Preston Brooks: The Big Stick Diplomacy

Not all presidents were considered peace-loving, and sometimes their approaches like the “Big Stick Diplomacy” produced effective results. However, Preston Smith Brooks, although never a president, found his own way to implement his version of the big stick diplomacy. Arguments should be won with words and not violence, but some see that beating a message into somebody as the most effective method. Although the unbelievable situation appears mildly amusing to us now, the attack on Charles Sumner was more indicative of a vital period in history than other events. Thus, Preston Brooks and his effect on the time should be properly explored and examined. After all, there was much more to the man than his rise to infamy throughout history.
Preston Brooks’s presence within American history violently stands out but is quite ephemeral. His thoughts on the happenings of the time period provide insight into the tensions of slavery, yet his only known act through the ages is his beating of Charles Sumner and not the direct consequences of it. However justified or not he was in performing this violent act, Brooks deserves more historical attention. Despite having an aggressive attitude, Preston Brooks was deemed as a well-educated man.
Brooks was born in South Carolina in 1819 and went to the South Carolina College in 1839, which is known as the University of South Carolina today. Despite his excellent grades, he faced many difficulties at school, from terrible attendance to his infamous duels. Eventually, he was expelled and never graduated from college (Puleo). He had attended law school and became involved with the Mexican War. In fact, he served as a captain in the Palmetto Regiment, establishing his role within United States history briefly (Gienapp). In 1853, he was elected as a representative in the House of Representatives. Less known was his brother, John Hampden Brooks, who entirely supported Preston Brooks’s decision in beating Charles Sumner. Later, through letters, John expressed his glee and his wholehearted support for his brother. Yet, in reality, the incident faced much more controversy nationwide. On May 22, 1856, Brooks briskly strode into the Senate chamber and began to beat Senator Charles Sumner violently with his cane (“Commentary on 1856”). As a Democrat, his views were mainly for slavery, typical of the time. To his credit, Brooks was known as a very moderate Democrat, one willing to compromise often with the other side and stressed the need for cooperation. Newspapers had attributed characteristics like being “considerate and kind” to Brooks’s character (Puleo). But
the cause went deeper than just political preference. It was Sumner’s words more than his actions that stimulated such a brutal response from Brooks. Apparently, Sumner had verbally attacked Brooks’s uncle by accusing him of enveloping slavery like “a mistress”, to which Brooks was quite dismayed to hear (Carbone). Although it was not an entirely justifiable excuse, it satisfied many supporters from the South who sent canes to Brooks since his was broken during the many times he struck Sumner.
However, this event proved to have a much larger impact on the turn of history than expected. This act of violence in a place of legal dealings made the cutting divide between the North and the South distinctively clear on the slavery issue, launching the United States into the Civil War. This rallied nearly all of the Southerners behind Brooks, while simultaneously, others saw Sumner as a victim and a hero for standing up against slavery. Although some Southerners disapproved of Brooks’s actions and character, they were a minority, generally overwhelmed by the eager anti-abolitionist sentiment engrained in the Deep South. Thus, it was mainly the Northerners who took great offense to the roaring approval from the Southerners, marking a deepening divide between the two areas. The rise of several public gatherings to protest the caning incident in the North starkly contrasted with the Southern newspapers continual praise for Brooks.
Most have seen an end to Preston Brooks, a fitting one for a figure who is remembered as an insinuator of the Civil War. In 1857, Brooks died painfully due to croup, lost in the ends of time, without many to remember his death or how he died, merely that he was outlived by Charles Sumner (Pierson). Evidently, the start of the Civil War cannot be pinned onto any one element; Brooks’s actions were merely another factor leading up to the building tensions. Yet, this conflict was arguably the turning point that materialized the tensions into physical violence, forewarning the nation for what was to come.