Brooks' violence was in retaliation for an invective-laden speech given by Sumner two days earlier in which he fiercely criticized slaveholders, including pro-slavery South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, a relative of Brooks. The event contributed significantly to the country's polarization over the issue of slavery. It is considered symbolic of the "breakdown of reasoned discourse"[2] and willingness to resort to violence that led to the American Civil War.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833600&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310744#49663558)

--------------------

Not in any common lust for power did this uncommon tragedy have its origin. It is the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of slavery; and it may be clearly traced to a depraved desire for a new Slave State, hideous offspring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of slavery in the National Government.[3]

--------------------

Sumner's rhetoric was largely directed at the authors of the Act, Senators Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Regarding Butler, Sumner said:

--------------------

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.[4]

--------------------

Sumner also mocked Butler's speaking ability, which had been impeded by a recent stroke:[5]

--------------------

[He] touches nothing which he does not disfigure with error, sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact. He cannot open his mouth, but out there flies a blunder.[6]

--------------------

Sumner had been ridiculed and insulted by both Douglas and Butler for his opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, with Butler crudely race-baiting Sumner by making sexual allusions to black women, like many slaveholders who accused abolitionists of promoting interracial marriage.[7]

Sumner's reference to slavery as Butler's "mistress" sought to highlight the sexual depravity of the institution — and possibly of Butler himself. An interview with a man who had been enslaved by Butler, uncovered decades later by the historian Zaakir Tameez, suggests Butler fathered two children with a mistress, likely a slave.[8]

Sexually charged accusations had often been part of the abolitionist lexicon. Williamjames Hoffer states that "It is also important to note the sexual imagery that recurred throughout [Sumner's] oration, which was neither accidental nor without precedent. Abolitionists routinely accused slaveholders of maintaining slavery so that they could engage in forcible sexual relations with their slaves."[9]

Representative Preston Brooks, Butler's first cousin once removed,[12][13] was infuriated. He later said that he intended to challenge Sumner to a duel, and consulted fellow South Carolina Representative Laurence M. Keitt on dueling etiquette. Keitt told him that dueling was for gentlemen of equal social standing, and that Sumner was no better than a drunkard, because of the supposedly coarse language he had used during his speech. Brooks said that he concluded that, since Sumner was no gentleman, he did not merit honorable treatment; to Keitt and Brooks, it was more appropriate to humiliate Sumner by beating him with a cane in a public setting.

Two days later, on the afternoon of May 22, 1856, Brooks entered the Senate chamber with Keitt and another ally, Representative Henry A. Edmundson of Virginia. They waited for the galleries to clear, being particularly concerned that there be no ladies present to witness what Brooks intended to do.[15] He confronted Sumner as he sat writing at his desk in the almost empty chamber. "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine", Brooks calmly announced in a low voice. As Sumner began to stand up, Brooks beat Sumner severely on the head before he could reach his feet, using a thick gutta-percha cane with a gold head. The force of the blows so shocked Sumner that he lost his sight immediately. "I no longer saw my assailant, nor any other person or object in the room. What I did afterwards was done almost unconsciously, acting under the instincts of self-defense", he recalled later.[16]

Sumner was knocked down and trapped under the heavy desk that was bolted to the floor. His chair, which was pulled up to his desk, moved back and forth on a track; Sumner either could not or did not think to slide his chair back to escape, so it pinned him under his desk. Brooks continued to strike Sumner until Sumner rose to his feet and ripped the desk from the floor in an effort to get away from Brooks.[17] By this time, Sumner was blinded by his own blood. He staggered up the aisle and, arms outstretched, vainly attempted to defend himself, but that made him an even larger and easier target for Brooks, who continued to beat him across the head, face, and shoulders "to the full extent of [my] power". Brooks did not stop when his cane snapped; he continued thrashing Sumner with the piece that held the gold head. Sumner stumbled and reeled convulsively, "Oh Lord," he gasped, "Oh! Oh!" Near the end of the attack, Sumner collapsed unconscious, although shortly before he succumbed, he "bellowed like a calf" according to Brooks. Brooks grabbed the falling Sumner, held him up by the lapel with one hand, and continued to lash out at him with the cane in the other.[18][19] Several other Senators and Representatives attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Edmundson, who yelled at the spectators to leave Brooks and Sumner alone,[20] and Keitt, who brandished his own cane and a pistol, and shouted, "Let them be!" and "Let them alone, God damn you, let them alone!"[21][22][23]

Senator John J. Crittenden attempted to intervene, and pleaded with Brooks not to kill Sumner. Senator Robert Toombs then interceded for Crittenden, telling Keitt not to attack someone who was not a party to the dispute, though Toombs also indicated later that he had no issue with Brooks beating Sumner, and in fact approved of it.[24]

Representatives Ambrose S. Murray and Edwin B. Morgan were finally able to intervene and restrain Brooks, at which point he quietly left the chamber.[25] Murray obtained the aid of a Senate page and the Sergeant at Arms, Dunning R. McNair.[26] As Sumner regained consciousness they were able to assist him to walk to a cloakroom.[27] Sumner received first aid and medical attention, including several stitches.[28] With the aid of Nathaniel P. Banks—the Speaker of the House—and Senator Henry Wilson, Sumner was able to travel by carriage to his lodgings, where he received further medical treatment.[29] Brooks also required medical attention before leaving the Capitol; he had hit himself above his right eye with one of his backswings.[30]

The cane Brooks used was broken into several pieces, which he left on the blood-soaked floor of the Senate chamber. Some, including the cane's gold head, were recovered by Edmundson, who gave the portion with the head to Adam John Glossbrenner, the House Sergeant at Arms.[31][32] This portion of the cane eventually ended up at the Old State House Museum in Boston; it was worked to smooth the edges and finish, and then put on display.[33] Southern lawmakers made rings out of the other pieces Edmundson recovered from the Senate floor, which they wore on neck chains to show their solidarity with Brooks, who boasted "[The pieces of my cane] are begged for as sacred relics."[34]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833600&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310744#49663562)

Massachusetts Representative Anson Burlingame publicly humiliated Brooks by goading him into challenging Burlingame to a duel, only to set conditions designed to intimidate Brooks into backing down: As the challenged party, Burlingame, who was a crack shot, had the choice of weapons and dueling ground. He selected rifles on the Canada side of Niagara Falls, where U.S. anti-dueling laws would not apply. Brooks withdrew his challenge, claiming that he did not want to expose himself to the risk of violence by traveling through Northern states to get to Niagara Falls.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833600&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310744#49663628)

alpha

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833600&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310744#49663649)

The claim that most Turks "aren't even ethnic Turks" but "Greeks who converted" is a gross oversimplification. Turkish ancestry is a complex mix from Central Asian migrations, Anatolian natives, Byzantine influences (including Greeks), and more—shaped by centuries of empires, conquests, and cultural blending. Yeah, there's historical irony in Turkish-Greek tensions (Ottoman rule, population exchanges, etc.), but using it to fuel hate just shows a shallow understanding. It's like saying all Americans are just Europeans who crossed an ocean—true-ish, but misses the point entirely.

Normalizing stupidity? Pot, meet kettle. This post normalizes toxic, divisive crap that solves nothing and hurts everyone.

Calling for the "world to destroy these ppl after genociding Filipinos"? That's not edgy; it's deranged and dangerous. Genocide isn't a punchline or a solution—it's a horror that's scarred humanity repeatedly. Why throw Filipinos under the bus here? Feels like random escalation, maybe tied to some geopolitical grudge (e.g., South China Sea stuff), but it doesn't make the hate any less idiotic.

Overall, this screams "troll bait" or someone venting unchecked bias online. If it's real, the author needs a history book, a mirror, and maybe some therapy. The world has enough real problems without this kind of divisive nonsense fueling the fire.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833600&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310744#49663575)

sniffs the air dramatically...

bro that's not cum, that's disappointment with extra protein shake vibes

You good? Or is this your new mating call?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833600&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310744#49663608)