The Puliter-Prize winning classic and national bestseller returns!Emeritus Harvard Professor David Herbert Donald traces Sumner's life in this Pulitzer-Prize winning classic about a nation careening toward Civil War.

A Pulitzer Prize winner's “magisterial” biography of the Civil War–era Massachusetts senator, a Radical Republican who fought for slavery’s abolition (The New York Times). In his follow-up to Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War, acclaimed historian David Herbert Donald examines the life of the Massachusetts legislator from 1860 to his death in 1874. As a leader of the Radical Republicans, Sumner made the abolition of slavery his primary legislative focus—yet opposed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution for not going far enough to guarantee full equality. His struggle to balance power and principle defined his career during the Civil War and Reconstruction, and Donald masterfully charts the senator’s wavering path from fiery sectarian leader to responsible party member. In a richly detailed portrait of Sumner’s role as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Donald analyzes how the legislator brought his influence and political acumen to bear on an issue as dear to his heart as equal rights: international peace. Authoritative and engrossing, Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man captures a fascinating political figure at the height of his powers and brings a tumultuous period in American history to vivid life.

As James Buchanan took office in 1857, the United States found itself at a crossroads. Dissolution of the Union had been averted and the Democratic Party maintained control of the federal government, but the nation watched to see if Pennsylvania's first president could make good on his promise to calm sectional tensions. Despite Buchanan's central role in a crucial hour in U.S. history, few presidents have been more ignored by historians. In assembling the essays for this volume, Michael Birkner and John Quist have asked leading scholars to reconsider whether Buchanan’s failures stemmed from his own mistakes or from circumstances that no president could have overcome. Buchanan's dealings with Utah shed light on his handling of the secession crisis. His approach to Dred Scott reinforces the image of a president whose doughface views were less a matter of hypocrisy than a thorough identification with southern interests. Essays on the secession crisis provide fodder for debate about the strengths and limitations of presidential authority in an existential moment for the young nation. Although the essays in this collection offer widely differing interpretations of Buchanan's presidency, they all grapple honestly with the complexities of the issues faced by the man who sat in the White House prior to the towering figure of Lincoln, and contribute to a deeper understanding of a turbulent and formative era.

Charles Sumner (1811–1874), U.S. Senator from Massachusetts for two decades, was an ardent abolitionist; a founder of the Republican Party; chairman of the powerful Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1861 to 1871; chief of the Radical Republicans during the Civil War and Reconstruction; Lincoln's friend and, later, Grant's nemesis; as well as an advocate for universal equality, international peace, women's suffrage, and educational and prison reform. This edition combines for the first time Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War and Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man into one monumental biography that brings into brilliant focus the character and impact of one of the most controversial and enduring forces in American history.

Charles Sumner was seated at his Senate desk on May 22, 1856, when Democratic Congressman Preston S. Brooks approached, pulled out a walking stick, and struck him on the head. Brooks continued to beat the stunned Sumner, forcing him to the ground and repeatedly striking him even as the cane shattered. He then pursued the bloodied, staggering Republican senator up the Senate aisle until Sumner collapsed. Colleagues of the two intervened only after Brooks appeared intent on beating the unconscious Sumner, perhaps, to death. The caning on the Senate floor embodied just how wide the complex North-South cultural divide of the mid-nineteenth had become, and explains why the coming war was so difficult to avoid.

A Turning Point in American History, the Beating of U.S. Senator Charles Sumner and the Beginning of the War Over Slavery Early in the afternoon of May 22, 1856, ardent pro-slavery Congressman Preston S. Brooks of South Carolina strode into the United States Senate Chamber in Washington, D.C., and began beating renowned anti-slavery Senator Charles Sumner with a gold-topped walking cane. Brooks struck again and again—more than thirty times across Sumner's head, face, and shoulders—until his cane splintered into pieces and the helpless Massachusetts senator, having nearly wrenched his desk from its fixed base, lay unconscious and covered in blood. It was a retaliatory attack. Forty-eight hours earlier, Sumner had concluded a speech on the Senate floor that had spanned two days, during which he vilified Southern slaveowners for violence occurring in Kansas, called Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois a “noise-some, squat, and nameless animal,” and famously charged Brooks's second cousin, South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, as having “a mistress. . . who ugly to others, is always lovely to him. . . . I mean, the harlot, Slavery.” Brooks not only shattered his cane during the beating, but also destroyed any pretense of civility between North and South. One of the most shocking and provocative events in American history, the caning convinced each side that the gulf between them was unbridgeable and that they could no longer discuss their vast differences of opinion regarding slavery on any reasonable level.The Caning: The Assault That Drove America to Civil War tells the incredible story of this transformative event. While Sumner eventually recovered after a lengthy convalescence, compromise had suffered a mortal blow. Moderate voices were drowned out completely; extremist views accelerated, became intractable, and locked both sides on a tragic collision course. The caning had an enormous impact on the events that followed over the next four years: the meteoric rise of the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln; the Dred Scott decision; the increasing militancy of abolitionists, notably John Brown's actions; and the secession of the Southern states and the founding of the Confederacy. As a result of the caning, the country was pushed, inexorably and unstoppably, to war. Many factors conspired to cause the Civil War, but it was the caning that made conflict and disunion unavoidable five years later.

WHY THE SOUTH LOST What led to the downfall of the Confederacy? The distinguished professors of history represented in this volume examine the following crucial factors in the South’s defeat: ECONOMIC—RICHARD N. CURRENT of the University of Wisconsin attributes the victory of the North to fundamental economic superiority so great that the civilian resources of the South were dissipated under the conditions of war. MILITARY—T. HARRY WILLIAMS of Louisiana State University cites the deficiencies of Confederate strategy and military leadership, evaluating the influence on both sides of Baron Jomini, a 19th-century strategist who stressed position warfare and a rapid tactical offensive. DIPLOMATIC—NORMAN A. GRAERNER of the University of Illinois holds that the basic reason England and France decided not to intervene on the side of the South was simply that to have done so would have violated the general principle of non-intervention to which they were committed. SOCIAL—DAVID DONALD of Columbia University offers the intriguing thesis that an excess of Southern democracy killed the Confederacy. From the ordinary man in the ranks to Jefferson Davis himself, too much emphasis was placed on individual freedom and not enough on military discipline. POLITICAL—DAVID M. POTTER of Stanford University suggests that the deficiencies of President Davis as a civil and military leader turner the balance, and that the South suffered from the lack of a second well-organized political party to force its leadership into competence.