The Ideology of Manhood

During the mid-nineteenth century, defining manhood proved to be complicated. But as James Corbett David wrote in The Politics of Emasculation: The Caning of Charles Sumner and Elite Ideologies of Manhood in the Mid-Nineteenth-Century United States the varying definitions were not strictly based on whether you lived in the North or South. "What it meant to be manly or honourable was contested within as well as across sectional lines." (page 325) There are two main conflicts of what defined one's manhood according to David, passion versus self control. 

Preston Brooks and Charles Sumner's ideology of manhood represented each conflict. Charles Sumner was an advocate of the abolition of slavery. Though he was a passionate with his words, he believed in compromise over confrontation. His document, The Crime Against Kansas asked the president to immediately ban slavery in the newly recognized state. Prior to his speech, The Kansas-Nebraska Act was put into effect allowing each state to lawfully decide if slavery would be legal. People who were against slavery flooded to the state in hopes for slavery to be banned, however, those who were pro-slavery came as well and by means of fraud and imitation were able to successfully make Kansas a slave state. This enraged Sumner and he immediately brought it to the attention of the President and Congress. In The Crime Against Kansas, Sumner describes the atrocities that occurred. "Kansas was cast as the virtuous woman, the slave power entered as the demonic rapist and chattel slavery was the ‘hideous offspring’ of their despicable union. By presenting the crime against Kansas as the rape of an innocent woman, Sumner urged his male listeners and readers to assume the role of the hero in a chivalric drama." (page 326) You can read the entire document here. Do you think referring to Kansas as a women and slavery as a rapist was an effective way for Sumner to get his point across?

 In his document, Sumner also targeted South Carolina and specifically Andrew Butler who was absent during the time. Preston Brooks, his distant cousin was in attendance though however and immediately opposed Sumner's accusations towards his cousin and state. Brooks thought that Sumner was attacking the state's leaders and their manhood. "By publicly mocking Butler’s oral faculty, then, Sumner was attacking his identity as a gentleman." (page 328) Brooks took action days later and publicly caned Sumner in front of their peers for bringing such disgrace to the identity of a man. What I found fascinating while reading this was that Brooks walked into the hall all intentions of hurting Sumner in public, yet he did not do it right away since there was a women in the room. "An hour or so later, when the hall was finally clear of women, Brooks approached Sumner and commenced his infamous assault." (page 328) 

As David points out, though the United States was separated with their views of slavery by the North and South, the idea of what is manliness was different throughout the whole nation. Sumner and Brooks' ideology of manhood are very different according to David's document. Sumner practices self-control yet is willing to publicly address his peers using what would be taboo references to women. Whereas Brooks shows violent passion when his manhood is threatened yet won't hit someone in the presence of a woman. The ideology of manhood could be defined many ways, but I think it is clear that questioning it proved most difficult during this time.