Charles Sumner, Revisited (part 2)

00:00:01
Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff You Missed in History Class, a production of iHeartRadio.

00:00:11
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to the podcast. I'm Tracy V. Wilson and I'm Holly Frye. This is part two of three on Charles Sumner. I think the earlier one important to listen to before this one. Where we left off, Charles Sumner had just made a very controversial anti war speech at an Independence Day event in Boston. He also had not gotten a position as a professor at Harvard Law, which a lot of people had been expecting him to get. He was moving a lot more into just doing things that were related to abolition and racial justice. And the next major milestone in his life and career was arguing a school integration case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We said in Part one one that Charles Sumner was an abolitionist. He was also opposed to racial segregation, and this was not just an abstract idea to him. It was something that affected how he lived his life and conducted himself. For example, in eighteen forty five, the same year as that controversial Independence Day speech, he was invited to speak at the new Bedford Lyceum. He turned down that invitation. Because the lyceum was racially segregated, saying, quote, in the sight of God and of all just institutions, the white man can claim no precedence or exclusive privilege from his color. In eighteen forty nine, attorney Robert Morris Junior approached Sumner for help with a case. Morris was the first black lawyer to be admitted to the Massachusetts Bar and his clients were Benjamin Roberts and his daughter Sarah. They were black, and Sarah had to walk past five schools for white children before she got to one that she was allowed to attend, So they wanted Sarah to be able to attend one of the other public schools that was closer to their home. Roberts versus City of Boston was a case whose outcome would apply to other black children in Boston as well.

00:02:14
Speaker 1: The first schools for black children in Boston had been established after the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, which followed court decisions in the seventeen eighties. Those first schools had been established at the request of black parents whose children had been facing harassment and bigotry in Boston's public schools. They had been privately established, but were later recognized by the Boston School Committee.

00:02:39
Speaker 2: By the eighteen forties, there were only two public schools for black children in Boston, and they were struggling. They were facing a similar lack of resources that many other segregated schools for black children did in other parts of the United States. Benjamin Roberts and other black parents had tried repeatedly and without success, to get their children enrolled into one of the public schools for white children. This included a petitioning effort in eighteen forty six, after which the Boston School Committee suggested that the petitioners take up the matter in court.

00:03:15
Speaker 1: Morris framed the initial legal arguments for the case, but he wanted a more experienced white lawyer to present their argument before the Massachusetts Supreme Court. We said in Part one that Sumner didn't perform well in front of jurys, but at this point he had more speaking experience, and the things that annoyed jurors were not necessarily an issue when he was speaking to other attorneys or to justices. Sumner's vocal abolitionism and support of equal rights made him a logical choice to help with Morris's case. This is the first legal case in United States history known to be argued by an interracial legal team. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard the case on November one, eighteen four nine. Morris and Sumner's legal argument rested on an eighteen forty five Massachusetts law that specified that quote any child unlawfully excluded from public school instruction in this Commonwealth shall recover damages. Therefore in an action on the case to be brought in the name of said child by his guardian or next friend in any court of competent jurisdiction, to try the same against the city or town by which such public school instruction is supported. The argument Sumner presented before the court was informed by Morris's legal framing and by petitions already made by black families as they tried to get their children access to the white schools, and a big part of this was the idea of equality under the law. In the words of Sumner's oral argument, quote, according to the spirit of American institutions, and especially of the Constitution of Massachusetts, all men, without distinction of color or race, are equal before the law. This is one of the first, if not the first, uses of the idea of equality before the law, Regardless of race or color in US court cases.

00:05:13
Speaker 2: Some are went on to say, quote, the exclusion of colored children from the public schools which are open to white children is a source of practical inconvenience to them and their parents to which white persons are not exposed, and is therefore a violation of equality. The separation of children in the public schools of Boston on account of color or race is in the nature of caste and is a violation of equality. The school Committee have no power under the constitution and laws of Massachusetts to make any discrimination on account of color or race among children in the public schools. He also rebutted the idea that equality could be maintained through the creation of separate schools for white and black children.

00:05:57
Speaker 1: Quote. To this, there are several answers. First, the separate school for the colored children is not one of the schools established by the law relating to public schools, and having no legal existence, cannot be a legal equivalent. Second, it is not, in fact an equivalent. It is the occasion of inconveniences to the colored children to which they would not be exposed if they had access to the nearest public schools. It inflicts upon them the stigma of caste. And although the matters taught in the two schools may be precisely the same, a school exclusively devoted to one class must differ essentially in its spirit and character from that public school known to the law, where all classes meet together in equality. Admitting that it is an equivalent, still, the colored children cannot be compelled to take it. They have an equal right with the white children to the general public schools.

00:06:54
Speaker 2: He also noted that this system of segregated schools did not harm only black children. Ldren quote. The separation of the schools, so far from being for the benefit of both races, is an injury to both. It tends to create a feeling of degradation in the blacks and of prejudice and uncharitableness in the whites.

00:07:16
Speaker 1: The Court, under Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw, found in favor of the City of Boston. In the Court's opinion quote, the committee, apparently, upon great deliberation, have come to the conclusion that the good of both classes of schools will be best promoted by maintaining the separate primary schools for colored and for white children. And we can perceive no ground to doubt that this is the honest result of their experience and judgment. The court went on to address the argument that the schools encouraged prejudice and uncharitableness among the white community. Quote it has urged that this maintenance of separate schools tends to deepen and perpetuate the odious distinction of caste founded in a deep rooted prejudice in public opinion. This prejudice, if it exists, is not created by law, and probably cannot be changed by law. Whether this distinction and prejudice existing in the opinion and feelings of the community would not be as effectually fostered by compelling colored and white children to associate together in the same schools may well be doubted. At all events, it is a fair and proper question for the committee to consider and decide upon, having in view the best interests of both classes of children placed under their superintendence, and we cannot say that their decision upon it is not founded on just grounds of reason and experience than in the results of a discriminating and honest judgment. The increased distance to which the plaintiff was obliged to go to school from her father's house is not such in our opinion as to render the regulation in question unreasonable, still less illegal. The case and its outcome had ramifications far beyond where Sarah Roberts was allowed to go to school. It was cited as precedent in other court cases upholding school segregation in at least eleven states, and then it was cited in the US Supreme Court decision in Plus versus Ferguson, which upheld the idea of separate but equal segregation nationally.

00:09:25
Speaker 2: If you've studied the US Supreme Court case Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, or if you've heard our episodes on that case, some of Morris's and Sumner's arguments in Roberts versus City of Boston may have sounded familiar, especially the arguments about segregation being inherently damaging to children, particularly to black children. More than one hundred years after the Massachusetts Court decision in Roberts versus City of Boston, Thurgood Marshall would cite Charles Sumner more than forty times and his legal brief in Brown versus Board.

00:10:00
Speaker 1: Hurtz family and the rest of the community were, of course devastated by this lass, but they did not give up their efforts in trying to desegregate Boston's public schools. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts outlawed school segregation in eighteen fifty five, becoming the first state to do so.

00:10:18
Speaker 2: This court case overlapped with some shifts in Sumner's political thoughts and career, which we will get to after a sponsor break. In the mid nineteenth century, the two primary political parties in the United States were the Democratic Party and the Whigs. This two party split had started to evolve in the eighteen thirties. President Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, and the Whigs essentially grew out of opposition to Jackson. The Whigs took their name from the Revolutionary War era, when the pro independence patriots were also known as Whigs. The idea was that Jackson had seized too much power as president, making him too much like a king, and the Whigs were opposed to that expansion of presidential power.

00:11:14
Speaker 1: After Texas was annexed into the United States and admitted to the Union as a slave state in eighteen forty five, abolitionist Whigs formed a new faction within the party. The Conscience Whigs then split off into their own party, the Free Soil party In eighteen forty eight, after the Whigs selected enslaver Zachary Taylor as their candidate for president, Charles Sumner joined the Free Soilers and he ran against incumbent Representative Robert Winthrop in eighteen forty eight. Sumner lost that election, and Martin Van Buren and Charles Francis Adams, free Soil candidates for president and vice president, lost their elections as well.

00:11:55
Speaker 2: In eighteen fifty, Sumner campaigned for other Free Soil candidates Throount Massachusetts. In one speech at Fanuel Hall, he said voters needed to look for three qualities and the people they voted for. Quote. The first is backbone, the second is backbone, and the third is backbone. When I see a person talking loudly against slavery in private, but hesitating in public and failing in the time of trial, I say he wants backbone. When I see a person who cooperated with anti slavery men and then deserted them, I say he wants backbone. Also in eighteen fifty, Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster was made Secretary of State. Representative Robert Winthrop was appointed to fill his vacant Senate seat until a successor could be elected. At this point, senators were not directly elected by the voters.

00:12:49
Speaker 1: They were voted on by the Massachusetts Legislature. The Free Soil Party wanted Sumner as their candidate, which involved a lot of backroom negotiating to try to form a co between the Free Soil Party and Democrats who were willing to support him. Sumner did not really want to do this. As we said in part one, he hated Washington d C. That was not the only reason, but he hated Washington d C. He wrote a letter to one of his brothers in which he straightforwardly said, I do not desire to be senator. For a while, it looked like he might not have to. For the first twenty five votes in the Senate, he did not get a majority, and neither did anybody else. Some of this was because there were Democrats who would need to vote with the Free Soilers and were opposed to all the wheeling and dealing that was going on.

00:13:42
Speaker 2: Sumner finally got a majority of votes on the twenty sixth attempt hearing he had been elected Senator. Sumner kind of dodged everybody who wanted to talk to him or congratulate him, and he went to spend the night at the home of his dear friends Henry Wadsworth and Fanny Longfellow.

00:14:00
Speaker 1: When it was time for Sumner to leave for Washington, d C. In the spring of eighteen fifty one, he was bereft. He wrote a letter to another dear friend whose complicated relationship with Sumner we talked about more in Part one. That was Samuel Gridley Howe. Sumner described himself as weeping three times when he said goodbye to Longfellow, when he said goodbye to how and when he said goodbye to his mother and sister. Quote, I now move away from those who have been more than brothers to me. My soul is wrung and my eyes are bleared with tears.

00:14:36
Speaker 2: He did not like Washington, d C. Any better than the first time that he had visited years before. Although the economy of the Northern States was deeply interconnected with the institution of slavery, this was the first time he had lived in a place where slavery was actively being practiced. About a quarter of the population of Washington, d C. Was black, and about four forty percent of DC's black population was enslaved.

00:15:04
Speaker 1: Abolitionists were elated to have someone who had been consistently vocally against slavery in the Senate and expected Sumner to start making waves. At the time, the Senate was dominated by people who approved of slavery and wanted to maintain or expand it, or who didn't really see abolition as a priority, or who were opposed to slavery but didn't want to make any waves. A small number of senators from slave states also seemed to have an outsized amount of power in the Senate. He called this slave power, which was correct.

00:15:38
Speaker 2: Being an abolitionist really set Sumner apart in this legislative body, and so did being a bachelor. He was one of only two bachelors in the Senate, and that was something that people noticed and commented on. Being an unmarried man at his age was seen as really suspicious. Like we said in Part one, men were expected to get married to women and to have families. Sumner's opponents used his bachelorhood as fuel to disparage him.

00:16:07
Speaker 1: Sumner made various speeches in his first year or so in office, but none of them were really about slavery. Abolitionists who had supported his candidacy and celebrated his election started to become frustrated and angry that he wasn't doing what they expected him to do. It didn't help that he had to carry out some of his work more discreetly, like he arranged a pardon for Daniel Drayton and Edward Sayers, who had been imprisoned for trying to smuggle more than seventy people who had liberated themselves from slavery out of the country on a schooner. Sumner also delivered the news of their pardon to the prison where they were being held so they could be released and get to safety before slavery supporters heard about their release and came to try to harm them. So he wasn't doing nothing at first. He was just kind of doing things that people didn't know about.

00:16:59
Speaker 2: It was customary for freshman senators to be allowed to make one longer speech on a subject of their choosing. Sumner started planning to make a major anti slavery speech that would rebuke the whole institution and also frame it as incompatible with the United States Constitution. Maybe because he knew that people were frustrated with his perceived in action, so he wanted them to know what he was working on. Maybe because he wasn't just very savvy in this moment. He did not really keep quiet about what he was planning to do, and so when he was ready to speak in July of eighteen fifty two, pro slavery senators blocked him from the floor, even though blocking a freshman senator's speech was considered to be a breach of Senate etiquette. So Sumner used the Senate rules to find a loophole that would allow him to speak, which was adding an amendment to an amendment regarding funding for the Fugitive Slave Act of eighteen fifty. This act had been passed as part of the Compromise of eighteen fifty, which was a set of five laws related to slavery and the balance of power between the slave and free states. This Fugitive Slave Act strengthened the earlier Fugitive Slave Act of seventeen eighty three and required people who liberated themselves to be apprehended and returned to their enslavers, even if they reached a free state or territory. Very little evidence was needed to claim that someone had been enslaved. This is something we have talked about many times on the show. Before the Fugitive Slave Act of eighteen fifty put all black people in free states and territories at risk, and Sumner hated it. He called it a quote most cruel, unchristian, devilish law. This attaching something to an amendment loophole, allowed Sumner to speak on the subject with no time limit and without other senators being able to block him from the floor. The speech that he delivered in August of eighteen fifty two was called Freedom National Slavery Sectional, and in it he argued that the United States Constitution did not create a framework for slavery at the national or federal level. That meant that, in Sumner's view, the Fugitive Slave Act was itself unlawful. He said, in part, quote, a popular belief at this moment makes slavery a national institution, and of course renders its support a national duty. The extravagance of this error can hardly be surpassed. An institution which our fathers most carefully omitted to name in the Constitution, which, according to the debates in the Convention, they refused to cover with any sanction, and which at the original organization of the government was merely sectional, existing nowhere on the national territory is now, above all other things blazoned as national. Its supporters plume themselve national. The old political parties, while upholding it claimed to be national. A national whig is simply a slavery whig, and a national democrat is simply a slavery democrat. In contradistinction to all who regard slavery as a sectional institution, within the exclusive control of the states, and with which the nation has nothing to do. But according to Sumner, this was wrong. Quote slavery, I now repeat, is not mentioned in the Constitution. The name slave does not pollute this Charter of our liberties. No positive language gives to Congress any power to make a slave or to hunt a slave. To find even any seeming sanction for either, we must travel with doubtful footsteps beyond its express letters into the region of interpretation. But here are rules which cannot be disobeyed with electric might for freedom. They send up pervasive influence through every provision, clause, and the word of the Constitution, Each and all make slavery impossible as a national institution. They efface from the Constitution every fountain out of which it can be derived. He cited the Constitution's preamble quote, we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insured domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. And Sumner argued that a nation formed to do all of that could not at the same time encode slavery in its founding documents. He also cited some of the founders, including quoting John Adams as saying, quote, consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust, and Alexander Hamilton, who discot describe those enslaved by the state as free by the laws of God. This was simultaneously an argument against slavery and in favor of a strong national government, and in Sumner's words, quote there can be no state rights against human rights. Sumner meant for this speech to present a serious constitutional argument, written in language that would be accessible to people outside of the halls of Congress. It was mostly dismissed and decried by his fellow senators, but it was also printed and distributed across the country, where it was well received by opponents of slavery. Past podcast subject Lydia Maria Child said of it in a letter, quote, Charles Sumner has made a magnificent speech in Congress against the Fugitive Slave Law. How thankful I was for it, God bless him. The Republican Party don't know how to appreciate his honesty and moral courage. They think he makes a misas in speaking the truth, and does it because he don't know any better. They do not perceive how immeasurably superior his straightforwardness is to their crookedness. History will do him justice. In the eighteen fifty two election, which took place a little more than two months after Sumner made this speech, things went badly for the Free Soil Party. They lost most of the congressional seats they had gained in earlier elections. Some people blamed Sumner and his anti slavery speech for this, and they also blamed Sumner more personally, since, unlike what he had done in eighteen fifty, he didn't really go out and campaign for his fellow party members. He and the two Free Soilers still in the Senate, who were Sam and pe Chase and John P. Hale were also kept off of committees in the next congressional session.

00:23:53
Speaker 1: If that letter from Lydia Maria Child made you ask Republican Party, I thought he was in the Free Soil Party. And we're going to get to all of that, but first we're going to pause for a sponsor break.

00:24:12
Speaker 2: Before the break, we talked about the Compromise of eighteen fifty, which was part of a long series of attempts to maintain a balance between free states and slave states in the United States. The Compromise of eighteen fifty had followed the Mexican American War, after which the United States had gained a huge amount of territory from Mexico and California had been admitted as a free state the same year the war ended. An earlier compromise was the Missouri Compromise of eighteen twenty, when states were being formed from land that had been acquired in the Louisiana Purchase of eighteen oh three. Under the Missouri Compromise, Missouri was admitted to the Union as a slave state. The free state of Maine was split off from Massachusetts when slavery was outlawed above the thirty six degree thirty archman at latitude line. That boundary line presented a problem when the Territory's Committee, chaired by Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, was trying to organize Nebraska Territory, which had also been part of the Louisiana purchase, into states. Nearly all of the Nebraska territory was north of that latitude line, meaning that under the Missouri Compromise, slavery should be illegal in any states created from it. But that would have tipped the balance of power in favor of the Free States. So in January of eighteen fifty four, Douglas introduced a Kansas Nebraska Bill which would repeal part of the Missouri Compromise. It would divide Nebraska into two territories, with popular sovereignty or voting used to determine whether to allow slavery in each of them. Charles Sumner was very unsurprisingly fiercely opposed to this act and its potential to allow slavery in a place where it had previously been outlawed. He and Ohio Senator Sam and P. Chase also understood that leaving this issue up to voters might sound kind of okay in theory, but it was likely to lead to threats, intimidation, and violence. They leaked the draft bill to the press with an appeal calling on people to protest against it. On February twenty first, eighteen fifty four, Sumner delivered a speech before the Senate called the Landmark of Freedom, and it recounted the history of the Missouri Compromise and picked apart the various arguments in favor of the Kansas Nebraska Act. Although this speech didn't really move his fellow senators, Sumner was loudly applauded by the gallery, and it got a lot of praise when it was printed and distributed in Massachusetts. A couple of days later, on the twenty fourth and twenty fifth of February, South caml Carolina Senator Andrew Pickens Butler, who had co authored the bill, made a rebuttal, and in that rebuttal, he insulted Sumner personally. He also insulted the state of Massachusetts and other northern states. He sort of offered up out of context numbers to suggest that the northern states had higher rates of pauperism and insanity and also had fewer churches per person than the Southern states. Sort of implying that that meant the Southern states were more moral. Butler also spun out an imaginary what if scenario about Sumner being offered the hand of a black princess, implying that Sumner was sexually attracted to black women. That, of course, was an effort to kind of discredit and humiliate him, but there was a level of irony and hypocrisy there, since rape and sexual assault perpetrated by white men against the women they enslaved was incredibly widespread.

00:28:00
Speaker 1: Debates over the bill continued after this, and on May twelfth, eighteen fifty four, Louis Davis, a member of the Free Soil Party from Ohio, filibustered it in the House, but it ultimately passed both houses, and President Franklin Pierce signed the Kansas Nebraska Act into law on May thirtieth, eighteen fifty four.

00:28:20
Speaker 2: As Sumner had predicted, This led to a massive, violent, and years long battle over slavery in Kansas, which was the more southern of the two newly created territories. Pro and anti slavery settlers rushed into the area, with both sides arming themselves, and enslaved people from neighboring Missouri also liberated themselves and fled to Kansas as well. Clashes among all of these people were ongoing, and this series of events and all the strife associated with it became known as Bleeding Kansas. There was chaos in other places as well during these years, including in Boston, where much of it was connected to the Fugitive Slave Act of eighteen fifty A multi racial vigilance committee had been formed to try to protect black Bostonians from slave catchers, and Sumner was part of it. In eighteen fifty four, a slave catcher captured Anthony Burns, and a group of abolitionists rushed to the courthouse where his case was being heard to try to rescue him. When fighting broke out at the courthouse door, an irishman was accidentally shot and killed. Some people blamed Sumner and his rhetoric for having inflamed tensions over the issue, supposedly leading to the man's death. Yeah, a lot of people really like to blame Sumner for making things worse rather than the people who were enslaving human beings. Yeah, that seems like a weird finger pointing problem to me. There's a lot of it. There's a lot of it. New political parties also started to coalesce in the wake of all of this. The Republican Party, found it in eighteen five fifty four, included former members of the Free Soil Party, Northern Whigs and Democrats who did not agree with that party's increasing focus on the expansion of slavery. Some other former Whigs started to join the Know Nothings, which was an anti immigration party formed ten years earlier whose membership was really surging in response to the Irish immigrants who were fleeing to the United States trying to escape the Great Famine. Sumner, of course joined the Republicans. He also kept trying to convince people to support abolition beyond the halls of Congress. This included going on a speaking tour with seven year old Mary Williams, her brother Oscar, and their family. Mary's father had escaped from slavery and purchased the freedom of the rest of the family with the help of Boston abolitionists. Mary had very fair skin. To a lot of people, she looked white, and Sumner used a dageatype of her to try to illustrate to white families that there were enslave children who looked just like their own. There's some complexity here. Sumner was clearly trying to cultivate empathy toward enslaved children and their families, and to inspire white people who might not otherwise feel a personal connection to slavery to act, but there was an obvious power imbalance between a white senator and a black family who was seeking refuge. We don't really know what the Williamses thought about all of this, but it doesn't seem like they really had the opportunity to say no to essentially being used as an illustrative prop Sumner did compensate them for their appearances, though, and he also helped raise money to purchase and emancipate other family members.

00:31:47
Speaker 1: It also comes with that weird loaded thing of like, no, but they look white, which is inherently problematic.

00:31:54
Speaker 2: Yeah.

00:31:54
Speaker 1: Then, on May nineteenth and twentieth of eighteen fifty six, Sumner delivered a speech in the Senate called Crime against Kansas. He had memorized it and had also prepared a printed version to be distributed to the public. This speech was one hundred and twelve pages long. It condemned the Kansas Nebraska Act and its potential to expand the reach of slavery in the United States.

00:32:18
Speaker 2: Here's a quote. The wickedness which I now begin to expose is immeasurably aggravated by the motive which prompted it. Not in any common lust for power did this uncommon tragedy have its origin. It is the rape of a virgin territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of slavery. And it may be clearly traced to a depraved longing for a new slave state, the hideous offspring of such a crime in the hope of adding to the power of slavery in the national government. Yes, sir, when the whole world, alike Christian and Turk, is rising up to condemn this wrong and to make it a hissing to the nations. Here in our republic, force, I, sir, force has been openly employed in compelling Kansas to this pollution, and all for the sake of political power. There is the simple fact which you will vainly attempt to deny, but which in itself presents an essential wickedness that makes other public crimes seem like public virtues.

00:33:26
Speaker 1: In this speech, he also personally criticized senators who had helped to draft the bill, When Stephen Douglas tried to raise a point, Sumner answered, quote, no person with the upright form of man can be allowed, without the violation of all decency, to switch out from his tongue the perpetual stench of offensive personality. Sir, this is not a proper weapon of debate, at least on this floor. The noisome, squat and nameless animal to which I now refer is not a proper model for an American senator. Will the senator from Illinois take note.

00:34:01
Speaker 2: Sumner also criticized Andrew Pickens Butler, who was not present in the Senate that day because he had recently suffered a stroke. Sumner compared Butler to Don Quixote and made fun of him for spitting while he talked, which was an effect of the stroke he had just survived. Sumner also compared Stephen Douglas to Lucifer, and he alluded to the South as a place of hypocrisy because it presented itself as a region of chivalry and gentility and refinement while really subjecting enslaved women to rape and assault and breaking up people's families. Uh, we're stating the obvious, but this was not a diplomatic speech in places, it was straightforwardly rude. Most of the Senate thought that its content was a huge breach of decorum. Even Sumner's supporters questioned whether it had been a good idea and thought that he might face some kind of retaliation and perhaps even violence because of the things he had said. They probably expected that kind of violence to take place out in the streets of Washington, DC, or maybe even in public back home in Boston. But on May twenty second, eighteen fifty six, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina, who was related to Senator Butler, came into the chamber after the Senate had adjourned, and he attacked Charles Sumner at his desk, repeatedly hitting him with a cane as hard as he could.

00:35:25
Speaker 1: And we're going to talk about all of that and more on our next episode, because again, this is a barely precedented three parter.

00:35:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, and honestly it could have grown into four if I had had time for such things. The whole podcast is just about Charleston. Joe, do you have time for a listener mail? In the meantime, I do. I'm continuing to catch up on some older emails This one is from October and is referencing an even older episode than that. It is from Shawne, who wrote and said, dear Holly in Tray, I've always wanted to write and express my appreciation for the amazing work you do, but never really found a suitable excuse until now. I've listened to the episode on nutmeg and wanted to share this ludicrous pancake recipe from John Locke's diary with an unearthly amount of nutmeg. There is a link to the recipe. The recipe is at rarecooking dot com and it's just called John Locks Recipe for Pancakes. My brother in law sent this to me. We are both studying history and UNI and we are waiting till I stop breastfeeding to try it. Maybe silly, but I'm worried about what that amount of nutmeg may do. Thank you so much for all the hard work you do. This podcast got me through hours of lab work and my undergraduate studies for pet tax I have Garfield, my idiot of an orange cat, who to this day has not enjoyed one second of the communal brain cell, mainly because muzz meaning banana, has complete sovereignty overall brain activity in the house. They are the best of friends and are currently tear horized by our ten month old daughter. All the best Shany. So we've got a cat in the microwave. A little alarming to look at, but I'm assuring everyone that this kitty cat would get out of the microwave before it was put into use. In addition to being in a microwave, the cat has a very vacant expression. Picture number two, we have an orange tabby cat curled up with a great great cat, kind of tabby cat with white belly and legs. They're curled up together. They are clearly friends. I love these pictures. I also love this this recipe so again. The recipe is at rearcooking dot com. The title of the blog post is just John Locke's recipe for pancakes, and it's got photos of the actual page of the library from the collection at the Bodleian Library, and there are various crossing outs where it looks like somebody has sort of vised the recipe over time, and so like there. It starts out with four eggs and you need to leave out two of the whites, but that has been amended to seven eggs, leave out four of the whites. Half a graded nutmeg, if you remember our net, we're talking about a whole nutmeg, grading up half of it to put it into the pancake recipe. That does feel like a lot of nutmeg. The recipe also has sort of you know that it's got that spelled out in terms of what was written in John Locke's diary. And then there's also a modernized updated version of it with today's weights and measures, including an entire half nutmeg graded into the batter that does seem like a very nutmegie pancake recipe. It also has a whole cup of butter in there.

00:38:54
Speaker 1: See I was gonna say before you said that if there's enough butter, it will off set that nutmeg and it'll be just fine. Yeah. I think these sound great.

00:39:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, maybe I will make these one day. We'd like pancakes sometimes at our house. So thank you again Shannie for sending us this email and the link and the adorable cat pictures. If you would like to send us a note about this or any other podcasts where you are a history podcast at iHeartRadio dot com, and you can subscribe to our show on the iHeartRadio app, and anywhere else you'd like to get your podcasts. Stuff you missed in History Class is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.