No Preston Brooks.

WI Congressman Preston Brooks of SC dies a year earlier, and so isn't around five months later to cane Charles Sumner?

Does he just get attacked by someone else? - Keitt maybe? If not, is he still re-elected to the Senate, or is he replaced by a Know-Nothing or someone? And how much difference does it make to the course of the 1856 election? Thoughts anyone?
 
If Preston Brooks had died earlier it is possible that Laurence Keitt may have still attacked Sumner. In OTL, Keitt pulled his gun on those Senators who tried to help Sumner during the caning. However, US senators were still elected by state legislatures, so if Sumner is not attacked in TTL, the Massachusetts General Court would likely still reelect him to the Senate. I do not see how Sumner not being attacked would change the election of 1856.
 
If Preston Brooks had died earlier it is possible that Laurence Keitt may have still attacked Sumner. In OTL, Keitt pulled his gun on those Senators who tried to help Sumner during the caning. However, US senators were still elected by state legislatures, so if Sumner is not attacked in TTL, the Massachusetts General Court would likely still reelect him to the Senate. I do not see how Sumner not being attacked would change the election of 1856.


Could be but from what I've read I get the impression that "Bleeding Sumner" had as big an impact as "Bleeding Kansas", if not bigger, so it may have given the Republicans a substantial boost.

Re Sumner's re-election prospects, I had in mind that the MA Legislature was heavily K-N at that time, so might have replaced Sumner by on of their own had he not been rendered untouchable by becoming an antislavery martyr.
 
Top