Charles Sumner dies from Preston Brooks' caning attack

[shiftygiant]

Brooks won't get a standing ovation- in fact he'll becoming vilified for outright killing a man on the Senate Floor. Honor is Honor, but killing an unarmed man isn't, even to most Southern Senators at the time. He and Keitt will be held responsible for murder- Keitt might get off by pleading that he only wanted to see Sumner be beaten, but Brooks will be hung. Expect rioting in Northern and Border States.

 

[Unknown]

Today, if Brooks got "carried away" and killed Sumner, he might go to prison on manslaughter (or second-degree murder) charges but, in 1856, he either gets hanged or sent to prison for life; this probably ensures Fremont's election in 1856...

Keitt, OTOH, could just basically say "Look, I had no idea Brooks was going to kill Sumner; I just wanted to see him beaten up" and (probably) get off; I don't think he'll have very many friends in Congress.

The road to Civil War just got a whole lot worse...

 

[shiftygiant]

Today, if Brooks got "carried away" and killed Sumner, he might go to prison on manslaughter (or second-degree murder) charges but, in 1856, he either gets hanged or sent to prison for life; this probably ensures Fremont's election in 1856...

Keitt, OTOH, could just basically say "Look, I had no idea Brooks was going to kill Sumner; I just wanted to see him beaten up" and (probably) get off; I don't think he'll have very many friends in Congress.

The road to Civil War just got a whole lot worse...

He'll loose his seat an be tried for conspiracy, given how he was the one that told Brooks that beating Sumner was the best thing to do- like you said, he has a chance to get off Scott free, or he'll spend a few years in Prison.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Today, if Brooks got "carried away" and killed Sumner, he might go to prison on manslaughter (or second-degree murder) charges but, in 1856, he either gets hanged or sent to prison for life; this probably ensures Fremont's election in 1856...

Keitt, OTOH, could just basically say "Look, I had no idea Brooks was going to kill Sumner; I just wanted to see him beaten up" and (probably) get off; I don't think he'll have very many friends in Congress.

The road to Civil War just got a whole lot worse...

How would a Fremont Presidency go? Would the South seceed four years early?

 

[Mikestone8]

There is a real possibility that Brooks wouldn't just be arrested and charged with murder, he might get the worst possible charges thrown at him, and could even face the harshest punishment once convicted: death.

Of course, if the proceedings dragged out enough, they might be overtaken by events. Iirc Brooks died only seven months after the episode.

 

[Anaxagoras]

It's true that Brooks did not challenge Sumner to a duel because he was a dishonorable coward, yes. But there is another underlying reason. According to the code duello, you can only challenge a person to a duel if that person is your social equal. Had he challenged Sumner to a duel, he would have been according him a certain measure of respect, which he would not have been willing to do.

Also, IIRC, Louis Wigfall and Preston Brooks fought a duel once. Touchy fellows, clearly.

 

[Johnrankins]

How would a Fremont Presidency go? Would the South seceed four years early?

It is hard to say. He was expansionistic so he might push harder for clearing out Native Americans to make room for White Settlers. He would have certainly pushed as hard as Lincoln to at least keep slavery out of the territories and may well have freed the slaves earlier than Lincoln did, which might backfire due to lack of support.

Yes, the South would have seceded four years earlier as he was a Republican and hard line Fee Soiler. They hated Fremont at least as much as Lincoln.