c-span shop dot org. >> weekends o 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 authored's. funding for c-span two 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 the cane was originally made of got a protection.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 -- captured here on the screen again artistically between matthew lion i 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 which colonnade id in 1838 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 of the country. the line battle in the 17 90s and the grave duel in the 1830s 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 there is a wonderful book on this topic. freedom and went back to contemporary legal accounts and discovered dozens of episodes

of legislative violence member on member during the late 1830s, 1840s, 18 50s in the run up to the civil war. think of what is going on more broadly in american history during this period. we have struggles, into regional struggles over slavery. we have significant aspects of party alignment and realignment, the demise of the whig party, congressman graves his former party. it's replacement, 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. a redefinition by some southern officeholders arguing that slavery was a positive good

that benefited american society, indeed that it benefited black slaves, an extraordinary changeu of approach. in the north where abolitionism had a surge in the revolutionary period and -- an there 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 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 to present petitions which is, of course, something that is

guaranteed by the constitution to congress. the petitions could then be debated on the floor of congress. those debates then could be sent far and wide through the congressional frank which literally it was members of congress signing the document so it could be mailed for free. they sent these to the south. basically, this is a propaganda effort designed to spread abolitionist ideas into the south in a region that had become very hostile to the concept of freedom. southern members responded to this by coming up with the gag rule which changed internal congressional procedures to automatically refer slavery related petitions to house committee that would then simply dispose of them. there would never be any florida bait. there will never be anything to print. the idea was to circumvent debate about slavery. when adams, getting's, and a handful of other abolitionists synthesized --

attempted to challenge this, there were threats of violence carried against them although there were no physical acts. this idea of a willingness to threatened violence, i think it's a useful backdrop to the caning of charles sumner. that is the most famous of these episodes. it is hardly unique. as we heard from laura, 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 didn't have a lot of friends in congress. his attack was seen as a violation of congressional decorum, that he had attacked center butler from south carolina but have not alerted him previously to the idea that he was going to criticize him on the senate floor. that is what enraged preston

brooks. you would think, we 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, return to south carolina and was overwhelmingly reelected by his constituents. sumner did not return to the senate for two and a half years, recovering both from the physical violence but also from what we would now call ptsd, although that concept was not in use at the time. violence and threats of violence continued in the run up to the civil war. the most famous of these episodes, certainly the most widespread of them, occurred in 1857. the issue before congress was a decision by president james buchanan who was a northerner, a democrat from pennsylvania, but a sympathizer with the south to present to congress a

constitution which had been approved by slaveholders through she cannery. it's been approved by slaveholders in kansas requesting that kansas join a union as a slave state. the backdrop to this was in 1854 congress had enacted a law called the kansas nebraska act which had repealed the missouri compromise and had said that slavery would be possible in the kansas and nebraska territories through a concept called popular sovereignty. basically, when these territories wanted to join the union has a state, the citizens of the territory could vote whether or not they wanted to legalize slavery. all kinds of slaveholders from missouri flock to kansas trying to make kansas a slave state. lots of abolitionists especially from ohio flock to kansas hoping to make kansas on abolition state. the pro slavery kansas constitution come before the house. it was a bitter debate.

it quickly became clear that the pro slavery side did not have a majority on the floor. as part of this political realignment i mentioned earlier, the northern wing of the democratic party collapses after the passage of the kansas nebraska act. by 1857, the majority of the house is at the very least suspicious of the idea of slavery spreading into the territory. add into the fact that everyone seemed to understand that the vote was to legalize slavery in kansas. it was not fair. the debate, however, is dragging on. it gets to 10:00. he keeps moving on. 11:00, midnight, eventually to two a.m.. the man on the left will later 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 advocates 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 here is that if slavery could not expand into the territories it ultimately would die. roe was being difficult procedurally with southerners who were attempting to adjourn the session in hopes that perhaps the northerners would return the next day and they could get the pro slavery constitution through. eventually, he starts to exchange words with the man on the right, lawrence keith, who was a pro slavery democratic congressman from south carolina. you will note that connection here with preston brooks, south carolina had a reputation which was well deserved in the run up to the civil war as sending the most ardently and 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 going down. this document here that i have on the left of tscreen is from a publication called the congressional globe. until 1873, this was a bound volume that came out every year. it described events that occurred on the floor of both houses of congress. the global would hire reporters who would summarize what all mbers would say. as you can see, this is how it is summarized at the time. at this moment, a violent personal altercation commenced in the aisle to the right of the speaker's chair between mr. keitt and mr. grow. in an instant, the house was in the greatest possible confusion. members in every part of the

hall, the estimate here, by the way, was 50 to 60 members. they rushed over to the scene of the conflict. several members seemed to participate in it. we could drop the seemed to -- this was a mass brawl on the floor of the house of representatives. the speaker, congressional globe tells us, made loud and repeated calls to order and required the members to be arrested. the department screamed out they were under arrest. the members continue to fight. at that point, the sergeant of arms moved on to the house floor with the mace of the house. it's quite an imposing looking item that i have here on the screen on the right. they attempted to stop the fight. according to the globe, eventually, this succeeded in bringing order. as it turns out, it did not actually -- the sergeant of arms traveling around the floor with a makes that led to the fight. instead, it was an incident

involving this man, william barksdale, a democratic congressman from tennessee. he was a participant in the fight. an anti slavery member seems to have swung at barksdale and missed, trying to punch him in the face, but did manage to wipe off his hairpiece. barksdale, you can see from this early photograph, somewhat of -- barksdale was scrambling around the floor trying to pick up his hairpiece and put it back on. he put it back on in the wrong direction at which point another reporter was covering the event and indicated that members on both sides of the aisle broke out into laughter and it was the mockery of barksdale rather than the speaker and the sergeant of arms with the mace which led to the ending of this house brawl. barksdale, by the way, eventually would fight for the confederacy. he resigned from congress when

tennessee leaves the union. he would fight for the confederacy during the civil war. he perished at gettysburg. it really is a frightening period in american history. richard baker is a former historian of the senate. he has argued that the caning of sumner should be seen, correctly, i think, as an assault on american democracy, that the chambers, the house and senate chambers are designed both for speaking and for listening, sort of a tradition, roman-style debate. an environment in which physical violence could be a response to the speech that undermines the nature of american democracy as a whole. the art of physical violence expands after the civil war in the house to what i think is the first political

assassination in congressional history. it involved this man, james hines, a republican congressman from arkansas. hinds 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 who moved south following the civil war, hines was an advocate of abolition. in 1868, he starts to go around the state to campaign for ulysses s grant who is the republican nominee for president. he and a companion get lost after one campaign event. they go to the local sheriff's office. the sheriff purports to give them directions. the sheriff is actually a member of the ku klux klan. he shoe tines in the back and

killed 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 as well. this had occurred before the civil war rather than after. the man was avery broderick, the photograph here on the left of the screen. he was a democratic senator from california. all of us know the basic history of california. it was admitted to the union shortly after the u.s. seized it from mexico in the mexican war in the aftermath of the california gold rush. it is a distinct area in american history in that up until this point every new state admitted was contiguous to at least one other state.

california was not. it was a long ways away from the closest state which is texas. it developed a unique political culture which divided it on the grounds of ethnicity, of ideology, and featured intense interparty divisions as well. broderick was a democrat. he was a free soil democrat. he would be a leader in what became the unionist democrats of california. that's the wing of the democratic party loyal to the union during the civil war. he was an ally of the man on the right, david terry, who was elected chief justice of the california state supreme court. the two men had a falling out over slavery. broderick was anti slavery. terry was a strong supporter of slavery. broderick was a political

bosses san francisco with jury support from terry in the 1850 elections. as a result, terry lost. terry attributed his defeat, perhaps not incorrectly, to roderick. he challenged him to a dual. it's not likely silly graves duel which was a personal challenge. this was an ideological challenge between an anti slavery and possibly very force. terry had this immediate former chief justice of the california supreme court shot broderick dead in this dual. he fled the state during the civil war, participated on the side of the confederacy. this is not the last people here. during the civil war, congress enacts a law changing the nature of the federal judicial system and creating what is called a federal appellate circuits.

it 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, what i like the system that exist today. the federal courts are easily divided between district court judges and appellate 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 to sustain an entire year, justices on the supreme court would ride the circuit. they would go to whatever circuit they were assigned and act as district court judges or appellate judges in that circuit. the supreme court justice who was assigned to the tenth circuit was a man named stephen fields. he was a unionist democrat, a former ally of senator broderick. he was appointed by abraham

lincoln in 1863. he comes from a different wing of the democratic party than chief justice territory. has resurrected his career in the aftermath of the civil war as a prominent lawyer within california. he crosses justice fields's path in another context. he represents this woman, sara hall, who was an ambitious up and comer in the world of california politics in the 1870s. she attached herself to a wealthy industrialist and presented herself as married although it seems that 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 lover's estate. she is represented by former chief justice terry. eventually, we'll terry's represented in her, they marry. she goes before a federal district court in california. the district court rules that they're never was a marriage. it goes to the tenth circuit court of appeals. justice fields is on the panel. courtroom. he is rolling against terry. both terry and all did not see me to take their loss very well. in the courtroom, they actually made threats against justice fields. as a result of that, when justice field returns to california for what turns out to be one of his last rounds on the circuit in 18 nine, he's assigned legal protection from the department of justice. you can see the letter. i've written it on the screen.

ve learned on the screen over here on the right. the justice department decides to appoint a u.s. marshal to protect them. the marshall, a man named david nagle, is defending justice field on a train when he notices david terry and his wife coming up and terry start to slap justice field. neagle shoots terry and neagle is arrested and terry's guilt. he is arrested by a local sheriff who is sympathetic to terry but not the democratic party. this works its way to the supreme court. in a decion called in re neagle, the supreme court says the marshall was asking at acting at the has to the federal government, protecting an employee. he cannot be charged for a

violation in the capacity of protecting the employed by state official. this sounds like it is a bizarre episode. it is a bizarre episode. it's an outgrowth of legislative violence. 's something that turns out to be of significance in american history. those of you know the history of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the kennedy justice department in particular appointed members of the u.s. marshal service to protect civil rights activists in the south. in a decision like in re neagle, it is possible that these would have been prosecuted by segregation of southern politicians. this idea of random violence generating significant developments in american history, there's one other example of this although it comes a generation and a half later in 1916. the man on the left is a democratic senator from wisconsin.

a city that was a republican dominated state basically for the entire period after the civil war. there were realignments in wisconsin politics in the early 20th century. this is the era of the great progressive leader. he heads of the progressive wing of the state republican party. there's also a conservative wing of the state republican party. divided republicans -- he's a loyal supporter. in 1970, he's a supportive -- he goes home during an interception. he's out hunting with his brother. he accidentally's shot. under wisconsin law, under wisconsin law, there is a requirement for a special election. the special election is a contest between a conservative republican, part of the anti -- joseph davey supported him. he decides not to go down, not

to stand aside davies. berger and davies divide the left-wing vote. why does any 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 is the ultimate tally. as a result, republicans control the u.s. senate during the consideration of the league of nation's commonwealth. if senator hosting had not been the victim of the accident, the democrats would have maintain control of the senate. we have a 50/50 senate and the republican -- harris casting the tie breaker vote. it would have been 40 to 48 with wilsons vice president thomas marshall casting the tie breaking vote. the league of nations will have been quickly brought to the floor and probably would have gotten the two thirds necessary to be ratified. the u.s. would have joined the

league and subsequent history would have deferred. legislative islands moves on. during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, we have a couple of white high-profile events targeting senators who were also major presidential candidates. the first is the assassination of huey long, the party boss in louisiana killed by an anti along alex activist who is attempting to vindicate the vindication of his father in law, a local louisiana politician, anti long figure who had been redistricted out of his office by the louisiana legislature which was controlled by long. long was planning to run for president in 1936 as a left-wing challenger to fdr. you probably would not have one. he might have siphoned enough votes away to make the

republican competitive. two generations later, we have perhaps the most famous political assassination of a u.s. senator, robert kennedy, after his victory in the california presidential primary, assassinated by a palestinian activist who was angered by kennedys policies on israel. both long and kennedy's assassinations are a reminder that even though we think of the concept of political assassination in presidential terms, president lincoln mean assassinated, president kennedy being assassinated, president mckinley, the concept of political assassination has also touched congress as well. it's not just the senate. the most famous political assassination of a house member involved this man, leo ryan. ryan represented a district that included parts of san

francisco and extended 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. there is a colt based in san francisco. the leader is a man named jim jones. it comes under the attention of american law enforcement. jones and his disciples de camp to the small country of diana on the northern shores of south america where they set up a temple compound and attempt to evade american law enforcement.

there are children of some of robinson situations. ryan starts to investigate along with members of his staff including a young legislative assistant named jackie speier who eventually will succeed to a similar district. she is still in the house of representatives. she's retiring this year. ryan, spear, and a host of other how staffers travel to diana, to jonestown to investigate. they also set up a system in 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 cold had a plan. they were under the impression that mercenaries were going to come in and try to free some of the people who were trapped in the cult.

the plan was to kill any mercenaries. ryan's shot and dies on the screen and diana. spears is left there for 22 hours and miraculously survives. she did an interview a couple of years ago. she was strongly critical of the state department. she argue that basically, i think she is correct, the state department was the one who should have been handling this, not an individual member of congress, basically forced to travel on his own time to see if you could safeguard his constituents. leo ryan assassination was an example of a house member who was the target of a political assassination as well. these were individual events, ryan, robert kennedy, huey long. they're 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 6th insurrection, but another example and without a doubt the highest profile example came in the mid 1950s when a group of puerto rican independents activists engaged in an act of political terrorism and shot five members of congress from the floor of the house chambers. puerto rican politics today -- there's a divide between advocates of puerto rican statement and the current commonwealth status. during the 1930s, there was a quite prominent and increasingly radical puerto rican independents movement. the shooters in the 1934 attack are part of that approach. bill good win was a house page. that no longer exists.

there was a time in which the house would arrange for people played in their high school years or perhaps freshman in college to go and work as a volunteer in the house for a year. they had a dorm. the idea was to inculcate them into public service. goodwin was interviewed by the house historian's office a little over a decade ago. here is his recollection of that day on the floor of the house. >> i was standing in the doorway of the cloakroom looking out and watching things going on. it was very quiet. no one was talking are moving. kitty corner across for me in the gallery, the visitors gallery, the corner over there, the southwest corner of the chamber, there is a movement. i just looked up i. saw the movement out of the corner of my eye. looked up. this man stood up and he had a

dark suit on, a tall lanky guy with a dark suit on. it just caught my eye when he looked up. i looked up when he moves. he reached inside of his coat pocket and pulled out a pistol. that is a bissell. i could not believe it. i knew was a pistol he had in his hand. he started shooting right away. everybody started hitting the ground. some congressman like myself just or they're looking at the guy. some members of congress said that they felt firecrackers going off. they were not looking. they just heard the pop, pop, pop. i remember the gun stopped and he emptied it out. he pulled the clip out, threw it down on the floor, pulled another clip out of his pocket, put the clip in. he started putting it in. his gun jammed out about that time. about the same time, the second man stood up. he pulled out a gun and started shooting. i remember that, a lighter suit,

maybe gray. he started shooting while the second guy was reloading and did not shoot. the first guy with a second clip, is gone quit on him. it jammed. he turned around, right up the steps out of the gallery. i learned later that as he ran out into the hallway out there, a cop was coming and nailed him. he just dalton offense looked him good. >> not for the first time does this kind of attack, what i would describe as an attack on the institution of the house, although it generates violence, it doesn't generate any death of members. acks, are the a second type of institution, about five americans ultimately die as a result of the anthrax attacks, the aftermath of 9/11. the officer senator daschle, the democratic leader of the senate, that senator leahy, pat leahy, democratic senator from

vermont, received letters tied into 9/11 although they appear to have come from a disgruntled scientist on a political agenda threatening -- detaining anthrax and threatening additional attacks. this of course is in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. congress is a heightened state of security anyway. as a result, the house actually shut down for a few days. several members of the senate close their office. one member mark dane permanently close his office out of a fear of harm and members of his staff. this is an event that i think is forgotten, almost in part because members are killed. it is part of this trend of institutionalized violence. some episodes from quite recent periods with which i suspect

all of us remember. the first was the shooting of gabby giffords at a congress on the corner event in 2011. the giffords attack, although it was assumed in the immediate aftermath of the attack, assume that it had a political agenda, it appears not to have been -- the shooter was mentally unstable. the scope of the violence was extraordinary and giffords's political career ultimately was ended as a result of the attack. she does survive. this 2017 attack on republican members of congress who were practicing for the annual house of representatives baseball game, democrats versus republicans. much like the 1954 attack by the puerto rican terrorists, this 2017 attack which was undertaken by an extremist type

on the far left just as easily could have led to several deaths but through an accident of fate 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, airborne from louisiana, the third most powerful member of the house of representatives. scalise did an interview with nbc a few years ago in which she 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 that we play in congress around 7:00. a shot came out. i didn't really know it was a gunshot. next thing you know, another shot. that's when we knew it was gunfire. i was hit. the first thing that came to mind was my daughter.

she's ten years old. i just prayed to god that madison doesn't have to walk of the aisle alone. that's what came into my mind. ultimately, i was rushed to the hospital. i nearly died. my trauma told me there were two times in the first few hours when i almost did make it. through a lot of miracles and a lot of heroes, capitol police officers who were shot during the shoot out ultimately took the shooter down and saved my life and so many other other lives. i had to learn how to walk again. ultimately, to get back in the game, as we say. >> this is a shooting that could have been much worse. it could have led to several members of congress being killed. they were on the baseball field practicing and no real protection in the initial stages of the attack. in the most recent of these episodes of violence targeting

members of congress, it was the january 6th insurrection. as with the targeting of scalise, one of the things to me in thinking back on events of january the 16th is it is simply remarkable that no members of congress were killed. mitt romney, for instance, has told the story of 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 and indifferently. one thing i should mention -- we do live in an increasingly violent world. although 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 lead into the deaths of members of parliament. the first was in 2016 when joe cox, a labour party member of parliament and internationalist, an opponent of brexit, was murdered by a brexit supporter, a classic case of political assassination. last year, a conservative mp, david amos, was stabbed to death by an islam terrorist who was sentenced to life sentence in the uk a couple of weeks ago. you know, the cox and amos killed innings, they are

related to aspects of british politics, but they are a reminder that the concept of legislative violence is hardly something that is confined to the u.s.. a couple of concluding remarks and then hopefully people will have some questions. at the broadest level, it seems to me that this basic subject, the idea of legislative violence, is the sense that members of congress are targeted for violence, it's 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 seemed utterly beyond the pale, these have been periods where the situation has been at least somewhat healthy. on the other hand, if you think back in american history to the periods in which a violence seemed to be, you know, 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, is one such example. a strong argument could be made that there is a similar environment in which we live now. a republican member of congress and paul gosar from arizona retweeted a video that seem to be fantasizing about the murder of aoc. obviously, someone who is not particularly liked by people in gosar is ideological circles. the idea that a member of congress would seem to cavalierly threaten the life of another member, he was stripped of his committee assignments but asked us far refused to

resign his seat. it is a reminder that we live in perhaps quite perilous times in terms of the health of our democracy. as a former senate historian dick baker said, we need an environment in which legislators not merely speak about are willing to listen to one another. violence seems to hover over all aspects of political life. the art of political listening is very difficult to achieve indeed. with that, i hope the people have some questions. >> thank you so much, casey. fantastic. a question from lynn that we just got, she said, bravo, so interesting. where were you when i was taking american history and grammar school, high school, and college? that's a great question, lynn.

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

books. do you think that we are going to have another one of those in 100 years? will that the 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. with sumner, there are several things that combined that made this the iconic episode of legislative violence in american history. the first is that this is a very, very serious injury that he experiences, you know? he's out of the senate for more than two years as a result of this attack. you know, it is not a trivial attack. the second is that the attacker is a member of congress. think back into the episodes that i described in the session tonight. most instances of legislative violence in american history,

the hair piece of exceptions, involve outsiders in one way or another targeting members of congress. the idea of ensure congressional violence which is what we see in the sumner case is, you know, a rare and shocking. the fact that preston brooks, the attacker, was reelected despite arguably because of the attack, this is -- it's difficult to imagine. lastly, in terms of analyzing congressional politics as a general rule of thumb historians want to stay away from a good versus evil analysis. most politicians are not -- morally, this was not good versus evil.

he was representing slave power. he was the most prominent abolitionist member of the senate. the attack on sumner was in reality and attack on the spirit of freedom. it can be analogize in a kind of broader way as, say, the murder of congressman solely for my home state of maine. it's difficult to analogize the concept of jewels as a past. the other thing here, and this kind of ties into the comment that lynne was offering, one of my bed complaints about the study of u.s. history period is that too often we exclude congress from of the study of history. it can be complex, difficult to describe lots of procedure. the 18 50s is not an era in which congress was the dominant branch. so, this is -- this attack was the equivalent

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

i don't have an easy answer to this. it's partially because, you know, most of us here i suspect no -- even think back to your high school history classes. you probably know the name charles sumner, right? it's an important enough event that it kind of permeates. most of these other figures except for the assassination of kennedy and perhaps the jonestown episode with leo ryan, although, again, most of us remember jonestown. for some ofdo 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. you know, we have so much bad news in american politics. this is actually someone who does the ultimate sacrifice. part of it, though, i do think is the fact that as a whole, we tend not to study congress, not

just in history classes, but in general coverage. it is difficult to sort of generalize about congress. the grow keitt house floor brawl that i was mentioning with a hairpiece -- we need the hair piece at revolutionary spaces. we can have a profile of that. this is a rare event of something that could be described as an institutional fight. it seems like from the contemporary reporting that everyone was involved in this. lots of these are episodes where it is just one or two members. they kind of get lost to history. of those that i talked about tonight, the one that i wish got more attention in standard history approaches is james hines, the arkansas congressman who is assassinated by the ku klux klan member. our teaching of reconstruction is better now than was the case

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

the sense that even among very prominent figures that dueling was seen as something of acceptable conduct. it is true that after the -- congress passes this law. california, it's literally the wild west in the 1850s and 1860s. it's largely beyond federal control. terry is someone who has significant political support in the state. in retrospect, they should have prosecuted him at the time, but he resurrect himself. he fights for the confederacy in the civil war. he comes back. in california, he's a prominent figure. he reinvents himself after the civil war. his previous misdeeds are largely forgotten. >> we have so many great ones coming in. dave has asked, it seems as

though we have entered a period where more house and senate members are more focused on ideology, i.e. rep gosar from my state, than on delivering tangible results for their constituents. hearing your presentation today, it seems that might have been the case in previous areas as well. >> this is quite a good point. i think that to me the best way to understand the contemporary congress is that it is essentially a quasi-parliamentary institution. it seems like virtually all republicans in congress go one way, all democrats with the other way. the kind of the environment we had in the 1960s or 1970s and what you would often have members -- so, think of arizona, the longtime senator from arizona carl hayden was a democrat. he basically brought back tonsil federal money for arizona he. kept getting reelected and

reelected. that kind of legislator no longer exists. is what we have in the current environment the norm for american history? i would suggest no. has it occurred previously in american history? absolutely. we certainly saw it in the 20 years before the civil war. it also frankly is a characteristic of the gilded age. the late 18 70s and 18 80s and 18 90s, it is a very partisan period in american history. there are huge shift politically. in some ways, although it is trickier, we see this in the 1930s. to me, again, i'm biased here. i'm a congressional historian. i like congress. i like studying congress. one of the things that makes convert so interesting is that it is traditionally not a parliament. you can get these distinctive members of congress from out of the way places. ernest screening with a democratic senator from alaska, other left-wing senator. you don't think of alaska as a

left-wing state. he was strong -- as we move into the current kind of politics that we have now, we've sort of lost that aspect of american political life. >> this next one is a little bit of a doozy. i don't think we're going to have time to totally answered. maybe you can give us a sneak peek into where it'll look up resources for it. what is the history of the u.s. capitol police origins mission, future, it several? >> this actually is relatively -- one of the great things about all of these federal agencies is they have offices of historians. you can go to their website. they have historians offices. that video that i played from bill goodwin, that's from the house historians office. so, federal agencies are actually pretty good at providing at least conditions conditional summaries of their histories. >> i will jump in and make a

comment. i do think it is interesting, you know, with our policing system in america, we don't have a national police force. everything is localized. we have the capitol police which is its own thing. it's an odd situation compared to a lot of other countries. >> that is where you get the marshal service which is the closest thing to a national police force. it's not really a national police force. >> definitely interesting. maybe that's an inspiration for a future lecture that we have going on or a panel. this is from a cheri. i'm absolutely collapsed. i had 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 start of your presentation, i was very attentive to the start of the civil war and the attention of the anti slavery issue. i just heard a very clear lecture by roger low instant who talked about the economic factors comparing the state of the south with the russian world right now.

it turned my assumptions around entirely. >> yeah, i do think that this general topic, the topic of legislative violence, to the extent that we really think of it all, we do tend to think of it in the pre civil war period in part because of -- it gave us a sense of this overactive political violence. yes, we have had this throughout american history. it certainly makes me said. the idea that in particular legislative violence seems to be on the uptick in the last decade is troubling, but with regards to the civil war and those factors, this is a subject of robust debate among historians. there are some who argue that basically this is an economic confrontation between a

capitalistic north and more agrarian south organized around the slave economy. there are others to make an argument that it's more ideological over the issue of the image of the united states and the concept of slavery. there are others who basically say it's a regional confrontation. i think what makes the civil war and the origins of the civil war such a fascinating topic for study as a whole is that, you know, when you listen to this, all of these factors are really mutually complimentary. the debate is, all right, which of these is perhaps the most significant? you can see everything coming together. >> i think that's the last that we have from our chat box. just in case there are any last questions coming in, i'm going to ask kc to define, if you will, the upcoming election. we're coming out of january 6th. we saw a lot of legislative violence. in your opinion, should we

expect unfortunately to see more during the election season? are we living in that very high tension world right now that we feel is parallel with the body politic? is it healthy to have that violence? has there been any adjustment that you have seen since january 6th? are we still learning in the eye of the storm? >> i fear we are still living in the eye of the storm. you could imagine a different scenario where there was a very meaningful bipartisan investigation of january 6th to determine what had happened and a recognition that this is something that is beyond the pale in american society. obviously, you don't need me to tell you this has not happened. we have a different response to january 6th. as the gosar tweet of aoc -- when i first saw that tweet, i just assumed this was somehow like a parody account of gosar,

something like that. i was trying to make him look bad. this kind of cavalier newness of violence, it's something that is present. i certainly hope that if we were all to come back here, say, a decade from now, there would be no instances of a member who was seriously injured or even killed as a result of politically inspired violence. i don't think any of this really could make a case that that is likely to occur. it does seem to be increasing. that is one of the reasons why i mentioned those two british cases. british politics is different than u.s. in many ways. there are some degrees ofnormalt really it hadn't been for for several, several generations. casey thank you, as always, and thank you all so, so much. thank you, casey. thank you. thank you to laurie out there. thank you to law. thank you to everyone.

we to see you soon.

we are moving into the postwar period and then we'll be there for the rest of the class. right? we're gonna start here in 1945 and go all the way until the end of the 20th century.