Name:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

In the Congressional Fight Over Slavery, Decorum Went Out of the Door

In the article ‘In the Congressional Fight Over Slavery, Decorum Went Out of the Door,’ Lorraine Boissoneault explains the consequences of senator Charles Sumner’s five-hour speech to the U.S. Senate. Sumner was a senator representing Massachusetts who was opposed to slavery in the south, and he rebuked it in his famous speech titled, ‘The Crime Against Kansas.’ Unfortunately, Sumner’s resolve to fight for the rights of the disenfranchised minority groups put him in collision with pro-slavery crusaders. Many of them considered him an enemy and threat to their survival; hence they went to extreme limits to try and stop him from advancing the ideas he advanced.

Sumner was an anti-slavery advocate, and he used his position as a senator to call out leaders who wanted to preserve the institution of slavery. As part of his efforts to counter the pro-slavery movement, he ridiculed and mocked leaders who were pro-slavery. One of the recipients of his mockery and ridicule was Senator Andrew Butler, who was a senator from South Caroline and a hardened pro-slavery advocate. Sumner referred to him with scorn saying, ‘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.

Senator Sumner’s anti-slavery stand made him very unpopular and an easy target for many who felt threatened by his absence. To explain how the Massachusetts senator was hated for his stand, the author gives instances where the hate translated into personal attacks and violence. The author explains how a South Carolina Congressman who was a cousin to Butler attacked Sumner with a cane while in the Old Senate Chamber. The author uses this evidence to prove that Sumner faced violence due to his abolitionist stand. The attack directed at Sumner was sending a message to him and the people who were advancing the rights to the disenfranchised groups at the time. The violence showed the extent to which pro-slavery politicians were willing to go to protect the institution of slavery, which was a controversial issue at the time.

The author uses Senator Sumner’s experiences to highlight the Congressional fight over slavery and how it led to the decline of decorum. Many Southerners considered Northers who were anti-slavery criminals and their enemies, and this found its way into the Senate and Congress. The decision to either abolish or maintain slavery was so controversial that it had divided Congressmen and Senators. The author explains how the caning incidence uplifted and portrayed Sumner as a hero among the Northerners for the abolition of slavery. The author further states that the incident sparked ‘indignation meetings’ in the North as abolitionists were outraged by the incident and wanted their feelings to be known. The meetings that preceded the incident played a vital role in galvanizing voters in the North. The author uses this to explain further that Sumner’s actions reflected the feelings of the majority in the North. Most of them felt disenfranchised and wanted to show their dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs at the time.

Political antagonism was common at the time, and issues like slavery were very contagious. People held strong views in support or opposition to slavery, and the article compares the situation at the time and how things stand today. Sumner and many other people who held the abolitionist ideology were fighting for republicanism and the rights of the minority. When referencing the incidence of Senator Elizabeth Warren, the author offers a comparison of the status quo. Although the incident of Senator Sumner happened a long time ago, it does not mean that things have changed so much since then. The author uses Warren and Sumner’s experiences to explain how people in power should use their positions to advance the rights of minorities. Even though it can be challenging and characterized by opposition, people should have a firm stand.

The thesis the author presents in this article is very vulnerable. The thesis presented in the article could be regarded as misinterpreted as the examples used to back it are prone to further interpretation. Slavery was still legal at the time; many people who supported the status quo considered themselves patriotic. It is also vulnerable in that people could argue that the happenings at the some were the necessary evil that the country had to experience to strengthen our democracy. Given that minority rights were not guaranteed at the time, democracy was largely majoritarian, and one could argue that this phenomenon was at play. By trying to upset the majority rule, Sumner had contradicted the basic tenets of democracy at the time hence why he had to be ‘punished.’

In conclusion, the article’s author suggests that history is repeating itself, and it seems we have not learned from it. The author uses past occurrences, especially what happened to Sumner, to conclude that everybody must be careful to prevent history from repeating itself. Every effort should be made to ensure the rift is managed, resulting in a catastrophic end.Work Cited

‘In the Congressional Fight Over Slavery, Decorum Went Out of the Door’ by Lorraine Boissoneault