In the Shadow of Freedom: The Politics of Slavery in the National Capital

Christian Statesmanship, Codes of Honor, and Congressional Violence

36 James B. Stewart Christian Statesmanship, Codes of Honor, and Congressional Violence The Antislavery Travails and Triumphs of Joshua Giddings Think about฀“proslavery฀violence฀in฀Congress”฀and฀the฀name฀that฀ springs฀to฀mind฀is฀Charles฀Sumner.฀As฀we฀all฀know,฀this฀Massachusetts฀ legislator฀was฀driven฀to฀the฀Senate฀floor฀in฀1857, blood-soaked and unconscious ฀while฀enduring฀a฀vicious฀beating฀by฀South฀Carolina’s฀Preston฀Brooks.฀ Two days before, the abolitionist-minded Sumner had concluded a lurid speech฀assailing฀slaveholders฀for฀practicing฀immoral฀perversions.฀Brooks฀responded ฀to฀what฀he฀considered฀Sumner’s฀personal฀“insults,”฀first฀by฀gathering ฀support฀from฀close฀congressional฀friends฀and฀then฀by฀thrashing฀Sumner฀ senseless฀with฀a฀lethally฀heavy฀cane.฀An฀explosion฀of฀personal฀vengeance฀had฀ suddenly฀subverted฀the฀legislative฀deliberations฀so฀vital฀to฀sustaining฀a฀democracy .฀The฀nation฀had฀taken฀a฀sudden,฀lurching฀step฀toward฀Civil฀War. ฀ That’s฀the฀familiar฀way฀to฀tell฀the฀story฀of฀congressional฀violence—as฀a฀ fast,฀brutal฀shift฀in฀Washington฀politics฀from฀peaceful฀disputation฀to฀naked฀ aggression.฀Today,฀however,฀I฀want฀to฀recount฀this฀story฀differently.฀In฀this฀ telling,฀the฀caning฀of฀Sumner฀represented฀not฀a฀sudden฀rupture฀in฀1857. Instead , it represents the most extreme enactment of rituals of violence that first฀began฀in฀Congress฀in฀the฀late฀1830s฀and฀that฀continued฀right฀up฀to฀the฀ Civil War. ฀ Some฀of฀the฀motives฀for฀this฀dangerous฀behavior฀were฀rooted฀in฀Congress ’s฀immediate฀environment,฀Washington,฀D.C.,฀a฀city฀alive฀with฀enslaved฀ workers,฀slavedealers,฀antislavery฀insurgents,฀and฀deeply฀cliquish,฀highly฀comReprinted in revised form with permission from Antislavery Violence: Sectional, Racial and Cultural Conflicts in Antebellum America (Knoxville, 1999), pp. 167–92. Christian Statesmanship, Codes of Honor, and Congressional Violence 37 petitive฀politicians.฀Other฀motivations,฀closely฀related,฀involved฀congressmen’s฀ conflicting฀codes฀of฀ethics฀and฀behavior,฀values฀that฀pitted฀slaveholding฀men฀ of฀“honor”฀against฀yankee฀exponents฀of฀Christian฀“conscience.”฀The฀catalyst that transformed these volatile elements into an explosive mixture was the฀behavior฀of฀a฀very฀small฀minority฀of฀northern฀congressmen.฀These฀were฀ politicians who understood themselves as Christian statesmen, men whose deepest฀spiritual฀insights฀compelled฀them฀to฀face฀their฀slaveholding฀colleagues฀ in฀Congress฀and฀vocally฀condemn฀the฀institution฀of฀slavery. ฀ The฀best฀known฀of฀these,฀of฀course,฀was฀tenacious฀John฀Quincy฀Adams,฀ the฀ex-president฀who฀created฀extraordinary฀legislative฀conflict฀by฀insisting฀ that the House of Representatives debate petitions from the abolitionists. The฀most฀provocative฀and฀disruptive฀“Christian฀statesman”฀of฀all,฀however,฀ was฀not฀Adams.฀Instead,฀it฀was฀Ohio’s฀Joshua฀Reed฀giddings,฀representative฀ from฀Ohio’s฀Western฀Reserve,฀the฀Midwest’s฀most฀deeply฀“abolitionized”฀ district—the฀congressman฀who,฀before฀the฀Civil฀War,฀served฀more฀consecutive ฀terms฀than฀any฀other฀member฀of฀the฀House.฀giddings’s฀political฀longevity,฀ his฀deep฀evangelical฀piety,฀and฀his฀ceaseless฀congressional฀attacks฀on฀slavery฀ make฀him฀an฀exceptional฀figure.฀His฀career฀also฀illuminates฀how฀Christian฀ statesmanship,฀Washington,฀D.C.’s,฀slaveholding฀environment฀and฀codes฀of฀ congressional฀honor฀combined฀to฀foster฀violence฀in฀Washington฀politics฀during ฀the฀pre–Civil฀War฀era. ฀ To฀historians฀of฀the฀American฀conflict฀over฀slavery฀giddings฀is฀a฀familiar฀ figure.฀In฀1842฀the฀House฀of฀Representatives฀censured฀him฀by฀a฀huge฀majority฀ for฀presenting฀resolutions฀that฀defended฀the฀right฀of฀slaves฀on฀ships฀in฀international ฀waters฀to฀rise฀in฀bloody฀insurrection.฀giddings฀then฀resigned฀his฀seat฀ and฀appealed฀to฀his฀constituents.฀They฀reelected฀him฀by฀a฀crushing฀majority฀ and฀gave฀him฀an฀explicit฀mandate฀to฀offer฀his฀resolutions฀again.฀This฀he฀did฀ successfully,฀in฀defiance฀of฀House฀rules,฀his฀Whig฀party’s฀wishes,฀and฀slaveholders ’฀demands.฀His฀actions฀opened฀a฀new฀phase฀in฀the฀sectional฀conflict฀in฀ which฀it฀was฀no฀longer฀possible฀for฀House฀rules฀to฀stifle฀attacks฀on฀slavery.1 1 For฀standard฀treatments฀of฀the฀“gag฀rule”฀controversy฀and฀for฀giddings’s฀role฀in฀it,฀see฀ James Brewer Stewart, Joshua R. Giddings and the Tactics of Radical Politics (Cleveland, 1970); Leonard R. Richards, The Life and Times of Congressman John Quincy Adams฀(New฀york,฀1986); george฀R.฀Rable,฀“Slavery,฀Politics฀and฀the฀South:฀The฀gag฀Rule฀as฀a฀Case฀Study,”฀Capitol Studies 3 (1975):69–87;฀James฀M.฀McPherson,฀“The฀Fight฀against฀the฀gag฀Rule:฀Joshua฀ Leavitt฀and฀Antislavery฀Insurgency฀in฀the฀Whig฀Party,฀1839–1842,”฀Journal of Negro History 48 (1963):177–95; William Lee Miller, Arguing about Slavery: The Great Battle in the United States Congress ฀(New฀york,฀1996);฀and฀Michael฀Kent฀Curtis,฀“The฀Curious฀History฀of฀Attempts฀to฀Suppress ฀Antislavery฀Speech,฀Press฀and฀Petition฀in฀1835–37,”฀Northwestern...