Talk:Charles Sumner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kinsman?

I noticed that the description of the kinship between Butler and Brooks, has mutated to "cousin, once removed", which is none too adequate: if we are to be precise, it should be first cousin once removed, or third cousin once removed, etc. I suggest we switch back to the amiably vague "kinsman" until someone can actually provide exact details of their kinship. - Nunh-huh 08:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The original text, imperfect though it be, used the simple "relative." "Kinsman" is an uncommon usage. Any objection to going back to where we started? Cheers, -Willmcw 08:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to "kinsman" or "relative", though I think "kinsman" more accurately portrays the nebulousness of the relationship. - Nunh-huh 18:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon me if I'm a bit touchy - an anonymous editor came through a while back and made a very POV edit. As for facts, here are some reputable citations for the relationship, none of which mention the cousinship that user:Tlbenson insisted on:

• "Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina believed that Sumner had insulted his uncle, Senator Andrew Butler." [1]
• "Two days later, Butler's nephew, South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks, entered the Senate chamber and beat Sumner unconscious." [2]
• "Two days later he was assaulted in the Senate chamber by Preston S. Brooks, Butler's nephew." [3]

I accomodated Tlbenson, but now that I look into it further, I think we should revert to uncle until that editor provides a citation for a different relationship. -Willmcw 22:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt for a moment that you've seen Preston Smith Brooks and Andrew Butler referred to as uncle and nephew, but that's pretty clearly wrong. If it's a blood relationship, to be Brooks's uncle, Butler would have to be a brother of his father (and so would be surnamed Brooks) or a brother of his mother (and so would be surnamed Carroll). Alternatively, he could have married a sister of Brooks's mother or father, but this also seems not to be the case: Andrew Pickins Butler married a Harriet Hayne or Haynes, not a Brooks or a Carroll.

I suspect the relationship actually is a cousinship: Preston Smith Brooks's paternal grandmother, who married Zachariah Smith Brooks, was Elizabeth Butler, the daughter of James Butler. Andrew Pickins Butler's paternal grandfather was also named James Butler, though I don't know if the two James Butlers are the same man or two different men.

Genealogical relationships are often confused when they are not delineated, and therefore are often confused in written histories. Until we can name the common ancestors of Brooks and Butler we should probably keep it nebulous. - Nunh-huh 00:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jeepers, you must have their family tree on hand! What's your source? I'm surprised it has so much detail, but not the exact relationship between the two. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is just from the family trees on ancestry.com (they're not utterly dependable, but when they agree they're reasonably safe.) Once you trace back to either James Butler, there are no dates, no wive's names, and it's about 1730, so even if they said both James Butlers were the same it would be a bit iffy. (But I'll bet that's where the connection is... you gotta love this "wounded Southern family pride" justification for a beating in Congress, though....it's classic!) - Nunh-huh 00:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about the lack of source attribution. I am just getting used to the local customs. The nature of the Brooks-Butler kinship relation is discussed in the article for Andrew Pickens Butler in American National Biography, vol. 4, p. 88. Brooks himself described Butler variously as "a relative" (see his apology to the Senate, Congressional Globe, 29 May 1856, and a "venerable friend" (see his resignation speech, Congressional Globe, 14 July 1856). Butler referred to Brooks as his "kinsman" (see Congressional Globe 12 June 1856). The relationship is also described in Vernon Burton, In My Father's House are Many Mansions: Family and Community in Edgefield, South Carolina. especially p. 66. Since Butler used "kinsman," would it make sense to preserve the description he used? --Tlbenson 00:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still think that "kinsman" is hopelessly quaint, and no different from the more common "relative." But since it seems impossible to agree on their exact relationship, and since at least two editors like "kinsman", "kinsman" it shall be. Say, is all this scholarship recorded in the articles of the gentleman themselves? -Cheers, -Willmcw 22:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Old bibliography

Removed old bibliography; am placing it here if anyone needs it. I also cleaned up the article to update the English usage a bit (changed negroes to blacks for example). User:FeanorStar7

See Sumner's Works (15 vols., Boston, 1870–1885), and Edward L. Pierce's Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner (4 vols., Boston, 1877–1893). Briefer biographies have been written by Anna L Dawes (New York, 1892); Moorfield Storey (Boston, 1900); and George H Haynes (Philadelphia, 1909).— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeanorStar7 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 1 July 2005 (UTC)

Civil Rights

This article could use a separate section on Sumner and his views on race. He was unusually far-sighted for his time in pleading for suffrage and equal access for blacks, and this ought to be addressed. I'll add it, unless someone else would prefer to do it.--Idols of Mud 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. -Will Beback 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. It's in. I used David Herbert Donald's book for most of it -- any comments or criticisms are appreciated.--Idols of Mud 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

attach speech to the The Crime against Kansas Speech

It would be nice if someone (who know how, since I do not) would change the "speech" link which now links to "speech" to the actual speech described in the article. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nowax (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Birth Date

The birth dates in the text and under the photo do not coincide. At least one of them has to be wrong. GS3 (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The speech doesn;t say anything about "noisome, squat, and nameless animal ... not a proper model for an American senator."

Neither it "took a cruel, personal turn as he mocked the 59-year-old Butler's manner of speech and physical mannerisms, both of which were impaired by a stroke that Butler had suffered earlier."

Please remove.

The link to the speech is included in the article. Did anybody read it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.10.3 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Charles Sumner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Delisted

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. Although several references are listed, there are no inline citations for large portions of the article's content which is required under the criteria. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. Usually I have to tell people to expand the leads of articles, but in this case the lead should be reduced in length. There is some content that doesn't exist in the article itself, and that should be incorporated into its respective area. See WP:LEAD for guidelines. All of the external links in the namesakes section also need to be formatted properly. As a side note, I tagged multiple images for moving over to Wikimedia Commons, so if you have an account there, consider moving them over so other language Wikipedias can use them. Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN or you can contact me on my talk page and I'll review it for you so you can bypass the month-long backlog. If you need assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Update on my Spoken Revision

In regards to my audio recording, I would like to point out that I have finished recording it and have the full file, but that I lack sufficient audio editing equipment to correct the errors I made while recording it.

Thus, I'm stuck. I'm still working on it, but I can not go further at the moment because of my resources.

--TurtleShroom! :) NOODY BRANCH! ^{Don't mess with farmers, SpongeBob. They know how to grow food.} - Knowledge is power, grab it while you can. 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My computer recently recieved a total reformat and I have lost the file, or so I initially thought. I am currently trying to undergo a huge recovery project to salvage it, so hope is not yet lost. I have the audio software needed, so please, don't give up on me! --TurtleShroom (via IP Address) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.108.248 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sumner Tunnel

I have removed the Tunnel from the "Namesakes" list. The Sumner Tunnel is not named for Charles Sumner - it's named for William H. Sumner (as noted on the corresponding page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pobbard (talk • contribs) 03:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Second Update on My Spoken Revision

I have managed to recover the file and will soon begin the editing process. Some time in the future, it'll be uploaded. --99.157.108.248 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Punishment?

What kind of legal action was taken against the guy who nearly beat Sumner to death? Also what kind of "censure" did the guy brandishing the pistol get? AaronY (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

Why in the article do we make nonquoted references to "negroes"? Such use of the term is not only taboo and archaic but is also bordering on the prejudicial. Is there any reason this has been done? Wally 19:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other than some re-writing of the attack in the Senate chamber, this article is entirely 1911 EB. Please edit freely. -Willmcw 19:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The term "negro" is archaic, however, the use was popular in those days. Many 19th editors when speakers would use the "n" word, would change the word to a more neutral "negro". The term "negro" meant a black man and was not necessarily racist. I believe for Wikipedia references not quoted, the terms African, African American, or "black" can be used appropriately. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Break with Grant and Chronology

I edited the opening section which contained the statement that Sumner had been removed from his Chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee by Grant's Congressional forces on account of his support of the Liberal Republicans in the 1872 campaign, whereas (relying on Donald and the EB) he was stripped on his chairmanship in 1871 because of his opposition to Grant's Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) scheme. This harmonizes with information presented later as well.Meb53 23:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That is correct. The other issue was Sumner's interference with Grant's foreign policy, particularly, in terms of instructions given by Grant's Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish, to Sumner's friend British Ambassador Motley in London. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible image problem

I'm concerned about one of the images here. It seems to me that the image just under the infobox listed as Senator Charles Sumner, c. 1870 is not Charles Sumner. The subject in that portrait looks nothing like Sumner, especially when compared by a portrait from five years later by the same artist. Even this cartoon of Sumner shows that he changed little from the Brady photos of the 1850s. I know the source web site identifies it as Senator Sumner, but c'mon... --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The attribution is by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, which has a fairly good record in curatorial matters, I think. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I know they identify it as Sumner... but common sense here! There is a fairly wide divide in these likenesses; perhaps contacting the MFA is in order. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That Hunt painted Sumner has been recorded elsewhere.[4] But if you wish to contact the MFA, by all means do so. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's fairly clear that Hunt painted Sumner - you also uploaded that image from the MET (see right). Compare this version with the other "Charles Sumner" painted by Hunt five years earlier. Maybe it's just me, but the linked image just doesn't look like a younger version of the image at right. I have already contacted the MFA - I do hope they respond. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, rather than wait for the MFA response, I took the liberty of having the other image cleaned up a bit (border removed, etc.) by our graphics wizards, and have subbed that image in instead. It's a better portrait anyway, I think. Trust you'll agree. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm guessing waiting for a reply from the MFA is too optimistic anyway. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In art the portrait does not have to look like a photograph, just the impression an artist gets and wants to convey in the artwork, in this case a painting. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV issues?

The lead is

1. Too long
2. More importantly, seems to take a clear stance on interpretation of Sumner's behaviour and psychology

The concluding para of the lead makes it clear that the lead has a point of view on who Sumner was. I don't think that's appropriate...comments? Johnleemk | Talk 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

the lede is fully cited---especially to the famous Pulitzer-prizewinning biography by Donald. NPOV means that the views of the RS are well represented, it does not mean the lede has to be bland or ignore his personality. The length is appropriate to one of the most important and active leaders of a very complex era. Rjensen (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it difficult to argue that all views of Sumner are fairly/proportionally represented, given that approximately 15 to 20% of the lead consists of a quote from *one* biographer. The first half of the lead is quite standard, it's the second half that seems to adopt an overly deferent tone towards Donald's views. The last paragraph I would say is clearly inappropriate; phrases like "he showed little aptitude," "less a builder than a prophet," and "dauntless courage," while they may be true, clearly do not represent a neutral point of view. Johnleemk | Talk 22:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

, To be neutral in Wikipedia does not mean neutral with respect to Senator Sumner, it means neutral with respect to the reliable sources. By far the most important reliable source is the Donald two-volume biography, a winner of the Pulitzer Prize, which to my knowledge is cited by every historian. the long quote is actually from another historian who was summarizing Donald's book. Rjensen (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that there is no reliable source in existence that would contest any of those claims in the final paragraph? At the very least I can imagine other candidates for "the chief initiating force in the struggle that put an end to slavery." That paragraph states plenty of opinions as facts, and I'm still skeptical about the reasonableness of devoting an entire paragraph to summarising just one historian's views. As you said, this isn't about being neutral w.r.t Sumner -- it's about being neutral w.r.t to the existing body of knowledge, and not just knowledge about Sumner, but how he fits into history, politics, etc. For instance, Donald's views about the causes of the American Civil War (which I think give Sumner more weight than other historians') are far from universally accepted, and the article is IMO giving them undue weight in the lead. Johnleemk | Talk 05:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's convincing. I dropped the unsourced encomium at the end of the lede. (which also shortens the lede) Rjensen (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that even the remaining second half of the lede (paragraphs 3 and 4) is a bit much in level of detail for an article lede. Any chance that we can look at summarizing it, while moving those details to a section in the article? --Habap (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the position that including Donald's subjective appraisal in the lead is completely improper. Donald's work (from 1960) is clearly pulled apart in the rejoinders cited in the bibliography; it belongs to a Revisionist, pro-Southern, anti-abolitionist school that has fortunately been largely put in the dustbin of history (or historiography). Feketekave (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Donald's Pulitzer prize winning book is cited first in every bibliography I have seen--which refutes Feketekave POV that it's been relegated to "the dustbin of history". Just the opposite: Donald's bio dominates all thinking about Sumner. -- for a example in Foner's 2010 study of Lincoln and slavery, Donald's Sumner is cited far more than any other book on Sumner; (and ditto for Donald's bio of Lincoln). For example, in google books shows about 2600 different books that cite the Donald bio; that is a lot of RS. So if there are alternative viewpoints they certainly can be added on, as is required by Wiki's rules. Wiki rules do NOT allow major interpretations to be erased and clearly that is Donald's. In recent years there has been one alternative --(by Anne-Marie Taylor in 2001), but it is nearly not as widely cited in the RS. (Google.books show that citations run 15 to one in favor of Donald over Taylor since 2001; Foner for example doesn't bother mentioning her) Rjensen (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As you of course realised, I was referring to the school of thought that Donald's work belongs to, not to the work as such. It may be useful as a factual reference; following its POV (or that of a recently arrived Conservapedia editor) is another matter altogether. Feketekave (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Feketekave, what you say may be true concerning Donald, in terms of bias, and I believe that it is important to recognize if any biographer has any ulterior motivation. Donald's work on Sumner does not belong to "the dustbin of history" To write a biography does take allot of research and Donald may indeed have a Southern point-of-view. However, Wikipedia can only rely on established sources. If there are other non fringe biographers or sources that counter Donald's assessment of Sumner, and I am not sure how many there are, then those can be used in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

For a pro Sumner view-point, William S. McFeely, Grant: A Biography (1981), is a good source. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a Moorfield Storey biography: Charles Sumner (1900) Cmguy777 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Political party at the time of the beating.

What party did Sumner consider himself to be part of at the time of the beating, Democrat, Free-soil, Republican or something else?Naraht (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The 1850's was a transitional period between the Whigs and the Republicans. I am not sure if there was official Party registration in those days, however, he was firmly associated with the Republican Party at the beginning. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated photo

I updated photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• 
• 

Sexual references

An editor added that the "Crime Against Kansas" speech contained "...several sexual references regarding Butler." What "sexual references" are those? Here's the text [5]. -Willmcw 23:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of sexual imagery to describe Butler's support of slavery was one of the main things that made this speech so controversial, Will: "The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and 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 the harlot, slavery. For her his tongue is always profuse in his words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then to great for this senator."

First off, that is in reference to slavery, not Butler. Secondly, it is not a "sexual reference" but part of an extended metaphor comparing Butler and Douglas to Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. Here's the entire paragraph:

Sumner said that Butler "has chosen a mistress"--that's called a sexual reference. Sumner calls Butler's mistress "polluted" and "a harlot" guilty of "wantonness" and he is her protector, that is her pimp.Rjensen (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You are talking to people, Will, who literally do not understand what a metaphor is. You are addressing people who failed English in high school, or fourteen year old boys who are in the process of failing English, and these people are filled with rage. Wikipedia is their tool for striking back, and for willfully failing to understand that Sumner's characterisations all fall within the scope of a metaphor.

They will destroy your reputation here and in meatspace because they are Hitler Youth and their goal in using Wikipedia is completely destructive. They really, really like Preston Brooks and his bloody attack on Sumner makes them hard. It excites them. Therefore they will do all they can to justify it in this article.

They get no sex. Therefore, they read passages such as Sumner's speech unable to grasp the linguistic concept of "scope", the willing and courteous ability of a listener to grant Sumner license to speak "as if" because his words aren't parsed: they are only seen, and in the minds of these so-called editors, they create vivid pictures, meaning that Sumner was directly charging his opponents with literal lewdness.

Edward G. Nilges

• But, before entering upon the argument, I must say something of a general character, particularly in response to what has fallen from Senators who have raised themselves to eminence on this floor in championship of human wrongs. I mean the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Butler), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas), who, though unlike as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, yet, like this couple, sally forth together in the same adventure. I regret much to miss the elder Senator from his seat; but the cause, against which he has run a tilt, with such activity of animosity, demands that the opportunity of exposing him should not be lost; and it is for the cause that I speak. The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentimcuts of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and 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 the harlot, Slavery. For her, his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote, in behalf of his wench, Dulcinea del Toboso, is all surpassed. The asserted rights of Slavery, which shock equality of all kinds, are cloaked by a fantastic claim of equality. If the slave States cannot enjoy what, in mockery of the great fathers of the Republic, he misnames equality under the Constitution in other words, the full power in the National Territories to compel fellowmen to unpaid toil, to separate husband and wife, and to sell little children at the auction block then, sir, the chivalric Senator will conduct the State of South Carolina out of the Union! Heroic knight ! Exalted Senator! A second Moses come for a second exodus!

Do editors really think that he is making a sexual reference when he compares Bulter to Quixote, who certainly did not have sexual relations with Dulcinea del Toboso? -Willmcw 02:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong as usual, Will. Sumner refers to Butler directly in his sexual references: "The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentimcuts of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and 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 the harlot, Slavery. For her, his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator." The subject of Sumner's analogy is indeed slavery, but the analogy itself contains a profusion of sexual images: harlotry, mistresses, pollution of the chaste, tongues, wantonness, extravagence etc. Though perhaps of little note by our standards today, open references to harlotry on the Senate floor were considered a breach of decorum under 19th century standards, hence Brooks' listing of them among the reasons he attacked Sumner. You should also take greater care in reviewing the Don Quixote elements of the analogy, as Sumner clearly states Quixote's "fenzy" toward Dulcinea del Toboso "is all surpassed." Rangerdude 19:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If they were a breach of decorum then the Senate has procedures for dealing with them that don't include attempted murder.

Please show a reliable source which considers the speech to have sexual references. Otherwise this appears to be original research. Also, please don't make personal attacks. Also, please don't revert blindly - you undid a necessary copyedit and the addition of a link. -Willmcw 19:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not original research to state the obvious, Will. Being intentionally obtuse, OTOH, can constitute a form of disruption. Needless to say, sources are plentiful:

You are threatening him here.

• [6] "Sumner directed his fire at two Democratic senators. Seeking frankness "within the limits of parliamentary propriety," he characterized Illinois' Stephen Douglas to his face as a "noise some, squat, and nameless animal ... not a proper model for an American senator." South Carolina's Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment with extensive use of sexual imagery." (United States Senate homepage)
• [7] - "He (Sumner) not only attacked Butler's intelligence and, implicitly, his sexual mores, but also assailed the lack of culture of South Carolina itself." (Willamette University)
• [8]"Of Senator Andrew R Butler of South Carolina, Sumner said, "He has chosen 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 the harlot Slavery.” [12] The trope, like Whitman's own, admits multiple substitutions and replacements, with rape and slavery interpenetrating one another's semantic space and circling through various other states of meaning. Read allegorically, it comes down to this: the "harlot Slavery is forced upon the virgin Kansas by the depraved pimp, Senator Butler, representative of the slaveholding South.” In this ad hominem vein, Sumner went further yet, drawing upon alliteration and onomatopoeia in his complaint that Butler "overflows with rage. . . . and, with incoherent phrase, discharges the loose expectoration of his speech" upon the representatives and people of Kansas" (Texas A&M University) Rangerdude 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede the point about sexual imagery (despite the fact that your first link doesn't work, your second is to a blog with a blatant POV which should be balanced and your third is about something entirely different), though the current phrasing is problamatic, however, having read the speach, I can't find this: "noisesome, squat, and nameless animal ... not a proper model for an American senator." and your link to the citation doesn't work.216.98.233.245 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it, it's from the debate that followed his speech. Since we're playing with that, should we also include this: "Is it his object to provoke some of us to kick him as we would a dog in the street, that he may get sympathy upon the just chastisement?" Senator Douglas. Citations: http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext02/ascru10.htm, http://books.google.com/books?id=g681Ea923hUC&pg=PA3564&lpg=PA3564&dq=%22%22noisesome,+squat+and+nameless%22&source=web&ots=xWtVQo4tly&sig=ZragRthiHRzx0gY4fyKWC0pcWko&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA3560,M1216.98.233.245 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose here is to create an article sympathetic to Sumner's attackers.

Posters who object to the article's NNPOV characterisation of Sumner's language are themselves threatened, in the Wikiterror that has started in 2006, with charges of disruption here on a Talk page, silencing people who object by threatening them with loss of reputation here and in meatspace.

The fact is that (1) Sumner didn't use profanity, only the vivid oratory characteristic of ante-bellum America and (2) whatever he said on the Senate floor could have been censured by parliamentary procedures, and for this reason the attack on him was terrorism...an act of war on the United States.

I realize that this may be difficult for crazed autodidacts, fourteen year old boys, and convenience store clerks to understand.

The fact is that when crazed autodidacts, fourteen years old boys, and convenience store clerks laboriously read the Sumner story with their goddamn lips moving dyslexically, their sympathies are naturally with Brooks and Sumner's attackers.

This is because bullies, recruited by thugs like Jimmy Wales, know a safe target when they see one, and in denial of their psychological and social vulnerability, they seek to transfer that vulnerability to a "mark" who they can then treat with unlimited savagery.

Sumner was isolated as an abolitionist in a Democratic party being high-jacked by slaveowners in the same way the Republican party was highjacked by white racists under Reagan and Bush. Therefore he was a safe target for cowards like Brooks and today, the pretentious little convenience store clerks who profess to be "editors" of wikipedia.

The intensity of Sumner's speech would deserve no more than a word in a real encyclopedia written by grownups. I find a very, very disturbing link here between Open Content and neo-Secesh movements in Amerikkka which are using Wikipedia to make the idea of white secession from Obama's administration acceptable to the mainstream, for Open Content is virtual, time-sliced slavery itself.

The neo-Secesh deny that they are racists, of course. But strangely enough, you never find African Americans supporting their cause, now do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.100.235 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Edward G. Nilges

Sumner's words are irrelevant. His perceived meaning by his enemies is what counts. Preston Brooks, took offense, for what ever reasons. Just to speak against slavery could get someone hurt or injured at this time. His speech was viewed a personal attack. However, none of that ever justified the beating he got in the Senate chambers. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Continued...However Sumners words were powerful and he knew how to press the Southern buttons to encite a reaction, and that I beleive is what Sumners intention was. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

rape

This is just terrible writing: "Its motivation, he said, was to rape a virgin"

Sumner proposed an analogy in which Slavery rapes the Virgin Territory to produce a Slave State as its illegitimate offspring. He didn't say the Act's motivation was rape. He may have said the Act's impact was analogous to rape or even akin to rape. But he's not identifying the Act itself as an act of rape. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

yes he is calling it the "rape" of a virgin territory. he used the word "rape" and the citations to RS point out his deliberate use of sexual imagery and how that is rooted in abolitionist rhetoric. He DID discuss motivation, using terms such as "have its origin" and "it may be clearly traced to a depraved desire". That's Sumner's analysis of motivation. Rjensen (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

the Dictionary (Webster's Third) will help explain how words are used: here are its definitions and note how Sumner is using all 4 senses of the noun: 1 : the act or an instance of robbing or despoiling : violent seizure *the rape of the city by the invading soldiers* *the rape of the region's forests* 2 : the act of carrying away a person by force *the rape of the Sabine women* 3 a : illicit sexual intercourse without the consent of the woman and effected by force, duress, intimidation, or deception as to the nature of the act —... 4 : an outrageous violation (as of a fundamental principle or institution) *trials that have been criticized as a rape of justice— Hal Foust* *a judicial rape of the Constitution— H.E.Talmadge* Rjensen (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sumner's speeches were designed to illicit a response. He had a way of cutting to the chase and getting under people's skin. Even President Lincoln had barred him from the White House at the close of the American Civil War. He may not even known how powerful his words effected people. He was not expecting to be beaten in the Senate Chambers. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker source

Why was Baker as a source taken from the article? There is no Wikipedia policy that states sources have to have a PHD in History. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a better reason then Baker is "novelist", therefore don't use him as a source. He was good enough for American Heritage, certainly he is good enough for Wikipedia. American Heritage described Baker as a Journalist, not a "novelist". I was going by what American Heritage Magazine said. American Heritage Magazine is not fringe. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia policy: Ownership of ArticlesCmguy777 (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

American Heritage is a dubious source--it's not acceptable anymore for scholarly books and journals. (It's not "fringe" in the sense of off-beat or extreme.) This Wiki article is based on numerous scholars who have many well-received scholarly books and articles based on years of research. To use a popular writer with no scholarly credentials is unnecessary and lowers the overall credibility. Rjensen (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen. I am not disagreeing with what you are saying concerning American Heritage Magazine. My personal view is that Baker has a talent for writing and explaining history and is a valid source. His brief article on Sumner gives a different insight into the actual beating of Sumner in the Senate Chambers by Preston Brooks. I had previously used a source by Prokopowicz who has a PH.D. from Harvard in the Reconstruction Era of the United States article and that edit was deleted since Prokopowicz, a Lincoln Scholar, did not write extensively on Reconstruction. This is confusing, since, I am not sure who then qualifies as a valid source and apparently seems to be at the subjection of one or an oligarchy of editors. That was my concern for any ownership issues of the article. My basic question is what constitutes a valid source for any given article on Wikipedia? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The source does not pass the Wiki rules on RS: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars....Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable." The author involved is not a scholar and has not published in a RS. Rjensen (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Prokopowicz passed the peer review test by Donald, yet, Prokopowicz was excluded from the Reconstruction Era of the United States. The Baker article was in the American Heritage Magazine. What source states that American Heritage Magazine is unreliable? Here is a link to Bakers profile on American Heritage Magazine: Kevin Baker. Yes. He is an novelist and had contributed to the New York Times and Harper's Magazine. If Baker was unreliable, then why would the New York Times, Harper's Magazine, and American Heritage Magazine publish his works? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

David H. Donald (December, 1956) contributed to American Heritage Magazine: Why They Impeached Andrew Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I make no claim to be a professional historiographer, and I certainly don't know as much about sources as Dr. Jensen. However, to label American Heritage a dubious source is a laughable assertion. The magazine has a long history of presenting complex historical subjects to the general public. That it was operated by Forbes for some time was not entirely to its credit, but the current editor was for some time editor of Smithsonian, itself a similar organ, presenting history to the general public. Is AH comparable to the Tennessee Historical Quarterly? No. Is it a fringe or dubious source? Only insomuch as it shouldn't be used in scholarly works. In the eyes of Wikipedia and its readers, American Heritage can be considered a reliable source. And there's nothing in WP:IRS which says Rjensen must approve the source before addition. With due respect to a professional historian, that's the very definition of WP:OWN. BusterD (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No it misses the Wikipedia standard by a long way (as quoted above). The article in question was not written by scholars or approved by them. If a real scholar like David Donald publishes an essay it's an RS no matter the format, but when a person with no training and no scholarly publication writes a piece for a popular magazine that is not edited by scholars, then it fails the Wikipedia rules. This item fails the RS rule. Readers can have no confidence in a one-off piece where the write did not spend years examining all the primary sources and did not submitted any of his papers and articles to other scholars for review. Rjensen (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

When Wikipedia editors differ in their application of policy and guideline, we settle such disputes by measuring consensus. IMHO, American Heritage certainly meets IRS. BusterD (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, there looks like there is no consensus on Baker: 2 Yes versus 2 No. Maybe the issue is with Baker, not with American Heritage Magazine. I disagree that American Heritage can't be used in scholarly works, particularly if David H. Donald wrote for the magazine. I can't imagine that American Heritage Magazine would put in a contributor that did not meet any academic standards. True, I do not know Baker's academic history or credentials. AHM does answer some complex issues in History and some of their articles are very much in depth. Baker gave an indepth view of Sumners beating in the Senate chambers. Sumner was a big man and Brooks attacked Sumner while he was trapped in his chair because he knew Sumner could take him in a fair fight. Sumner was so strong he tore the chair off the Senate floor while he was being beaten. There is also the issue of Prokopowitz, who has been peir reviewed, yet he was not allowed in the Reconstruction Era of the United States. I do not want an edit war; a fair discussion on Baker as a source I believe is valid. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that more then just one editor if available needs to decide academic source disputes. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) There is always the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where the community can help decide. Is this the article in question as a reprint on the author's blog site?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That is the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And I don't want to show disrespect to an editor I admire and occasionally disagree with. However, the attitude above (and the frequent use of "wiki rules say this...") is troubling, in respect to WP:OWN. Real life credentials mean nothing here, for good or otherwise. Someone tried that; it's called "Citizendium" and it didn't work out. BusterD (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I will not attempt to provide opinions about Sumner or Reconstruction scholarship, but I do want to point out that Rjensen's interpretation of reliable sources is not correct, or at least not complete. If you look in WP:SOURCES, it says:

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. ...

A general interest history magazine may not be the ultimate reliable source in comparison to a peer-reviewed journal, but it fits the Wikipedia definition of reliable source. An article by a noted historian in such a magazine is is even more acceptable. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I see Buster has posed the question at RSN.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I put Baker in for additional information or views on Charles Sumner. Again, I am for editor concensus on the Baker source, and I appreciate all who have contributed to this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker is not an expert on the topic and there is no reason whatever to trust his analysis or historical judgments--that's the main problem. No expert on the issue evaluated his work, and he never presents his works in forums where historians do criticize findings--that's the second problem. Using him lowers the overall credibility of the article, that's the third problem. Citing him violates the official rule at WP:RS is the fourth problem (who says that American Heritage is a "respected mainstream publications" ?? it is not "respected" by historians because they rarely cite it anymore (decades ago it was something else). Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

One solution would be to decide before hand if any contriburing source author at American Heritage Magazine in question or doubted, can be discussed first to find out if the source has consensus with Wikipedia editors. "American Heritage" is a mainstream publication and therefore fits into the Wikipedia rule on sources as stated above. What I respectfully disagree with is having one editor, if more are available, deciding on who is a valid source and who is not a valid source for any article. That is ownership. Since Baker has not had the priviledge of peir review, that does not dictate he is automatically an invalid source. If other editors agree that Baker is not a valid source in this article, then, I am for editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

American Heritage used to be mainstream but now it's merely a supermarket magazine of the same genre and quality of 100 other magazines on the same shelf. --take a look at them. Its quality is in all in the lavish expensive color printing, not the content, which no one ever cites anymore. Proof: I checked Project MUSE which has online the full text of back issues of hundreds of history journals. The most recent footnoted article in "American Heritage" was published back in 1995--no historians has cited an article that it published in the last 16 years. Rjensen (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's one perfectly valid perspective. I don't agree with it, but I see your point. By that standard, anything which appears on a newsstand and has fancy production values has no place being linked on Wikipedia. Wish we could have that high a standard. But we don't. Men's Health and Runner's World are perfectly reliable sources inside their content area. Newsweek and U.S. News also appear on that 100 place newsstand, and neither of them is as good as they used to be, yet we don't question their use as reliable sources. BusterD (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

yes we can and we do have that high standard for this article. Rjensen (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Who you calling "we"? We implies consensus. I don't see that here. I see one editor disqualifying sources all by himself. BusterD (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia disqualifying the poor source. It's WP:RS -- it even disqualifies an unfinished PhD dissertation and most finished MA theses as not good enough. tough rules and they apply here. Rjensen (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You see. Exactly. That's why we have dispute resolution and simple rough consensus to settle content disputes. Your position has been made clear. I think User:Cmguy777 and I have made our points. Let's see what other editors think. BusterD (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen, what part of Baker's piece are you taking exception to specifically? Please explain to us why you feel Baker is wrong.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker's little essay provides no footnotes to allow us to check his sources, unlike real scholars. I think his lines on Sumner's blunt rhetoric came from Osofsky (who is quoted in our article) -- Osofsky is a serious scholar with a much more complex analysis. Or maybe he got it from David Donald (who we use a lot)-- or maybe.... indeed who known--where he got the idea or what evidence he had for it. Baker's statement "what had begun as a debate over the basic humanity of African-Americans ended with whites on both sides questioning the humanity of each other." is false--the issue did not begin with "a debate over the basic humanity of African-Americans" and did not end "with whites on both sides questioning the humanity of each other." Baker made that all up as he tries to rewrite the cause of the civil war as rhetorical bad manners. Rjensen (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Will someone provide a link to the Baker article? BusterD (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's at Baker's website at online Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. And actually on AH here: http://www.americanheritage.com/content/capitol-punishment?page=show I see no reason why only one source can be used, especially when there's a disagreement. It's a fine point, and the 1973 work requires library access to jstor. BusterD (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker source cont.

The source for the Baker article is here. Capitol Punishment. Baker did not specifically say the Civil War was caused by the debate over the Humanity of African Americans. However, slavers believed Africans were "Children of Ham" and cursed. According to the KJV Bible, Noah cursed one of Ham's children, Canaan, not Cush or Put. Canaan, however, settled in Palestine, not Africa. That is another subject. Africans humanity debate was significant, particularly Jefferson who viewed Africans as inferior to whites. The belief in African inferiority was the reason they were enslaved. Jefferson's biographer, Merrill D. Peterson, did not use footnotes, and his work is a valid source on Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson and the new nation: a biography. As far as Wikipedia rules goes an editor pointed out:

"Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. ...

American Heritage is a magazine and a mainstream publication. Has not been sourced since 1995 by Project MUSE is a straw argument. As a magazine the source does not have to be pier reviewed, according to Wikipedia rules. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker main point in his article is the fringe view that the war was caused by escalating hostile rhetoric. The rhetorical wars did not involve a debate on the humanity of slaves, and did not escalate into a debate on the humanity of the whites on the other side. Baker does not publish in mainstream history publications, and his work is never cited by historians. That makes him a poor source. Rjensen (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is Baker's words:

"Indeed, the whole decades-long national debate over slavery can be seen as one of steadily escalating insults, each one building upon the last until what had begun as a debate over the basic humanity of African-Americans ended with whites on both sides questioning the humanity of each other . It was this development, as much as anything, that would make the Civil War inevitable."

This statement does not directly state "the Civil War was caused by the escalating hostile rhetoric". Sumner was severely beaten because of his rhetoric by Preston Brooks. I believe what Baker is saying is that national debate or politics on slavery failed to stop the Civil War. And yet, the sentence does not directly state that either. If a consensus of Wikipedia editors state Baker is fringe, I have no objection not to use him as a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have had manhy useful discussions with Cmguy777 but this time I have to disagree. When Baker says "It was this development, as much as anything, that would make the Civil War inevitable." I believe he is saying the rhetorical escalation CAUSED the war. That is an echo of the old 1930s theory--now fringe--that blundering politicians caused the war (as opposed to real issues like slavery which historians now say caused the war). Rjensen (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on a lifelong reading of sources, I'd say historians agree unresolved frustration caused the war, but that abbreviation would ignore the underlying causes and the intensity of the frustration. Certainly in the history classes I took before I was an adult, the caning incident was heavily stressed as symbolic of the legislative frustration at a personal level. It got so bad that one politician famously hit another. What happened afterwards to each of the "combatants" symbolized the coming conflict. All this is my opinion, but the ubiquitous use of the Magee cartoon in juvenile and high school general history texts always seemed to give me the impression the southern gentility was "bad" and the poor defenseless Sumner was "good." Many southerners were tired and frustrated with abolitionists trying to impose morals on their culture by policy and rhetoric (coercion); Northerners were tired and frustrated with slaveholders and their representatives who'd gamed the debate for so long and who were unwilling to see any compromise short of divorce (preservation of union). Isn't it funny that "union" used to be the most admired word in the American lexicon north of the Mason-Dixon line? To my eyes, today the nation is facing a similar polarization based on frustration, if only slightly less intense (wage slavery). Sorry for discussing the subject, as opposed to the sources. BusterD (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen, I do not in any way subscribe or suggest that "blundering" politicians caused the American Civil War. I was interpreting Baker's statement that politicians or the political processes of debate was unable to prevent the War. The War was undoubtedly caused over the slavery issue. If consensus among Wikipedia editors is that Baker is fringe, I do not have an issue with that. Since there is no consensus, I do not object to Baker being taken out of the article as a source. I believe American Heritage has good article on History. My solution was to put any author with "questionable" peer review approval into the discussion page to find out if the author source can be used in the article. Is this satifactory? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate that Rjensen would like to maintain high quality references for this article, I take note that the article is currently and rightfully assessed as a C-class and is missing quite a number of citations. In some cases, there are direct quotes which are lacking references. Rather than persist in the expenditure of energies present in this discussion, I would suggest a compromise that Baker be accepted as a reference for the time being and be revisited later when the article has achieved the status for which Rjensen's arguments for article quality would be more relevant. This would allow time, following Cmguy's suggestion, that another reference may be found to possibly replace it.

Could we agree to this compromise and those who have the sources spend the efforts on improving the article?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I would not use the source on the causes of the American Civil War. However, I believe Baker is a good source on the description of when Charles Sumner got beaten up by Preston Brooks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I'm going to take Dr. Jensen's advice and read the Osofsky source on Monday while I'm at NYPL on jstor. If it's not too long, I'll share what I find with the group. The title sounds interesting. BusterD (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oates source

I found an article by Stephen B. Oates on American Heritage Magazine. The article has information on Charles Sumner and I believe would add value to the article. Here is the link: The Slaves Freed. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

no problem. Oates is an established scholar whose books get vetted and reviewed by other scholars. Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Oates uses the term "advanced" Republicans rather then "radical". Oates presents Sumner as impatient for slave emancipation and constantly at Lincoln's side. At least that is what I got out of the article. Lincoln and Sumner did not always get along until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Oates also brings up an uncomfortable subject that there was corruption, or a Railroad deal made, to get the 13th Amendment passed through Congress a second time. In the article Sumner is linked with Wade Davis and Zachariah Chandler. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This article could really enhance the "Civil War" section. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

yes Oates writes well. but don't use "advanced Republican" -- no historian favored the term and Oates went back to "Radical Republican in his later writings (eg his Clara Barton). Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That is fine. Oates viewed the "Radicals" as being a progressive faction of the Republican Party. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Oates and additional Coben source edits add to the article. Thanks Rjensen. Oates himself is a subject of controversy, having been accused of plagerism on his biography of Abraham Lincoln. Stephen B. Oates Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

American Heritage Magazine sources

I have found what I believe to be relevant American Heritage Magazine articles for the Charles Sumner article. Any objections?

• When Congress Tried To Rule Milton Lomask (December 1959)

• The New View Of Reconstruction Eric Foner (October/November 1983)

• Investigation-1862 T. Harry Williams (December 1954)

No objections--you found articles back in the days when it was a good magazine--when it sponsored good books and an excellent dictionary. It hand been founded by Allan Nevins, one of the great historians of the 1950s. something went wrong in the late 20th century; it lost most of its serious subscribers and turned into a supermarket glossy as they hired an amateur historian who had a track record for publishing light-weight magazines. They still publish occasional essays by good historians along with a lot of filler. Rjensen (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree Rjensen. That is why I believe the magazine can be a good source. I would call some of these article a "gold mine" of information. I apoligize for not putting in the Baker source first before discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikisources

I suggest moving Wikisource links in the article to the "See also" section. I believe the links compete with the photos and unbalance the general layout of the article. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Segmented Civil War section

Any objection to segmenting the Civil War section? The reader would be able to use the menu to jump to different subject matters in the Civil War section. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Rearrange photos

I believe the article photos can be rearranged. Do the double photos and captions need to be separate photos and captions photos? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Civil rights section

I have been attempting to get the narration in chronological order. The Civil rights section contains information from various dates. I suggest moving information in this section to any corresponding sections in similar time frames. Information pertinent to his Senatorial career can left in the Senatorial career section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Marriage section

I put his marriage under Sumner's Senatorial career section since he was married while he was Senator. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I recommend a separate section. The public & private roles did not overlap. Rjensen (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I seperated the Marriage section, however I am concerned where to put the section in the article. If Final years was a seperate section I could place the Marriage section above that section. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple photos

I recommend splitting up the multiple photos making them individual photos. I believe the Multiple photos look cumbersome the way the article is currently structured. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved multiple images to talk page from article.Cmguy777 (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sen. Sumner and friend Longfellow, 1863

Senator Charles Sumner, 1875, William Morris Hunt

Statue by Anne Whitney in Harvard Square

Statue in the Public Garden, Boston

Improvements to article

I have made improvements to the article. Are there any suggestions as to make the article better or any subjects that need to be discussed pertaining to the article? I believe more needs to be done on the Dominican Republic (Santo Domingo) treaty and the Sumner's controversial relationship with President Grant and Secretary Fish. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Another topic that the article could mention is the Alaska annexation treaty with Russia. Sumner's speech in the Senate convinced senators to annex Alaska. Also, covering Johnson's impeachment could expand on how much Sen. Sumner was involved. Sumner's relationship with Lincoln could be mentioned. After Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Sumner and Lincoln apparently did not get along very well. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Donald source

Would it be appropriate to put in the CS article that David Donald was a southerner raised in segregated Mississippi? Mississippi was occupied by the U.S. military after the American Civil War. Could Donald have bias against Sen. Sumner who was responsible for implementing this policy? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

no it certainly would not be appropriate. Donald was one of the great historians of the day (and he wrote all his books at Illinois, Hopkins, Columbia and Harvard). Scholars have published hundreds of reviews of his books--I cannot recall an instance of his being called "prosouthern." Ashworth (Slavery, capitalism, and politics 1995 p 195), for example, finds that "A good example of a historian who has found it difficult to take the proslavery argument seriously is David Donald. See Donald, “The Proslavery Argument Reconsidered,” Iournal of Southern History, 37 (1961), pp. 3-18." Rjensen (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, Rjensen. I agree that Donald is not a pro-slavery. It would be good to look up the article. My premise was that Donald was antagonistic towards Sumner. Maybe Donald is neutral. I never grew up in the deep South states and only know what segregation was through books, education, and video media. Was Donald "anti-Sumner" in his biography of Sumner? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Donald thinks Sumner was a really nasty guy. Note that Sumner could not get along with Grant either--and in 1872 Sumner made common cause with the white South by supporting Greeley. Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion Sen. Sumner was a bully, a political boss, and the quasi-Prime Minister of America. I put in the information on Brig. Gen. Stone to demonstrate Sumner's "nastiness". I can't find any source that Donald was in anyway racist or anti-Sumner. Is the common Southern belief that Sumner was a nasty guy or did Donald arrive at this conclusion through neutral research, or both? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Southern white hatred focused on Thaddeus Stevens (the villain in "Birth of a Nation" (1915))Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. That answers my question. Apparently Donald's assessment of Sumner is accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sumner and 1861 Emancipation Speech

In 1861 Sumner gave emancipation as the reason for the American Civil War in a speech in Massachusetts, rather then Lincoln's moderate plan to save the Union. I believe this is important enough for the article. Sumner's speech caused great controversy among conservative northerners. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Reconstruction and Civil Rights

I suggest combining the Reconstruction and Civil Rights sections since the two subjects are related.Cmguy777 (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert L. Reynolds source

Any objection to Robert L. Reynolds (1960) source on American Heritage? Here is article link: Seward’s Wise Folly Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Supported Alaska purchase and treaty

I believe that putting in that Sumner supported and spoke for the Alaska treaty in the Senate is important. Interestingly, Sumner apparently was not concerned over the plight of Alaska natives, who had no input into the treaty with Russia and the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sumners

is there any relation to this sumner and gov. increase sumner or his son william h, he of "tunnel" fame? all three are harvard grads and prominent boston figures within 50 or so years of each other. i would hazard a guess that there's a "cousin" or "uncle" involved here, but i can't google it up.

if not, some sort of "no relaton to..." should be added in somewhere. we're talking about a governor and senator in the same state after all. 216.50.220.13 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Republican versus Republican

I have read there were just minor differences between the two factions. Both Liberal Republicans and Republicans wanted amnesty to confederates. Both parties were for the equality of race. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources: American state papers bearing on Sunday legislation and Speech of Senator John Sherman Cmguy777 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Liberal Republicans wanted local and state governments to protect voting rights. The Republicans wanted Federal and States to protect voting rights. I believe this needs to be added to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Democrats were melded into the Liberal Republican Party. The Democratic and Liberal Republican were the same party in essence. Here are the two platforms. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Democratic Party Platform of 1872
• Republican Party Platform of 1872

Alaskan Creoles and citizenship

Is there a source that states whether Alaskan Creoles (Russian-Indian) were considered Russian, therefore, citizens of the U.S. upon ratification of the 1867? The 1867 treaty does not mention Creoles or any other Indian tribes. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Pimp" in Sumner's speech

RJensen, Please cite exactly where Sumner said slaveowners or Butler "controlled a harlot." Here is the cite for his allusion to Cervantes. Please revert your restoration of the erroneous word, pimp. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Cervantes business is irrelevant. What is key is the sexual imagery of a prostitute/harlot. The quote from his speech is: "The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and 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 the harlot, slavery. For her his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this senator." Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

While I defer to Dr. Jensen's scholarship, use of the idiom pimp is inflammatory and uncited. Use of the word without citation constitutes original synthesis, IMHO. Can the good doctor produce reliable sources which short-stroke Sumner's pointed metaphor in the same way his edit summary does (keeper of a harlot (prostitute) = pimp)? BTW, Sumner says the senator's "mistress" is a harlot, not the senator's "employee". Like other users, I object to the use of the word pimp in this context. BusterD (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

this is perhaps the most inflamatory and sexually loaded major speech in American history (as Hoffer points out). Pimp is the standard 2012 term--Sumner did not use it (the usual word for prostitute was "harlot" in those days). BusterD has not explained his problem with "pimp" -- does he have a problem with "prostitute"?? Rjensen (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I stated my objection plainly. Sumner never said or implied "pimp." He implied the senator "patronized a harlot" (the definition of john), not "was an agent of the harlot" (the definition of pimp). My point is that a source needs be applied to the word if the word is used, otherwise this is (as I clearly stated) WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm not the only user objecting to the usage. BusterD (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree the Cervantes business is irrelevant in the article, and intimated so in my edit summary. It is supremely pertinent here on the talk page, though. In no sense whatsoever does Sumner suggest slaveowners are pimps. Slavery, not slaves, is the harlot. It is the institution, not the individuals, that Sumner says Butler and Douglas have taken as their mistress in the same sense Don Quixote took Dulcinea as his romantic ideal. By this, he refers to great orations lauding the benefits and beauties of slavery. Here is a fuller quote:

[Butler and Douglas], though unlike as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, yet, like this couple, sally forth together in the same adventure. I regret much to miss the elder Senator from his seat; but the cause, against which he has run a tilt, with such activity of animosity, demands that the opportunity or exposing him should not be lost, and it is for the cause that I speak. The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and 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 the harlot, slavery. For her his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote, in behalf of his wench, Dulcinea del Toboso, is all surpassed.

And here's the definition of a pimp: One who finds customers for a prostitute; a procurer. Sumner in no way suggests southern gentlemen were trying to find customers for slavery. He suggests they are enamored of slavery even though slavery is ever so ugly and a harlot to boot. Please revert. Yopienso (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Butler is finding customers for slavery in Kansas--that's the metaphor Sumner is using. Historians use the term in exactly this regard: proof: 1) "is forced upon the virgin Kansas by the depraved pimp, Senator Butler" in Ed Folsom, Walt Whitman (1994) p 73; 2) "Senator Charles Sumner called the elderly and ailing Senator Andrew Pickens Butler of Edgefield a pimp who attempted to introduce the whore, slavery, into Kansas." in Judith N. McArthur, et al. "A Gentleman and an Officer" (1996) p 40. Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. If that's what Sumner meant, he mixed his metaphors. Wikipedia relies on secondary, not primary, sources, however, so I must accept historians' interpretations. Yopienso (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the citation to the article, making at the same time an edit I thought necessary for clarity. What do you think? Yopienso (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

very good--thanks! Rjensen (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the references and your patience. :-) Yopienso (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I figured if there was such a reference, Rjensen would know about it. Thanks for the sources and appropriate citation. Sorry if I sounded contentious. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Revelations 17: 5 states " And upon her forehead was a name written MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. " Babylon is a "whore". (Rev. 17:16) Babylon represented a commercial empire "the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies" (Rev. 18: 7). Did Sumner have any Biblical connotations in his insult to Butler? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

that's an interesting idea--I have not read it before. Rjensen (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure of Sumner's religious training, however, coming from "Puritan" Massachusetts he must have heard of or read Revelations in the Bible. His Kansas speech and Revelations have similar overtones. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with Lincoln

Did Sumner turn against Abraham Lincoln in 1864 having supported another Presidential candidate? I have read that Lincoln eventually barred Sumner from visiting the White House. Is this worth being put in the article if their is any truth to the matter? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Virginius Affair

I believe mentioning the Virginius Affair in 1873 would be good for the article. Although he was no longer Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the press had desired to know his view on the Virginius Affair. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

African American literacy and suffrage

Sumner was for African American literacy as a condition for suffrage in 1866. Did he ever change these views? Was Sumner for the Fifteenth Amendment that did not have any conditions for suffrage? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Switching parties

The article says that he joined the senate as a Democrat, but then later refers to him as a Republican. When did he switch parties? It seems like that should be in the article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A reference named "McCullough" is cited as a source numerous times.

Unfortunately, it ( is it a book? an article?) is never properly identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.24.186 (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Separate article on caning

I'd like to put the information regarding Brooks's beating of Sumner into a separate article, considering how important and symbolic an event it was, and that the vast majority of the information is repeated in separate articles: Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks, and Bleeding Kansas.

I have begun this "Main Article" by copypasting to Caning of Charles Sumner, and this note has been copied to the relevant Talk pages for discussion here (Talk:Charles Sumner#Separate article on caning). Let me know what you think, and let's try to pin down title, article scope, and summary scope in the next 2 weeks. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"In presequas"

what the heck does THAT mean? "after you"?

every last googlit on the matter points back here!

I did some checking. After piecing some bits and parts together and splitting some up in Google translate, it seems to me that it's a Latin variant of the expression "after you" or "I will follow you." The key part was "sequa" or "sequas" which means "following" or "followed by."

Billmckern (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Sumner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325182717/http://www.drbilllong.com:80/LegalEssays/Sumner.html to http://www.drbilllong.com/LegalEssays/Sumner.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211030552/http://www.co.sumner.ks.us:80/MV2Base.asp?VarCN=82 to http://www.co.sumner.ks.us/MV2Base.asp?VarCN=82

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Sumner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.drbilllong.com/LegalEssays/Sumner.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125131155/http://www.ushistory.org/us/31e.asp to http://www.ushistory.org/us/31e.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.co.sumner.ks.us/MV2Base.asp?VarCN=82

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)