Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
31. I'm not sure it's necessarily getting worse.
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 09:39 AM
Jan 2015
On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.

The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator." Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "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," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery."

Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.

Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm


Things like Anthony Weiner tweeting his cock seem like small potatoes in comparison.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Noblesse Oblige? Turbineguy Jan 2015 #1
You think this is just a Rethug thing?? YarnAddict Jan 2015 #2
I don't recall that ever happening. countmyvote4real Jan 2015 #3
Yup. YarnAddict Jan 2015 #7
Pretty lame example bvf Jan 2015 #11
Kind of a very wide definitiion being used. Debate point to you and opponent penalty for misusing a word. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #17
That's not a "flip off" by any stretch of the imagination. nt stevenleser Jan 2015 #34
Not a debate. GeorgeGist Jan 2015 #43
I don't recall that happeneing. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #4
Right here YarnAddict Jan 2015 #8
LOL! ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #12
that is about the farthest fetched reach I have ever seen. rurallib Jan 2015 #15
?? handmade34 Jan 2015 #5
Here you go YarnAddict Jan 2015 #9
Funny how the video never changes? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #19
As we descend more and more IMO into total Idiocracy, some public RKP5637 Jan 2015 #6
Yes, I do remember that which you speak of, bemildred Jan 2015 #10
Regarding Satan - I mean, Cheney... gregcrawford Jan 2015 #13
What examples did Thespian2 Jan 2015 #14
Excellent point! Shemp Howard Jan 2015 #21
It is not really about them, it is about us. zeemike Jan 2015 #25
Yours is an interesting argument. Shemp Howard Jan 2015 #27
There is always a percentage that would have accepted it. zeemike Jan 2015 #30
The reason it is worse is exposure! yeoman6987 Jan 2015 #28
The internet just made it easier. zeemike Jan 2015 #32
I think you are right, but Hollywood has tried to make a movie that does not glorify war but they yeoman6987 Jan 2015 #33
There is a lot more to it than popularity zeemike Jan 2015 #40
I'm saying they are more openly coarse and vulgar now. raccoon Jan 2015 #23
Response to your edit.... Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #16
On a related note... malthaussen Jan 2015 #18
So true. And the end of fair and equal criticism by the media also marks the beginning of propaganda. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #20
What I remember: Nixon, Agnew, Anita Bryant, Briggs, handcuffs, George Wallace, firehoses, Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #22
Yeah, I remember too, hate and fear never leave us, except for those brief moments of hope.. mountain grammy Jan 2015 #35
The ONLY public figure. My only hero that never let me down is.... alphafemale Jan 2015 #24
Showing your age ... beemer27 Jan 2015 #26
Exactly the point I'm trying to make! raccoon Jan 2015 #41
I believe 99% of them do not consider themselves public servants, or whatever, any more. djean111 Jan 2015 #29
I'm not sure it's necessarily getting worse. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #31
I don't know. If you're going to use the "think of the children!" argument, language is not where I PeaceNikki Jan 2015 #36
I expect that of clergy, not elected officials. I only expect elected officials to not be corrupt stevenleser Jan 2015 #37
Sarah Palin is posterchild for jingoistic faux-patriotic idiocy marmar Jan 2015 #38
We value the individual over community. CrispyQ Jan 2015 #39
It is a shift in public culture - and I show my age in not liking it karynnj Jan 2015 #42
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Whatever happened to the ...»Reply #31