteous, a lover of learning and a jurist of reputation.

Giddings says

He was usually of gentle demeanor but quite impatient of

opposition to questions touching slavery. Whenever that institu-

tion came under debate, he assumed a dictatorial tone, spoke dis-

respectfully of his opponents and, on matters relating to Kansas,

he became offensive.

Von Hoist's Constitutional History describes him as

South Carolina's pompous senator who believed himself to be

made of different clay from ordinary mortals.

Over seven years before, he was a guest-of-honor at a

dinner where such toasts as "Slavery" and "A Southern

Confederacy"   were enthusiastically   applauded.   Al-

444       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

though he had achieved some distinction in his ten years

in the senate, yet he had cut but a small figure in com-

parison with his eminent predecessors Calhoun, Hayne

and McDuffie.

Preston S. Brooks was a young representative from

South Carolina of attractive appearance and mediocre

ability. He sprang from one of the best families; was

well educated; and had served three years in Congress

where his conduct was always that of a gentleman. In

Pierce's Life of Sumner, he is described as

A modest and orderly member, indulging in no acrimonious

speech and keeping aloof from scenes of disorder. His pacific

manner and temperament had been observed.

Mr. Burlingame, whom he challenged later, said of

him in a newspaper card

From what I had heard and seen of him prior to his assault

upon Mr. Sumner, I had formed a high opinion of him.

Mr. Brooks also called himself a "States-Rights

Democrat."   Upon his only published likeness were

printed the words "Equal Rights to the South as well as

to the North."   The delusion that the South was im-

posed upon wholly dominated him. In a speech in the

campaign following the occurrences hereinafter nar-

rated, he said that

The election of Fremont should be the signal for the South

to march at once to Washington, seize the treasury and archives,

and force the North to attack them. *   *  * It is just to tear

the constitution of the United States, trample it under foot and

form a Southern Confederacy. I have been a disunionist from

the time I could think.

He had served with credit in the Mexican War as a

Captain in the Palmetto Regiment; and, later, had

446      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

fought a duel with a man named Wigfall. So little did

he harbor resentment that later he appointed Wigfall's

nephew as a cadet at West Point.

Lawrence M. Keitt was also a member of the House

from South Carolina, and of that distinct and high-

strung type then known as a "Southern Fire-Eater."

By that phrase was meant a man whose heart and soul

were wrapped up in the South and particularly in the

institution of Slavery; who was "game" to the core;

always set on a hair trigger; ready to resent a real or

fancied insult to his state or section; and a devotee of

the "Code Duello."

Interest attaches to the foregoing incomplete sketches

of Sumner, Butler, Brooks and Keitt, not only for what

follows hereafter, but because of the antagonism that

had existed between Massachusetts and South Carolina

since the Revolutionary War, and which had repeatedly

broken out in Congress -- the most prominent incident

of which had been the celebrated debate between Web-

ster and Hayne.

Before going to Washington at this session, Senator

Sumner said to his friend, Higginson, "This session will

not pass without the Senate Chamber becoming a scene

of some unparalleled outrage." On the nineteenth and

twentieth of May, after having written Theodore Par-

ker, "I shall pronounce the most thorough philippic ever

uttered in a legislative body," he delivered the most

powerful and vindictive of his many great orations.

"The Crime Against Kansas" was the stinging phrase

with which he scored the bloody deeds enacted in the

attempt to foist slavery upon that unhappy territory.

He truthfully denounced the Missourians who had in-

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame            447

vaded Kansas and who were known to the world by the

opprobrious name of "Border Ruffians." He stigma-

tized them as

Murderous robbers and hirelings picked from the drunken

spew and vomit of an uneasy civilization, lashed together by

secret lodges and renewing the incredible atrocities of the As-

sassins and the Thugs.

On the State of South Carolina he made this vitriolic

assault:

Has Senator Butler read the history of the state which he

represents? He cannot surely have forgotten its shameful imbe-

cility from slavery, confessed throughout the Revolution, fol-

lowed by its more shameful assumptions for slavery since. He

cannot have forgotten its wretched existence in the slave trade as

the very apple of its eye, and the condition of its participation in

the Union. *  *  * Were the whole history of South Caro-

lina blotted out of existence, from its very beginning down to the

day of the last election of the senator to his present seat upon

this floor, civilization might lose -- I do not say how little; but

surely less than it has already gained by the example of Kansas

in its valiant struggle against oppression. Ah, sir, I tell the

Senator that Kansas, welcomed as a Free State, will be a min-

istering angel to the Republic when South Carolina, in the cloak

of darkness which she hugs, lies howling.

It was not reasonable to expect that the South Caro-

linians should rest quietly under such a bitter aspersion

of their native state.

Sumner's crushing invectives were also hurled with

open scorn at the senators whom he deemed to be the

defenders of the lawless invasions of Kansas; and he es-

pecially pilloried Senator Butler and Senator Stephen

A. Douglas, of Illinois, stating that "as the Senator

from South Carolina is the Don Quixote of slavery, the

Senator from Illinois is the squire of slavery, its very

Sancho Panza, ready to do all its humiliating offices." He

448      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

spoke of Butler's "loose expectoration of speech and his

uncalculating fanaticism;" and said of him that

He has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his bows and

who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though pol-

luted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight. I mean the

harlot, Slavery.

Butler was not present during this speech, and Mc-

Master, in his History of the People of the United

States, expressed the general sentiment in saying that

it was not "fair to Butler who was absent." The speech

was issued in enormous editions; it is estimated that

within two months after its delivery a million copies had

been distributed.

When Mr. Sumner closed, a flood of vituperation

broke loose on both sides of the chamber. To a sharp

thrust of Mr. Douglas, Mr. Sumner retorted that "the

bowie-knife and the bludgeon are not the proper em-

blems of debate."  Senator Douglas spoke bitterly of

what he designated as "the depth of malignity that is-

sued from every sentence of Mr. Sumner's speech; "but,

during its delivery, he had said to a friend, "Do you hear

that man? He may be a fool, but I tell you he has pluck.

*  *  *  I am not sure whether I should have the cour-

age to say those things to the men who are scowling

around him." When Mr. Butler returned to the Senate,

a few days later, he revenged himself by denouncing

Mr. Sumner as a "calumniator, a fabricator and a

charlatan."

Two days later, when the Senate was not in session.

Mr. Brooks entered the chamber where he found Sena-

tor Sumner writing at his desk. He said to him, "I have

read your speech twice over carefully. It is libel on

450      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

South Carolina and on Mr. Butler who is a relative of

mine." Had he stopped there, no one could have justly

criticised him, but he proceeded to beat the unsuspecting

Senator over the head with a thin gutta-percha cane.

Although dazed by the attack, Mr. Sumner exhibited his

enormous strength by wrenching the desk from the floor.

By that time, however, the angry blows had done their

work; and, bleeding and unconscious, he was carried to

an ante-room for medical aid. His injuries were far

more serious than were intended by Mr. Brooks who,

before his temper got the better of him, merely wished

to disgrace Mr. Sumner by a public whipping. These

injuries disabled him for many years, during which time

he sought medical treatment both in Europe and Amer-

ica. He lived long enough, however, to show his innate

nobility of character when, standing by the cenotaph of

Mr. Brooks, he exclaimed, "Poor fellow, he was the

unconscious agent of a malign power." During the as-

sault Mr. Keitt was present and warned off all who

might interfere--especially Senator Crittenden, who

was protesting against the outrage.

Instantly the entire North blazed into indignation.

The City of Lawrence, built by the free-state men of

Kansas, had just been burned by an armed mob of pro-

slavery raiders from Missouri; and the cry was raised

that the "city dedicated to freedom" had been destroyed,

and that the "champion of freedom" had been struck

down by a "bully" -- that being the opprobrious epithet

which followed Mr. Brooks to his grave. Public meet-

ings were held everywhere, Beecher and Evarts spoke

in New York; Francis Wayland in Providence; Long-

fellow in Boston; Emerson in Cambridge; Edward

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame       451

Everett in Taunton; and men of the same stamp, such

as William Cullen Bryant, Josiah Quincy and E. R.

Hoar, in many other town and cities. Oliver Wendell

Holmes, at the dinner of the Massachusetts Medical

Society, gave the following toast, "The surgeons of the

City of Washington; God grant them wisdom for they

are dressing the wounds of a mighty empire, and of un-

counted generations;" and William H. Seward said in

the Senate "the blows that fell on the head of the sena-

tor from Massachusetts have done more for the cause

of human freedom in Kansas and in the Territories of

the United States than all the eloquence which has re-

sounded in these halls." Whittier wrote of Sumner's

speech that it was a 'grand and terrible philippic worthy

of the occasion." Innumerable letters were written, de-

nouncing the assault, by such men as Salmon P. Chase,

Thurlow Weed and E. L. Godkin. Yale and Amherst

conferred upon Mr. Sumner the degree of Doctor of

Laws. The whole world stood aghast at the spectacle

of a bloody assault in the Senate chamber. Especially

was this true of England; Macaulay wrote the Duchess

of Argyll, wife of a cabinet minister, that "in any coun-

try but America I should think that civil war was immi-

nent;" and Cornwall Lewis, also a cabinet minister,

wrote that "this outrage is not proof of brutal manners

or low morality in America --it is the first blow in a

civil war." Mr. Lewis was right; it was the first blow

in a civil war.

The wrath and dismay of the North were equaled

only by the delight and exultation of the South. Her

most trusted and prominent citizens publicly applauded

Mr. Brooks; the students of the University of Virginia

452      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

passed a resolution of commendation; and William Gil-

more Simms, the best known poet of the South, joined in

the universal paean. Jefferson Davis, in reply to an in-

vitation to a dinner given to Mr. Brooks, wrote "I have

only to express my sympathy for the sentiment which

prompts the sons of Carolina to welcome the return of

a brother who has been the subject of vilification, mis-

representation and persecution."  Senator Mason of

Virginia, on the same occasion, wrote, "I know of none

whose public career I hold more worthy of the full and

cordial approbation of his constituents."  The news-

papers of the South were almost unanimous in com-

mending Mr. Brooks. The Richmond Enquirer said,

"He deserves applause for the bold and judicious man-

ner in which he chastised the scamp, Sumner;" and

later, "It is idle to talk of Union or peace or truce with

Sumner or Sumner's friends."  The Richmond Whig.

in an editorial entitled "A Good Deed," commented as

follows: "We are exceedingly sorry that Mr. Brooks

dirties his cane by laying it athwart the shoulders of the

blackguard, Sumner." The Carolina Times said "Colo-

nel Brooks has immortalized himself, and he will find

that the people of South Carolina are ready to endorse

his conduct." The Washington Sentinel said, "If Mas-

sachusetts will not recall such a man, if the Senate will

not eject or control him, there is nothing to do but to

cowhide bad manners out of him or good manners into

him."  At Washington, the headquarters of the pro-

slavery propaganda, a banner was carried which bore

this dastardly inscription, "Sumner and Kansas--let

them bleed." A cane presented to Brooks by citizens

of Charleston bore the inscription "Hit him again."

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame       453

Another, presented by his constituents, was inscribed,

"Use knock-down arguments." Other canes, with kin-

dred inscriptions, were fairly showered on him.

Looking back at these scenes and sentiments in the

South, how incomprehensible they seem! Here was a

man, naturally gentle, committing an offense confessedly

brutal and unmanly, while an entire section, whose un-

surpassed valor was proven later in a stubborn and

bloody war, went wild with joy. Verily madness, born

of slavery, must temporarily have blinded a brave and

generous people.

The assault upon Mr. Sumner was made long before

the present wings of the Capitol Building were

completed, hence it was but a short distance from the

House to the Senate -- the House sitting in what is now

the Statuary Hall and the Senate in the present Su-

preme Court Room. Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, was

Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

At that time there was no Committee on Appropriations,

and the Ways and Means Committee raised and ex-

pended the entire revenues of the Federal Government.

Consequently the chairman was majority floor leader

in a sense more important than even at the present day.

He was sent for by the Senate authorities and arrived

before Mr. Sumner was removed to the ante-room. As

soon as Mr. Sumner's injuries were temporarily pro-

vided for, he returned to the House, and offered a reso-

lution to investigate the conduct of Mr. Brooks and Mr.

Keitt, and was made chairman of the committee for that

purpose which, later, reported a resolution recommend-

ing the expulsion of Mr. Brooks and the censure of Mr.

Keitt. A heated discussion ensued in which Mr. Cling-

454      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

man, of North Carolina, subsequently a distinguished

confederate general, led the debate by asserting that Mr.

Sumner had received "a merited chastisement," and elo-

quently defended what he termed the "liberty of the

cudgel." One northern man, Mr. Giddings, of Ohio,

seemed inclined to partially condone the conduct of Mr.

Brooks because of his political education and environ-

ment. The vote on the expulsion of Mr. Brooks stood

one hundred and twenty-five yeas and ninety-five nays

--not the necessary two-thirds; nevertheless he re-

signed immediately. Upon leaving the House, he was

met at the door by a bevy of southern belles who pro-

ceeded to smother him with kisses -- an unconventional

form of public approbation to which he submitted with

becoming resignation. Mr. Keitt, having been censured

by the House, resigned also. A few days later (at a spe-

cial election) both men were unanimously re-elected.

The day after the assault, Senator Wilson of Massa-

chusetts denounced Mr. Brooks in the Senate, and said

that "Mr. Sumner was stricken down on this floor by a

brutal, murderous and cowardly assault," to which Mr.

Butler promptly retorted, "You are a liar." Mr. Brooks

took up the quarrel and challenged Senator Wilson who

replied that he would not fight a duel but, if attacked,

would defend himself. Representative Woodruff of

Connecticut, also denounced the assault and was chal-

lenged by Mr. Brooks, but his reply was the same as

Senator Wilson's.

As Mr. Campbell had offered the motion calling for

an investigation against Mr. Brooks and Mr. Keitt and

had been Chairman of the Committee which reported

the resolution to expel Mr. Brooks and censure Mr.

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame     455

Keitt, it may be interesting to explain why he was not

challenged. Although a militant antagonist of the slave

power at every stage of the fight against it, he was a

general social favorite, a man of convivial tastes and

unusually popular with the southern members. On the

day after the assault, while walking with one of them

on Pennsylvania Avenue, his companion said to him,

"Lew, they are going to challenge you today." Mr.

Campbell made no reply until they passed a shooting

gallery; when, turning back, he invited his friend to

enter. Asking the proprietor to remove the customary

target and replace it with a lighted candle, he proceeded

to snuff that candle with a rifle ball, "off-hand" three

times in succession. It is hardly necessary to add that

the subject of his challenge was never afterward alluded

to, for the certainty of death has a tendency to cool the

ardor of the most persistent duelist.

Nobody having accepted the challenges of Mr. Brooks,

the incident would have closed but for Representative

Anson Burlingame, the youngest member from Massa-

chusetts -- an orator who possessed the unusual accom-

plishments of making a campaign on a single speech and

yet, by his charm of voice and manner, causing its mo-

notonous repetition to pass unnoticed. He was a bitter

foe of slavery, a fine rifle shot and had the reputation

of being "a northern man who would fight." He waited

patiently for a month before his indignation burst forth,

and then he made himself a shining mark by the delivery

of a carefully prepared speech in which he said that Mr.

Brooks "stole into the Senate, that place which had been

sacred against violence, and smote Mr. Sumner as Cain

smote his brother." He also defamed the loyalty of

456      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

South Carolina in the Revolutionary War, and said that

"Massachusetts had furnished more than ten times as

many men as South Carolina." As to the assault he

said, "I denounce it in the name of the constitution

which it violated; I denounce it in the name of the sov-

ereignty of Massachusetts which was stricken down by

the blow; I denounce it in the name of civilization which

it outraged; I denounce it in the name of humanity; I

denounce it in the name of that fair play which even bul-

lies and prize-fighters respect." In closing he said,

"There are men from the Old Commonwealth of Massa-

chusetts who will not shrink from a defense of the free-

dom of speech, and the honored state they represent, on

any field where they may be assailed."

Mr. Brooks not unnaturally construed Mr. Burlin-

game's speech to mean that he would accept a challenge,

and sent a friend to him; but, in a few days, an apolo-

getic note was returned (in the handwriting of Mr.

Burlingame's colleague, Speaker Banks) stating that

Mr. Burlingame "disclaimed any intention to reflect

upon the personal character of Mr. Brooks, or to impute

to him in any respect a want of courage; but discrimi-

nating between the man and the act which he was called

upon to allude to, he had characterized the latter only

in such a manner as his representative duty required him

to do." The New England press, led by the Boston

Courier, commented sharply on Mr. Burlingame's con-

cession and severely upbraided him for so palpably

showing what they appropriately termed "the white

feather." His colleague, Timothy Davis, called his at-

tention to these unfavorable comments. Stung by such

unanimous expressions of the sentiment of his friends

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame       457

and constituents, he applied to Mr. Campbell for advice

and was told that, if his speech in the House was sincere,

the only course open to him was to stand by it and ac-

cept the consequences. Thereupon Mr. Burlingame

published a card in the National Intelligencer in which,

referring to his apologetic note, he said, 'Inasmuch as

attempts, not altogether unsuccessful, have been made

to pervert its true meaning, I now withdraw it; and, that

there may not be any misapprehension in the future I

say, explicitly, that I leave my speech to interpret itself,

and hold myself responsible for it without qualifications

or amendment."

Mr. Brooks immediately sent Mr. Burlingame the

following challenge:

Washington, D. C., 21st July, '56.

SIR:--

Will you do me the kindness to indicate some place outside

of this District where it will be convenient to you to negotiate in

reference to the difference between us.

Very respectfully, etc.,

P. S. BROOKS.

Hon. Anson Burlingame.

The peculiar words, "outside of this district," used in

this challenge were necessary in order to evade the stat-

ute of the District of Columbia which forbade dueling or

challenging within the district. To us, so far past the

dueling age, it may seem strange that many men in 1856

felt it to be a dishonor to refuse a challenge; yet, nearly

all of the greatest men, in former days, were duelists.

Randall and Ryan's History of Ohio pertinently says

that "the list of duelists makes the quiet and decent citi-

zen of today shudder with amazement." Three presi-

dential candidates were in that category--Jackson

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame      459

killed Dickinson the defamer of his wife; Clay, although

he publicly denounced dueling, fought both Randolph

and Marshall; and Crawford of Georgia, the Demo-

cratic candidate in 1824, killed Van Allen in one duel

and was wounded by Clark in another. Colonel Laurens,

while on Washington's staff, fought the traitor Charles

Lee (whom Washington had cursed at Monmouth) and

there is no evidence that Washington criticised his con-

duct. So great was the interest taken in dueling by

public men that, when Barron killed Decatur at Bladens-

burg, there were present Commodores Rodgers, Porter

and Bainbridge; and when Representative Graves killed

Representative Cilley at Bladensburg there were present

Senator Crittenden, and Representatives Jones, Bynum,

Wise, Calhoun, Hawes, Menifee and Duncan -- the

last-named from the state of Ohio. This latter duel was

fought in 1838 and was so utterly causeless that it was

popularly known as the "Washington Murder." It was

used against the Whigs in the campaign of 1844, and

was the cause of much revulsion in public sentiment, in

regard to dueling, although in 1856 it still required more

courage to refuse a challenge than to accept one.

Under the Code Duello nothing was better known

than that the place selected for a duel (using the exact

but inelegant language of the code) "must be such as

had been ordinarily used where the parties are." Bla-

densburg, five miles from Washington, was the ancient

and well established dueling ground. Americana states

that "Bladensburg is famous in American history as

the site of the dueling ground where many famous duels,

growing out of quarrels in Washington, were fought."

None of the Washington duels had been fought at a dis-

460      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tance greater than nine miles from the Capitol. Both

Mr. Campbell and Mr. Burlingame were aware of the

above facts and also knew that Mr. Brooks could not

safely travel through the North for a long distance,

owing to the intense feeling aroused by the recent as-

sault. Therefore, when he applied to Mr. Campbell,

Mr. Burlingame put that friend of his in the trying pre-

dicament of devising an acceptance which would save

Mr. Burlingame's reputation and yet, if possible, avoid

a fight. It occurred to Mr. Campbell that, if the

Canadian side of Niagara Falls should be named, Mr.

Brooks would thereby be maneuvered into the humiliat-

ing position of declining to go to a place of which, later,

he truthfully wrote, "I could not reach Canada without

running the gauntlet of mobs and assassins, prisons and

penitentiaries, bailiffs and constables. * * * I might

as well have been asked to fight on Boston Common."

With this in view, Mr. Campbell drafted the following

acceptance. While it cannot be denied to be a trifle cun-

ning, it must be admitted that it was certainly resource-

ful:

Washington, D. C., July 21, 1856.

SIR:--

Your note was placed in my hands by Gen. Lane this after-

noon.

In reply I have to say that I will be at the Clifton House on

the Canada side of Niagara Falls on Saturday next at 12 o'clock

M. to "negotiate" in reference to "any differences between us"

which in your judgment may require settlement "outside of this

district."

I have the honor to be, sir,

Your Obt. Servt.,

A. BURLINGAME.

Hon. P. S. Brooks.

462      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Mr. Burlingame copied it and the copy was handed

to General Lane, who acted as second for Mr. Brooks.

Mr. Campbell never denied the charge that he purposely

named an impossible place for the meeting, but he felt

absolved from complying with the usual custom in that

respect because, thereby, he prevented a duel which was

certain to be bloody and, probably, fatal.

The newspapers all over the United States and

Canada contained full and frequent accounts of the pro-

posed meeting at Niagara Falls. Mr. Brooks, as had

been anticipated, refused to go to Canada. His refusal,

artfully misrepresented, created the impression in the

North that he would not fight at all but that Mr. Bur-

lingame was willing to go anywhere for that purpose.

Great was the rejoicing over what was called "The

Backdown of Bully Brooks." The Hartford Courant,

representing the northern press, said that "Burlingame

was ready to go to South Carolina but Preston S.

Brooks dare not go to Canada." John P. Hale, repre-

senting northern citizenship, wrote that Mr. Burlingame

"had staked his life upon the result, preferring death to

his own and his state's dishonor." A lot of sarcastic

doggerel was published in the New York Evening Post,

the first stanza of which read as follows:

"To Canada Brooks was asked to go

To waste of powder a pound or so.

He sighed as he answered no, no, no,

They might take my life on the way, you know."

The historians, and other writers, have also er-

roneously accepted this view of the situation; and have

depicted Mr. Brooks as a coward and Mr. Burlingame

as a hero. The National Cyclopedia of American Bi-

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame      463

ography says, "The manner in which Mr. Burlingame

conducted himself greatly raised him in the estimation

of his friends and his party; and, on his return to Bos-

ton at the end of his term, he was received with distin-

guished honors." This statement is especially untrue

as Mr. Burlingame did not "return to Boston" but, for

reasons which will be shown later, was rapidly traveling

in another direction. Even as late as the memorial

service in honor of Mr. Burlingame (as an eminent

diplomat) by the New York Chamber of Commerce in

1870, William E. Dodge, in his eulogy, said that Mr.

Burlingame was "a keen shot with the rifle, who would

not shrink even from a duel if used in defense of honor,

liberty and his friends." It is still more astonishing

that Representative Galusha A. Grow, who was a prom-

inent member of that Congress and Speaker of the

thirty-seventh Congress, seems never to have heard that

there was a sequel to this affair.  As an active anti-

slavery agitator, who had a fist fight on the floor of the

House two years later with Mr. Keitt, he should have

been conversant with all of the facts; yet, in an article

on "The Duello," published many years afterward, he

says, "Brooks at once challenged Burlingame, but this

time he encountered a northern man ready to fight him

in his own way. * * * Brooks declined to go to

Canada. The affair thus ended."

But the affair had not ended; neither was Mr. Bur-

lingame ready to fight Mr. Brooks "in his own way" or

in any other way, or at any other time or place. He was

actively interested only in the pusillanimous purpose of

getting where he could not be served with a challenge

to fight within a reasonable distance of Washington, or

464      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

in a locality safely accessible to both parties. Although

the session lasted five weeks longer, and legislation of

the utmost importance was pending, Mr. Burlingame

appeared but once in the House -- a few moments on

July 28. On that day, however, he made the following

statement, the hypocrisy of which will appear as this

article unfolds: "I thought Mr. Brooks was in earnest

and prepared to meet him sternly and without fail. If

he was afraid to go to Canada, the nearest neutral

ground, why did he not name some other place ?" Mark

these words "some other place."

On the same day Mr. Burlingame permanently disap-

peared from Washington, and nobody but Mr. Camp-

bell (who had ostensibly disconnected himself from this

affair two days before) knew where he was. General

Lane, who had commanded the left wing at Buena Vista

and had the most conspicuous military record of any

man in Congress, was still acting as second to Mr.

Brooks and was then diligently seeking for Mr. Bur-

lingame. He continued to do so persistently, but un-

successfully, until the 30th. On that day he handed Mr.

Campbell a letter which disclosed the insincerity of Mr.

Burlingame when, in the statement above quoted, he had

said, "Why did he not name some other place."  The

letter, which was directed to Mr. Campbell under the

impression that he was still Mr. Burlingame's second,

reads as follows:

Washington, July 30th, 1856.

HON. L. D. CAMPBELL.

DEAR SIR:--

Col. Brooks returned to this place last night. I have just had

my first interview with him since the appearance of your and

Mr. Burlingame's cards. You say that Mr. Burlingame was

willing to meet Col. Brooks at any other place than Canada to

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame           465

adjust this difference. You did not tell me so although I told

you that Canada was inconvenient. On the contrary, you left me

under the impression that Mr. Burlingame would not meet Col.

Brooks at any other place than Canada. I so informed Col.

Brooks and advised him to give the matter no further notice. In-

asmuch, however, as you now say that Mr. Burlingame was

willing to meet Col. Brooks at any other place, I am authorized

and requested by Col. Brooks to say that he expects Mr. Bur-

lingame to designate some other place that is convenient and ac-

ceptable to both parties, and awaits his answer to this suggestion.

In behalf of my friend I am authorized to name any place of

meeting within ten miles of Washington, or accept any place that

either you or your friend may name within one hundred miles.

Secrecy and dispatch are requisite and desirable.

Very respectfully,

Your Ob'd't Ser't,

JOSEPH LANE.

If Mr. Burlingame really wished to name "some

other place" where they could fight, or was actually

ready to meet his antagonist on equal terms, what a

glorious chance was offered him. A hundred miles (as

suggested by General Lane) would have taken them

into a free state -- say to Gettysburg in the state of

Pennsylvania -- where, in miniature, they might have

anticipated the Great Battle fought there seven years

later.

Upon receipt of the foregoing letter Mr. Campbell

notified General Lane that his connection with Mr. Bur-

lingame's affairs had terminated on the 26th. As there

was much mystery about Mr. Burlingame's sudden dis-

appearance, General Lane (who may have had the im-

pression that Mr. Campbell was also seeking to evade

responsibility) wrote him the following letter:

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame          467

Washington City,

August 1, '56.

DEAR SIR:--

I feel it my duty to inform you as the friend of Mr. Bur-

lingame, and with the view to your communicating with him, that

I shall await his address until Tuesday morning, and in the event

of not learning his address, and that he does not return, I shall

feel myself in duty bound to make an expose of the matter.

Very Respectfully,

Your Obt. Servt.,

JOSEPH LANE.

Hon. L. D. Campbell.

Mr. Campbell, being a trifle peppery, would not rest

under an imputation, however vague, and the following

reply was promptly delivered to General Lane:

Washington, August 1, 1856.

DEAR SIR:--

I have read the note which you handed to me an hour since.

I apprised you yesterday that my connection with Mr.

Burlingame's matter, which led to some correspondence between

us, ceased on the 26th ult. Since then 1 have not informed my-

self in reference to "his address" and cannot see the pertinency

of your application to me in regard to it.

I know no act of Mr. B. from an exposure of which he or

his friends would shrink, and am therefore at a loss to understand

your threat to make "an expose" if he does not return.

If, however, you have reference to your letter and my reply

of yesterday, or to any act of mine, I beg to assure you that you

need not delay your "expose" until Tuesday morning.

I am, sir,

Very truly,

LEWIS D. CAMPBELL.

Hon. Jos. Lane.

Obviously Mr. Campbell intended to stand by his

guns, but what of the elusive Burlingame? At the very

moment in which Mr. Burlingame was striving to shield

him by "talking back" at General Lane, he was securely

Sumner - Brooks - Burlingame           469

ensconced in Mr. Campbell's home in Hamilton, Ohio.

At the safe distance of six hundred miles he was writ-

ing the following melodramatic letter:

Hamilton, Aug. I, 1856.

MY DEAR CAMPBELL:--

I write this from your own home where, since yesterday after-

noon, I have been made most happy by the great kindness of your

most excellent family. I had a splendid time in Dayton as well

as at this place. It is all right for you in this district. I did what

my heart told me was right with regard to yourself. I rec'd your

message here. I hope and pray that you are not in trouble. You

must not let the rascals get out of their trouble by involving either

you or myself.

It will disgrace us forever if we have anything more to do

with the vile set. They cannot open the matter again unless we

permit them to do so. Brooks is out of the reach of gentlemen

and neither you nor I have cause of war against anybody else.

My dear friend you shall not have trouble on my account.

I shall be at Indianapolis next Monday. Write me there and

I will have your letter forwarded. I am doing great good here

and ought to keep the field as long as possible.

Yours truly,

A. BURLINGAME.

Of course, no one is made acquainted with the nature of your

dispatch.

The secret is out! Mr. Burlingame, fleeing from the

"Field-of-Honor", is at a distance of two days' travel

with his back to the foe and bound, via Indianapolis, for

parts unknown.

As an indication that Mr. Burlingame was seeking to

avoid an expected challenge from    Mr. Brooks to fight

at "some other place" so located as to be fair to both

parties, note his admission that "they cannot open the

matter again unless we permit them to do so."    For fur-

ther corroboration, mark the admonition that "you must

not let the rascals get out of their trouble by involving

Sumner -- Brooks -- Burlingame      471

either you or myself." There was no danger of "in-

volving" Mr. Burlingame as he was too far away and

too safely concealed. "My dear friend you shall not

have trouble on my account," says the would-be duelist

to the friend whom he had left in the breach. Who was

to prevent Mr. Campbell from having "trouble" -- cer-

tainly not this wandering deserter. Luckily for Mr.

Burlingame's "dear friend," Campbell, that gentleman's

attitude had won the respect of Mr. Brooks and General

Lane, and he did not heed the long-distance sympathy

of his fugitive correspondent.

The next session of Congress began in December.

Mr. Brooks was then very ill and died in January, but

not before he confessed to his colleague, Mr. Orr, that

he was sick of being regarded as a representative of

bullies and disgusted at receiving testimonials of their

esteem. Long afterwards, in Faneuil Hall, Mr. Bur-

lingame was sufficiently magnanimous (or remorseful)

to do justice to Mr. Brooks by defending him from un-

just aspersions. Mr. Campbell, some years later, also

exonerated Mr. Brooks by publishing a statement that

"the popular opinion that Mr. Brooks was a coward is

far from correct. He was sensitive and impetuous, but

had many excellent traits of character." No more duels

were fought thereafter between American statesmen;

and the Code Duello had become so completely extinct

that, in the State of South Carolina, where dueling had

borne its most knightly flower, no man can hold public

office until he has filed a sworn statement that he was

never connected with a duel.

472      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

In 1861, when the time for real fighting came, South

Carolina, true to her theories and traditions, was the

first state to secede. Massachusetts, also true to her

theories and traditions, put the first Union regiment

into the field and laid the first living sacrifices upon the

altar of loyalty. But what of the men who were promi-

nent in the scenes which have been herein narrated?

Mr. Brooks and Senator Butler were dead, and General

Lane was too old to take part in the struggle. Senator

Sumner had not fully recovered from his injuries, al-

though, in the Senate during the entire war, he was a

tower of strength to the Union cause. Senator Douglas

had held the hat of his former Great Antagonist, Abra-

ham Lincoln, while that predestined martyr delivered

his inaugural address. When the guns roared at Sum-

ter, the inborn patriotism of Douglas blazed up and he

forgot his life-long political warfare with the President,

and their great historic debates. He instantly took upon

himself the mission of bringing his enormous personal

following into the field. In this he succeeded fully and

promptly, but at the expense of his life. Within two

months after the war began, he succumbed to the im-

mense overstrain upon his physical powers. Speaker

Banks was one of the first major generals appointed by

President Lincoln, and served faithfully until the close

of the war. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Keitt commanded

regiments from their respective states; and the latter

gave his life for the South on the Field of Cold Harbor.

Of those who were alive and of fighting age, only one

failed to go to the war. That one was Anson Bur-

lingame. Instead of the Field of Battle, he chose the

Field of Diplomacy in which he achieved great and de-