purchase help support our nonprofit operations scan the code on the right shot now through monday during the c-span shop stay warm sale at c-span shop dot org. weekends on c-span two are an intellectual feast, every saturday american history tv documents america story. and on sundays book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding from c-span two comes from the seven companies, and more including spark light. the greatest town on earth is a place that you call home. it's barclay, it is our home to right now we are all facing our greatest challenge. that is why spark light is working around the clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part so it's a little easier to do yours. >> sparkly, along with these television companies, support c-span 2 as a public service.

so, lori, can we bring you on to talk about what you have with us today? >> so, i am joining you here today from the account chamber at the old state house to share with you one of our treasures from the revolutionary spaces collection. this item is a cane, which is described as the cane with which representative front to s brooks assaulted charge sumner in april 2nd, 1856. this is a key part and one of the most violent events in american congressional history. to give you a little background. may 19th and 20th of 1856, charles sumner -- who was a united states senator from the massachusetts, gave a very lengthy speech criticizing slavery. he particularly chastised some of the senators who supported that institution.

including andrew butler, of south carolina. he also, basically, condemned the entire state of south carolina. even though andrew butler was not present during senator sunder speech, a distant relative -- representative preston brooks of south carolina was angered by what he perceived as a verbal attack on both his relative, and his home state. on may 22nd, two days later, brooks waited for sumner, until he was alone in the senate chamber. he then enter the chamber with the cane. this is brooks's cane, which he had to use because of a limp from an injury 15 years earlier. after confronting sumner, he accused him of libelous comments. he began to viciously beat him over the head with this cain. he was so furious that he actually broke the cane over sumner's had.

so, after the attack, the largest piece of the chain, with the cap, was retrieved by congressman, henry edmonton. who later presented it to the virginia governor, henry wise. the cane was originally made of got a protection. which is a hard latex which was made from a malaysian tree. it was a fairly common material in the 19th century. kind of a predecessor to modern plastic. henry wise, because the king was broken, had it repaired and replaced a lot of the broken got approach up with ebony would. the goal cap is original. and then wise and abusing mccain himself for many years. be wise family eventually gave it to a family friend. lawyer, ernest bigelow, who

then presented to the boston historical society in 1821. and i've been part of the collection ever since. >> laurie, thank you so much for sharing about the cain! do you know how it came into the revelation area spaces collection? >> the wise, henry family -- have been gifted the cane. after the event, he ended up using the cane for many years. it was passed down to some of his family members who then gave it to a family friend ernest bigelow. he was one who donated to be bostonians a society. one of the organizations, the revolutionary space predecessor they're. we've had it in the collection since he donated it in 1821. >> lori, it was on display for a while, right? on display in the state house? >> and i think it's actually been on display more than once.

probably a few times over the years. and has been in the collection for about 100 years. >> wow! it is a crazy, odd, saying. i would share with everyone in conversation in dialogue, i studied this incident in school. it is such a mythologized incident. we learned that it was a chair leg that brooks had ripped off and beaten sumner with. when i learned that it was a cane and we had it in our collection i thought, oh my gosh. what an amazing artifact to bring into dialect and share with everyone. it is an idea that we are still dealing with as americans today. the reality a very heated environment that we are living in. lori, thank you so much! if you just saw, lloyd won't be able to join us because she is at the culinary but if you have

questions for the amazing laurie ericsson please email public programs that relational spaces.org. i'll make sure laura gets all the questions you have about the cane. we hope that we can see you all in the space where lori is in the council chamber -- whenever you are in boston. laurie thank you so much. >> with that i want to bring on the one day only the rock star professor casey johnson. who is going to take this as an inspiration. and give us an amazing someone are about legislative violence and the united states and using the cane and inspiration. casey, the stage is yours. >> thank you. my thanks to lauren for setting this up. the sumner caning this is not

an artistic rendition. it is without a doubt being most famous of the attacks on congress. sadly, this is a topic, violence against members in congress that is something that has been long-standing. something will try to do tonight is to go through it relatively quickly. to hit some of the high points -- what probably was a first instance of violence on the floor of congress occurred in the 17 90s. after a fight against -- right here on the screen artistically between matthew lyon, a jeffersonian congressman from vermont. he is holding in his hands tongs from the fireplace that heeded the then house of representatives chamber. he is attacking roger griswold who is a federalist congressman

from connecticut who had initiated confrontation trying to be lion over the hand. this is an era of congressional history in which the capital was almost entirely a isolated environment. members would never take the families. very few lobbyist live there. personal grudges, especially between members of different parties, were hardly uncommon during the early period of american history. lyon had some colorful history as a whole. he fought during the revolutionary war, in the new york form of theater. he mustered out of the continental army under some controversy. he became a fairly wealthy entrepreneur in early statehood, vermont was elected to congress as and affiliate of the jeffersonian party. the modern-day version of this

is the democratic party. shortly after his fight with griswold he carried his opposition more broadly. criticizing the john adams administration during the undeclared naval war with france. he was brought up on charges under the sedition act and spent the election of 1798 in jail, from which he was reelected in remote. he didn't write -- 1800 he eventually moved to kentucky. he started the second political career there. but it's elected to congress from kentucky. it's for the career came to a conclusion then in the war of 1812. he was anti-war in kentucky the war of 1812 was very popular in kentucky. he moved from there to arkansas and very narrowly missed being elected territorial delegate and pre-statehood arkansas before he passed away in 1822. belie and griswold battle kind

of set the stage for a more personal stick era of violence in congress congress which colonnade id i8 with the first a member of congress ever shooting and killing another member. this was a duel between william graves, a whip congressman from kentucky, and jonathan silly, a democratic congressman from maine. so they had insulted him in a newspaper -- on the floor of the house. they newspaper editor wrote silly a challenge to a dual. silly declined. the editor reached out to graves to challenge silly to a dual. shot him and killed him. the response to this episode of legislative violence, unlike the line griswold fight which passed into the lower but is a

change in federal law congress passed the laws not only allowing dueling in the district of columbia making a crime to initiate in -- who perhaps fought in a another pot who -- the lion battle in the 17 90s and the grave through the duel in the 18 are similar. obviously they had different endings. similar in they reflect a male dominated society in which there was a willingness to fight. in some cases, kill. more for personalist acknowledges than for anything ideological. this changes during the path to the civil war there's a wonderful book on this topic by the historian, julian friedman. -- freeman went back to newspapers,

contemporary legal accounts and discovered dozens of episodes of legislative violence, members on -- during the late 1830's 1850s, right up into the civil war. to think about what is going on more broadly during american history in the period. we have struggles, into regional struggles over slavery. we have significant aspects of party d. lemon and realignment. the demise of the whig party. congressman graves's former party. its replacement, initially, by this nativist party called the know nothing party. eventually by the republican party in the late 18 50s. the spreading of the slavery issue, more broadly, onto the national scale with the dred scott division of 1857 where the supreme court and one of its three most infamous

decisions holding that, under the constitution, slaves should be considered as property. there for, do not have standing to bring a lawsuit. it is in this environment that we have this wave of legislative violence in the 40s and 50s. friedman argues, i think convincingly, that the pre-civil war violence different from this earlier period violence in which, even though there was a sort of personal stick battle that essentially this was a regional controversy between southern congressman and northern congressman. between southern senators and northern congressman. i use it deliberately as the -- war mail. also doing this period because martial violence -- greater characteristics of the antebellum southern politics and the southern members tended to have something of an

advantage. this process really began with this provision in the history of the house called the gag rule. it dated from 1836 to 1834. it is part of an early sign of a skirmish between the region on the issue of slavery. the backdrop to this is basically a smaller -- in the 1830s their biggest via transformation in american society in terms of attitudes towards slavery. and the revolutionary period it's certainly continued lots of southern -- james madison, george washington, somewhat embarrassed by the causes of slavery in a working and the something that perhaps slavery will go away. beginning in the 1830s and the 1840s there was a new attitude towards slavery. every of slavery by some southern officeholders arguing that slavery was a positive

good that have benefited american society. indeed that it benefited black slaves and extraordinary changeup roach. in the north where abolitionism had a surge in the revolutionary period and -- an air is a small sign of abolitionist political activism which became much more prominent in the 1850s. another side of this comes from john quincy adams the only president to subsequently serve in congress. adam served dynastic -- it's the bourbon district in boston. adams along with a handful of other members of -- the best number of probably joshua getting. 's a way again later ever publican congressman from ohio. they began to think of ways to challenge this idea of slavery as a positive good. working in concert with abolitionists movements they came up with the idea of

encouraging these movements. encouraging -- the petition was then debated on the congress. it could be sent far from -- signing a document so it could be mailed for free. send these to the south basically this is a propaganda effort designed to spread abolitionist ideas into the south. again region that have become very hostile to the concept of freedom. southern members responded to this by coming up with the gag rule which changed internal congressional to automatically refer all slavery related petitions to a house committee that would then simply dispose of them. they would never be any floor debate. they would never be anything to print. the idea was to circumvent the debate of slavery. allenge this, there adams, geddr

handful of abolitionists and beside their senators challenge this, there were threats of violence carried off against them. their idea of a willingness to threat and violence isn't a useful backdrop to the caning of charles sumner. one of the most famous of these episodes, but it's hardly unique. has we heard from lori, this is an attempted murder on the floor of the senate. sumner was an affiliate of the abolitionist cause. a strong supporter of anti slavery activism. he was also a difficult man with which to deal. he had not made a lot of friends in congress. his attack was seen as a violation of the congressional decorum. he attacked senator butler from south carolina but had not alerted him, previously, to the idea that he was going to criticize them on the senate

floor. that is what enraged preston brooks. you would think, you would hope, that the brooks caning of sumner would have triggered a reevaluation of the concept of congressional violence. it did not work out that way. brooks resigned his seat. he returned to the south carolina, he was overwhelmingly reelected by his constituents. sumner did not return to the senate for two and a half years. we're covering both from the physical violence but also from, what we would now called, ptsd. although that term was not used or understood at the time. violence and threats of violence continued right up to the run up to the civil war. the most favorite spot of these episodes certainly the most widespread of them, occurred in 1857. the issue before congress was a decision before president james buchanan, a democrat from

pennsylvania. a sympathizer with the south, to present to congress a constitution that had been approved by slaveholders in kansas requesting that kansas join the union as a slave state. the backdrop to this because that in 1854 congress that enacted a law called cambra's act which repeal the missouri compromise. it had said that slavery would be possible in the kansas and nebraska territory three concept called popular sovereignty. basically when these territories wanted to join the union as rusty, citizens of the union could vote on other not they want to legalize slavery. you had also slaveholders from a very who flock to kansas to try to make kansas a slave state. lots of abolitionists, especially from ohio, who flock to kansas to try to meet kansas city non-slavery stay.

-- it is before the house. the debate is a bitter debate. it quickly becomes clear that the pro slavery side does not have a majority on the floor. as part of the political realignment that i had mentioned earlier, the northern wing of the democratic party collapses after the passage of the kansas nebraska act. by 1857, the leader of the house is at the very least suspicious of the idea of slavery spreading into the territories. add to the fact that everyone seem to understand that the vote to legalize slavery in kansas was not fair. the debate, however, is dragged on. it gets to 10:00, it keeps moving on. 11 pm, midnight. it eventually gets to 2 am. man on the left is a monroe, later he will be speaker of the

house of representatives for the first two years of the civil war. he was formerly a free soil democrat from pennsylvania. free soil because were people who did not necessarily call for the immediate abolition of slavery but who did argue that the federal government should prohibit slavery in any territory in the u.s.. the assumption was if slavery could not expand in the territory that it would ultimately die. it was particularly difficult procedurally with southerners hoping to intern the session. the hope that some northerners when returned the next day and they could hopefully get the -- he eventually starts to exchange words with the man on the right, lawrence kyi. a pro slavery democratic congressman from south carolina. you will know the connection here with preston brooks, south carolina, had a reputation

which was all deserved ascending the most ardently in aggressively pro slavery members to the house. eventually one thing led to another and the two men started to throw punches at each other on the floor of the house. at that point everything starts to break down. this document here that i have he left of the screen is from a publication called the congressional globe. until 1873, this was a brown volume they came out every year that described events that occurred on the floor of both houses of congress. the globe would hire reporters who would summarize what all members have said. as you can see this is how it was summarized at the time. at this moment, a violent personal altercation commenced in the aisle at the right of the speaker's chair's, between mr. keh d mr. grow. in an instant, the houses in

the greatest possible confusion. members and every part of the hall, the estimate here by the way was 50 to 60 members, rushed over to the scene of the conflict and several members seem to participate in it. we could drop the seemed to. this was a mass brawl in the house ofhe representative floor. the speaker a loud and really call to order and require the sergeant at arms to arrest the members acting in contempt of the house. the sergeant at arms screamed out them they were under arrest but members continue to fight. at that point the sergeant of arms moved on to the house floor with the mace of the house. this rather imposing ida have here on the right in this green. attempting to stop the fight. according to the globe, eventually this succeeded in bringing order. and turns out it was not actually the sergeant at arms trampling around the floor with the mace that led to order --

it instead it was an instant involving the man, william barksdale. who was a democratic congressman from tennessee. he was a participant in the fight. and anti-slavery member seemed to have swelling at mark stale and missed. trying to punch him in the face, but he did manage to wipe off his hair piece. barksdale, as you can see from this early photograph, somewhat and being man. barksdale was scrambling on the floor trying to pick up his hair piece and put it back on. he managed to put it back on in the wrong direction, at which point another reporter was covering the event indicated that members on both sides of the aisle broke out into laughter. it was the mockery of barksdale, rather than the speaker and the sergeant of arms with a may, that led to the unending of this house brawl. or thebarksdale, by the way, would

eventually fight for the confederacy. resign from congress, fight for the confederacy when it leaves the union. he perished candies berg. this is a frightening period in american history. richard baker is the former historian of the senate. he argued that the caning of sumner should be seen, correctly i think, as an assault on american democracy. the chamber is the house and senate chambers are designed both for speaking and for listening. you have to envision kind of a roman style dovey. in an environment where physical violence can be a response to speech it undermines the ideals of american democracy as a whole. the physical violence expands after the civil war to the

house to what is, i think, the first political assassination in congressional history. it involves this man, james hines, a republican congressman from arkansas. kinds was elected in 1866. he served for less than one term. his election came when arkansas was readmitted to the union during the period of reconstruction after the civil war. like many northerners remove south following the civil war, hines was an advocate of abolition. in 1868 he started to go around the state to campaign for ulysses s grant. a republican nominee for president. he and a companion get lost after a campaign event. they go to a local sheriff's office the sheriff reports to give them directions.

the sheriff is actually a member of the ku klux klan. he shoots hines in the back and kills him. hines is not the only member of congress who parishes as a result of the divide over slavery. the first member of the senate to be killed in the line of duty perished in part because of debates over slavery. this had occurred before the civil war, rather than after. the event was -- to the left of your screen. he was a democratic senator from california. all know the basic history of california. it was admitted to the union shortly after the u.s. seized from mexico in the mexican war. the aftermath of the california gold rush. it is a distinct area and american history in that, up until this point, every new

state to the -- california was not. it was a long ways away from the closest a, which was texas. they developed a unique political culture that divided on the grounds of ethnicity, ideology, and featured intense interest party divisions, as well. was a free soil democrat and would be a leader and what became the unionist democrat of california, that was the opening of the california democratic party loyal to the union in the civil war. he was an ally of the man initially. an ally of the man on the right, david terri. who was elected chief justice of the california state supreme court from california. and it is now, elected through the populace for. the team and had a falling out over slavery. whereas products anti slavery,

broderick -- a political boss in san francisco, withdrew his support from terry in the 1858 election. as a result, terry lost. terry attributed his defeat, perhaps not incorrectly, to roderick. challenging him to a dual, unlike the grays duel which i mentioned earlier which was a personal challenge, this is a ideological challenge between a pro and anti slavery force. terry, who had this immediate former chief justice of the california supreme court shot robert dead in this tool. he fled this day, during the civil war he participated on the side of the confederacy. this was not the last three wood here of former chief justice terry. during the civil war, congress enacted a law, changing the nature of the federal judicial system. creating what is called a new

federal palette circuit. the tenth circuit, which then consisted of california and oregon. the reason for this was not so much population but the curious nature of the federal courts during the 18th and 19th century. kind of like the system that exists today the federal court is a divided between federal court judges, palette court judges and judges on the supreme court during the 18th and well into the 19th century because there was not enough business for the supreme court justices on the supreme court would also, what is called, ride circuit they would act as district court judges or applet judges in that circuit so a supreme court justice who was assigned to the tenth circuit was a man named stephen fields.

a union ally of senator broderick who was appointed by abraham lincoln in 1863 he comes again from a different wing of the state democratic party than former chief justice terry. terry has resurrected his career in the aftermath of the civil war as a prominent lawyer within california. he crosses justice fields path and in other context. he represents -- sarah hall. who was an ambitious up and comer in the world of california politics in the 1870s. she attached herself to wealthy industalists -- presented herself and married although it seemed she was just the man's mistress. when the two separate she produces a piece of paper that

she claims is a marriage license and demands half of her ex lovers is d she is represented by former chief justice terry. eventually, well terry is representing her mary. she goes before a federal district court in california the district court quickly it seems ruled that the number was a marriage. it goes to the tenth circuit court of appeals -- fields is on the panel ruling against terry. both harry and hall did not take their loss very well. in the courtroom they actually made threats against justice field. as a result of this, when justice field returns to california for [interpreter] turnsut one of his last rounds of circuit in 1889, he is asgned legal protection

for the department of justice. you can see the letter the written and on on the screen over here on the right. the justice department decides to appoint a u.s. marshal to protect him, who does so. the marshall, a man named david mcgill, is defending fields on a train when he notices david terry and his wife. terry starts to slap justice fields. nagle shoots terry. terry is arrested and -- excuse me, nagle is arrested. terry is killed. arrested by local sheriff who is sympathetic to the terror wing of the democratic party. eventually this court makes its wa to the supreme court. in a decision in the state versus nikole, the u.s. marshal was acting active and has to the federal government in

protecting a federal employee. he cannot be charged for a law enforcement violation in the capacity while protecting the federal employee by state officials. the sounds like a bizarre episode, and is of course a bizarre episode. it is an outgrowth of legislative islands. it also appears to be ups ignorance in american history. those of you tsunami history of the civil rights movement in the 1960s the kennedy justice department in particular appointed members in the u.s. marshal service to protect civil rights activists in the south, absent of a decision like i am renegotiates very possible that these would've been -- and athis idea of random violee significantly different, there is one other example of this. although it comes a generation and a half later. 1917. a man on the left is senator paul husk in. he was a democratic senator

from wisconsin. a state that was a republican dominated state basically for the entire period after the civil war. they were caught in politics in the early 20th century. this is the era of robert fallout, the great progressive leader. who heads the progressive wing of the state republican party. there is also the conservative state -- husk in what divided republicans like to the 1914 is he is a loyal supporter woodrow wilson. in 1917 he's a supporter of world war i. he is out hunting with his brother and it's accidentally shot. under wisconsin law, there is a requirement for a special election. the special election is a wild contest between irvine and london a conservative republican. -- davies had supported him which

is why berger will not decide to go down, to stand side to davies. berger, and davies divide a left-wing vote and then route ultimately wins. lot of this matter in terms of broader american history? in 1918, the democrats lose control of the u.s. senate by one seat, 49 to 47. this is the ultimate tally and other result republicans control the u.s. senate during consideration of the league nations covenant. if senator houston hadn't been victim of this accident, the democrats will maintain control of the senate. so to like what we have now with the 50/50 senate and vice president harris casting the time working vote. then it would've been 40 8:48 with wilson's by president, guy named thomas marshall, kathleen the vice president both. beleaguered nations have very quickly brought to the floor. it probably would've gotten the two thirds necessary to be

ratified. the u.s. would have joined the league and subsequent history with a different. legislative violence, alas we saw. during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s we have a couple of quite high-profile events targeting senators who are also major presidential candidates. the first is the assassination of huey long, the party boss in the louisiana. killed by an-long activists who is attempting to vindicate the position of his father in law. a local louisiana politician. an anti long figure who had been redistricted out of his office by louisiana legislature, which was controlled by long. fdr, he probably long had planned for a run for president in 1936 as a left-wing challenger for fdr. he probably would not have won,

but he might had stuff and enough votes away to the republican vote competitive. two generations later we have, perhaps, the most famous political assassination of u.s. senators. robert kennedy, after his victory in the california presidential primary, assassinated by a palestinian activist who was angered by kennedy's positions on israel. both long and kennedy vaccinations are a reminder that even though we think of the concept of political assassination often introductory terms. president lincoln being assassinated, president kennedy being assassinated. president mckinley being fascinated. the concept of political assassination has also touched congress as well. it is not just the senate. the most famous political assassination was a house member involved this man, leo

ryan. ryan represented a man who -- extending from san francisco, down into residential suburbs in san francisco down to redwood city. what is now a very, very, strongly democratic district. in the 1970s it was a pretty competitive district between democrats and republicans. in 1977, and early 1978, ryan starts to hear reports of the jonestown temple movement. it's a call, based in san francisco. its leader is a man named jim jones. it comes under the attention of american law enforcement. jones and his disciples d can't to the small country of diana on the northern shores of south america friday set up a temple

compound and attempt to evade american law enforcement. there are children. some of ryan's constituents. brian starts to investigate, along with members of his staff including a lug you legislative a -- jackie speier who will eventually succeed to basically a similar district. speier still in the house of representatives. she is retiring this year. this year -- ryan speier, and a host of other house staffers travel to ghana, to jonestown, to investigate, and to set up a system through which members of the peoples temple will be allowed to return to the united states. unbeknownst to them, jones and the upper leadership of the cult had a plane. they were under the impression that mercenaries were going to come in and try to free some of

the people trapped in the cult. the plan was to kill any mercenaries and then commit a mass suicide. brian shot and dies on the scene and diana. spears was also shot. was left there for 22 hours and miraculously survived. i saw an interview couple years ago where she was strongly critical of the state department. she argued that basically, and i think that she is correct here, that the state department was the one who should've been handling this. not an individual member of congress was forced to travel down on his own to see if he could safeguard his constituents. the orion assassination was a member of a house member who was a target of a political assassination, as well. these were individual events. ryan, robert kennedy, he would belong. there also have been what amounts to institutional violence against congress itself.

we obviously have experienced something like this in the very recent past. with the january six insurrection another example, and without a doubt i think the high profile example came in the mid 1950s when a group of puerto rican independent activists engaged in an active political terrorism and shoot five members of congress from the floor of the house chambers >> puerto rican politics today is something, a divide between advocates of advocating for state code and that's because of the current commonwealth status. but during the 1930s, there was a quite prominent and decreasing lee quite radical puerto rican independence movement. and the shooters in the 1954 attack are part of that approach. bill good win was a house page,

obviously, that no longer exists, but there is a time in which the house would arrange for late in their high school years or perhaps freshman in college to go and work as a volunteer in the house for a year, they have a dorm, the idea would be to implicate them to public service. so, good win was interviewed by the house historians office, a little over a decade ago. here is his recollection that stay on the floor of the house. >> i was standing in the doorway of the coat room, looking up and watching things going on. it was very. quiet no one was talking or moving. then, write directly in the kitty corner across from me, in the cavalry, the visitors gallery in, the corner over there in the southwest corner of the chamber, there is a movement. i look up and saw the movement

out of the corner of my eye, and they looked up. this man stood up, and he had a dark suit on, tall, he had a dark suit on, and he caught my eye. when he looked up, when he moved, i, mean i looked up and he reached inside of his coat pocket and pulled out a pistol. that is a pistol. i couldn't believe it! i know it was a pistol. he started shooting right away. everybody started hitting the ground, and some of the congressman like myself so they're looking at the guy and some members of congress said that later on, they said they felt like firecrackers going off, and they were looking. they just heard the pop, pop, pop. he was shooting, and i remember the gun stopped. he emptied it out, pulled the clip down, and threw it down on the floor. pulled another clip out of his pocket, put the clip in, and he started shooting again. his gun jammed that about that time. then, about the same time, the

second man stood up. you pulled out a gun. he started shooting. he was a -- lighter suit, remember. that may be. gray. he started shooting of a second i was re-shooting, second, the first guy with the second clip, he's gonna quit on him. it. jammed so, he turned around and ran up the steps out of the gallery, and i learned later that as you went into the hallway out there, the -- was coming and nailed him. he slugged him good. >> not for the first time this kind of attack, what i would describe as an attack on the institution of the house, although it generates violence, doesn't generate any death of members. a second type of institutional violence, where five americans ultimately died as a result, or the aftermath of 9/11. senator daschle, tom daschle

then the -- senator of the office, and then leahy, a senator from vermont, tied into 9/11. they appeared to have come from a disgruntled scientist, threatening containing anthrax and threatening additional attacks. this, of course, is in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. congress is in a heightened state of security. anyway, as a response to the house, the house actually shuts down for a few days. several members of the senate closed their offices. one senator, mark day in, permanently closest offensive to fear of harming his staff. this is an event that i think it's forgotten almost, in part because no members were ultimately killed. but it's part of this trend that institutionalized violence. and then, some episodes from

quite recent periods, from which i expect all of us remember. the first was the shooting of gaffney giffords at a congress on the quarter offense in 2011. the gifford's attack, although it was assumed in the immediate aftermath of the attack, it was assumed to have a political agenda, appears not to have had. the shooter wasn't mentally unstable. but the scope of the violence was extraordinarily. gifford his political career ultimately was and did as a result of the attack on him. unfortunately, she does survive -- fortunately. and then, this 2017 attack on a republican member of congress who we're practicing for the annual house of representatives baseball game. democrat versus republican. and much like the 1954 attack by the puerto rican terrorist, but 2017 attack, which was

undertaken by extremist types on the far left, just as easily could have read to several deaths from from an accidental -- the only person who was ultimately killed is the shooter. the most seriously injured in this attack was the then majority whip of the house of representatives, steve scalise, a republican from louisiana. the third most powerful member of the house of representatives. and scalise didn't interview with nbc a couple of years ago, in which he recalled his experiences of the day. let's take a quick listen. >> the morning of the shooting, it really started like any other day. i was going to practice for a charity baseball game we play in congress. around 7:00, a shot comes out. i didn't really know it's a gunshot. we're thinking, next thing you know, another shot, and that's when we knew it was gunfire. then, i was hit.

you know, the first thing that came to mind was my daughter. she's ten years old at the time, but i prayed to god that madison doesn't have to walk up the aisle alone. that's what came into my mind, and ultimately, i kind of was conscious, rushed to the hospital, and nearly died. my trauma surgeon told me at least two times in that first few hours, where i almost didn't make. it. through a lot of miracles and heroes, capital police officers who were both shot during the shoot out, they took the shooter down and saved my life and so many others lives, and then i had to learn how to walk again, get back in the game, as we say. >> this is a shooting that could have been much worse. it could've led to several members of congress being killed. they were on the baseball field practicing. they had no real -- stages of the attack, and the most recent of these episodes

of violence targeting members of congress was that january 6th insurrection. and ask with the targeting scalise or, in the 1954 attack, one of the things to meet in thinking back on the events of january six, is it's remarkable that no members of congress were killed. mitt romney, for instance, has told the story almost running into a mob and being redirected by a very brave capitol police officer. you don't need to be, have too much of an imagination to see this process ending differently. one thing i should note, however. we do live in an increasingly violent world. although i think all of us, for understandable reasons, are focused on the concept of violence in the u.s., we have,

in the last few years, also seen this kind of violence targeting legislators in other western democracies. i think the clearest examples have come in the uk, which in the last decade has seen two political terrorist attacks, leading to the deaths of members of parliament. the first, in 2016, when joe cox, a labour party member of parliament, and an internationalist and opponent of brexit, was murdered by a brexit supporter. a classic political assassination. and last year, a conservative mp, david amos, who was stabbed to death by and islamist terrorist who was sentenced to a life sentence in the uk a couple of weeks ago. the cox and amess killings are

related two aspects of british politics, but they are a reminder that the concept of legislative violence is hardly something that is come find to the u.s.. a couple of remarks that people may have, have some questions. at the broadest level, it seems to me that this basic subject, the idea of legislative violence, the sense that members of congress are targeted for violence, is a symbol of the broader health of the body politic. if you think of periods of american history in which the concept of legislative violence has been seen spiraling beyond, the situation has been at least somewhat healthy or -- political system. on the other hand, if you think back in american history to the periods in which violence seemed to be a more consistent

aspect of congressional life, these are periods where we think of as ones of significant poor health of democracy. the pre-period to the civil war, especially, the 1850s, it's one such example. but a strong argument could be made that there is a similar environment in which we live now. just last year, republican member of congress named paul gosar from arizona retreated a video that seems to be fantasizing about the murder of aoc. you know, obviously, someone who is not particularly liked by people in those ideological circles, but the idea that a member of congress could seem to almost cavalierly threatening the life of another member, and has not --

has been stripped of his committee assignments has so far refused to resign his seat, it's a reminder we live in perhaps quite perilous times in terms of the health of our democracy. as the former senate historian, dick baker, said, we need an environment in which legislators not merely speak, but are willing to listen to one another. in an environment in which violence used to hubble over all aspects of political life, the arts of political listen it's very difficult to achieve indeed. with that, hopefully people have some questions. >> thank you so much! again, fantastic! so, question from lynn we just got. she said, bravo! so interesting. where were you when i was taking american history in grammar school, high school,

and college? that's a great question, lynn. great, great question. and thank you. thank you for joining us. kc it's at brooklyn college. he teaches at the community graduate center. if that's still accurate. >> yes. >> he is in maine. we are hopeful that we can bring him down to the spaces irl, as they say, as we start adding a more critical mass of in-person programming. i want to encourage everybody to ask questions, if you have any, just drop them in the chat box and we will address them. but i'm going to start with a question for kc that i had as i was listening to you speak so brilliantly, as always. what about the sumner case lives in such cultural memory that it's this iconic thing you

read about in history books, and do you think we are going to have another one of those in 100 years? will that be january 6th? will that be mitt romney turning around? what brings those instances to the top that we just remember? >> that's a good question. i think with some there here, there are several things that combine to make this the iconic episode of legislative violence in american history. but the first is that this is a very, very serious injury that he experiences. he is out of the fed for more than two years as a result of this attack. and so it's not a trivial attack. but second, of course, is that the attacker is another member of congress. think back to the episodes i just described, the session tonight, most instances of

legislative violence in american history, the hair cases is an exception, involved outsiders in one way or another targeting members of congress. but the idea of internal congressional violence, which is what we see in the sumner case, is rare and shocking. the fact that preston brooks, the attack, or was reelected despite arguably because of the attack, that this is -- it's difficult to imagine. and i think lastly, in terms of analyzing congressional politics, as a general rule of thumb, i think historians want to stay away from a good versus evil analysis. most politicians are not pure across the board. but morally, this was a good

versus evil confrontation. brooks representing slave power, capital s, capital p. some there was the most prominent abolitionist of the senate. so, the attack on some there was, in reality, and attack on the spirit of freedom. it can be analogize in a broader way as, say, the murder of congressman silly from my own state of maine. it's hard to analogize that, but the concept of tools, you know, has sort of past. the other thing here, and this ties into that comment lynn was offering, one of my big complaints about the study of this period is that too often, we exclude congress from the study of history. it can be complex, there's lots of procedure, but the 1850s is an era in which congress was the dominant branch.

so, this attack was the equivalent of something that may be an attack on a president in the 1930s or 1940. sumner was a nationally known figure. this was big news around the country. so, there is a justifiable -- in terms of whether there will be a future one, i, guess my answer to this is, i hope not. the attack on some of the really does, it pre-figures the coming of the civil war. certainly, if there had been any member of congress who the rectal experienced violence, let's imagine you're a member who was just attacked by the mob during the insurrection and had to go right to hospital and was out for a long period of time, i suspect that would have been the equivalent. >> when, just had a fantastic follow-up. that is, why are other events forgotten by or unknown to most?

>> that's an excellent question. i don't have an easy answer to this. partially because, most of us here, i suspect, even thinking back to, just think back to your high school history classes. probably you know the name charles sumner. it's an important enough event that it permeates. most of these other figures, except for the assassination of kennedy and perhaps but jonestown episode with leo ryan, although again, most of us remember jonestown. do we necessarily remember leo ryan? probably not. he was quite a heroic member of congress. he basically gave his life for some of his constituents. it's the sort of thing we have so much bad news in american politics. this is someone who actually does the ultimate sacrifice. part of it, though, i think it's the fact that as a whole,

we tend not to study congress, not just in some history classes, but in general coverage. partly, it's difficult to sort of generalized about congress. that's rokita house floor ball that i mentioned with a guy who loses his hair piece, jamie mentioned that hamas, we need the hairpiece revolutionary stages! this is a rare event of something that could be described as sort of an institutional fight. it seems, like from a contemporary -- that everyone was in office. but a lot of these are those episodes where it's one or two members, and they kind of get lost to history. off those i talked about tonight, but one i wish got more attention, instead of standard history approaches, is james hines, the arkansas congressman assassinated by the ku klux klan. number our teaching of

reconstruction is better now then was the case 20 or 30 years ago, but there still is this image that both sides were maybe something justifiable with both. to me, the way to understand reconstruction is that it's a period of political violence in which southern segregationists are attempting to claw back their defeat in a civil war. and the idea that you have a sitting member of congress who was assassinated, solely because of his political positions, this is something that deserves attention. >> question from she loved fair. was there ever a time after the civil war that terry might have been prosecuted for the murder? that's >> a great question! imagine the idea of a former chief justice of your supreme court, running around shooting people! it's just extraordinary! this does reflect the kind of

odd nature of the concept of doubling in american society, and the sense that among very prominent figures, that dueling was seen as something that was acceptable conduct. it seems like after the dual, if congress passes this law, but california is literally the wild west in the 1850s and 1860s. it's widely beyond federal control, and terry is someone who has political political response in the state. in retrospect, they should be prosecuted at the time, but he fights for the confederacy, and in the civil war, he comes back and california is still a prominent figure. he reinstalled after the civil war ends his previous misdeeds are largely forgotten. >> we have so many great ones coming in!

dave has asked, it seems as though we've entered a period where more house and senate members are more focused on ideology, ari -- from my state, and on delivering tangible results for their significant -- constituents. hearing your presentation today, though, it seems like that may have been the case in previous areas as well. >> this is quite a good point. i think to me, the best way to understand the contemporary congress is it's essentially a parliamentary institution. firstly, all republicans of congress about one, while democrats in congress of the other way. the kind of environment i may be ahead of the 1960s or 70s in which he would often have members -- think of arizona, the longtime senator from arizona, carl hayden, a democrat, who basically brought back tons of

federal money for arizona. he kept getting reelected and reelected. that kind of legislator no longer exists. now, is what we have in the current environment the norm for american history? i would suggest not. but has occurred previously in american history? absolutely. we certainly saw it in the 20 years before the civil war. also, frankly, it's a characteristic of the gilded age, late 18 70s, 1880, if and 1890s, which were very, very partisan periods in american history. there were huge shifts politically. in some ways, although it's trickier, we see this in the 1930s, and to me, i'm biased here. i'm a congressional historian. i like congress. i like studying congress. one of the things that makes congress so interesting is that it's traditionally not a parliament. you get these distinctive members of congress from out of the way places. i did a biography of greening, a democratic senator from

alaska, very left-wing senator. you don't think of alaska as a left-wing state. strong critic of the vietnam war in the 1960s, and as we move into the current kind of politics we have now, we have sort of lost that aspect of american politics. >> this last one is a little bit of a doozy, and i don't think we have time to totally answer it, but think of it as a sneak peek into maybe where to look up resources for it. what is the history of the u.s. capitol police, origins, and future, sarah? >> this actually is relatively easy to find. one of the great things about all of these federal agencies is that they have offices with historians. you can go through the rubs. like they have historians office. that video i played from bill, the horror house page, that's from the house historian office. so, federal agencies are actually pretty good and providing at providing conditional summaries of their

histories? >> i will jump in and make a comment. i do think it's interesting, because our policing system in america, if we don't have a national police force, everything is localized. then, we have the capital police, which is its own thing. it's an odd situation, we have compared to other countries. >> that is where you get the marshals service, which is the closest thing to a national police force. it is not really a national police force. >> so, definitely interesting. it's an inspiration support for a future lecture that we have on a panel. this is from sherry. i am absolutely collapse. i have no idea there was such violence in our country in the legislative world! does this make you sad and crazy? is this who we are? at the starting your presentation, i was very attentive to the start of the civil and the attention to the anti slavery issue. i just heard a very clear lecture by roger lowenstein, who talked about the economic factors.

comparing the state of the south with the russian world right now. it turned my assumptions around entirely. >> i'm supposed -- i think this general topic, the topic of legislative islands, to the extent that we really think of it, we do tend to think of it in the pre civil war period, in part, because of the cane -- let us awful tonight that gave us a sense of this overactive political violence, and yes, we've had this throughout american history and it certainly makes me sad. i mean, the idea that in particular, the idea that legislative violence seems to be on the uptick with the last decade is troubling. with regards to the civil war and factors, this is a subject of, robust debate among historians. some will argue that basically

between a capitalistic north and a librarian -- the slave economy. there's an argument that's more ideological, the issue of the united states, and the concept of slavery. there's others regional conversations. and what makes the civil war in the origins of the support for such a fascinating topic for something as a whole,, there's somebody usually complimentary, and the debate is, which one of these is perhaps the most significant, but everything, you can kind of see coming together. >> that's the last we had from our chat box. just in case there are any last-minute questions moving in, i will ask -- to define, if you, will be a coming election, coming out of

january six, we saw a lot of violence. in your opinion, what would she expect, unfortunately, to see on -- season? are we living in that very high tension world right now, still, that we feel is parallel when the body politic isn't healthy? we have that violence? is there any adjustment that you see since january six, or are we still living in the eye of the storm? >> i fear that we are still living in the eye of the storm. you can imagine a different scenario where there is meaningful, bipartisan investigation on january 6th to determine what happened and the recognition that it is something that is beyond the pale of american society. i don't need me to tell you it's just not i -- have a different response to january six. as the -- tweet of aoc, when i first saw that tweet and this was sort of

like a parody account of gosar or someone who is trying to make it look bad but the cavalier-ness of violence is something that is present. i certainly hope that there will be no member of that -- was seriously injured or even killed as politically violence, but i don't think any of us could make a case that's likely and is currently -- i mentioned that those cases, british politics than the u.s. in many ways. but there is some degrees, and just as we've seen on british, not as intense as the u.s. pretty bad. violence has been normalized there in a way that really, it hadn't been for several, several generations. >> kc, thank you as per always.

and thank you also, so much. thank you, kc, thank you to lori out there. thank you to -- and thank you to everyone. we hope to see you soon. maybe next week online. take care, everyone. >> if you are enjoying american history tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen. to receive the weekly schedule of upcoming programs like lectures in history, the presidency, and more. sign up for the american history tv newsletter today and be sure to watch american history tv every saturday, or anytime online, at c-span.org slash history. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 7 pm eastern, andrew airman this causes his book, the contagion of liberty, the

politics of smallpox in the american revolution, which looks at how inoculation became a sought after medical procedure in the 18th century, and helped american colonists achieve independence from great britain. at 9:30 pm eastern, on the presidency, author but godbold fox about his book, jimmy and rosalynn carter, the second of his two volume biography about the couple, chronicling how they work together from 75 to 2020. exploring the american story, watch american history tv, saturdays on c-span two. and find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime, at c-span.org slash history. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8 pm eastern, philip wallace of the american enterprise institute shares his upcoming book, why congress. he explains that the

legislature is a necessary branch of governnt, and examines how to address the challenges it faces. then, at 10 pm eastern on afterwards, republican congressman ken buck argues that big tech companies like apple and google are hurting commerce and censoring speech in his book, crushed. he is interviewed by wall street journal reporter, john tracey. watch for tv every sunday on c-span two, and find the first schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at book tv dot org. >> weekends on c-span two are an intellectual feast everysaturday, american history tv documents america story. and on sundays, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span two comes from these television companies and more, including cox. >> homework can be hard, but squatting in a diner for internet work is even harder.