History Forum / General / What If / October 2006

"Covering Congress in 1855 as a reporter, he [Greeley] suffered a mild
concussion from a caning by Speaker Albert Rust (D-AR) [who would later
become a Confederate brigadier general] in reprisal for his criticism of Rust's
pro-slavery maneuvering."
http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/fenimore/greeley.html

The assault on Greeley actually happened in January 1856, during the
heated contest for the House Speakership, which was eventually won by
Nathaniel Banks in what was called "The First Northern Victory."  (See
http://web.mit.edu/cstewart/www/papers/sophisticated_speakers_3.pdf for an
analysis of the 1855-6 Speakership contest.)  Greeley describes what
happened as follows in his *Recollections of a Busy Life* (pp. 347-350):

"[After Rust had introduced a resolution calling on all four candidates--
Banks, Richardson, Fuller, and Pennington--to end the deadlock by
withdrawing their names:]  Hereupon, Messrs. Fuller and Pennington
promptly gave notice that they were no longer candidates for Speaker.  Mr.
Rust, finding impediments to their present consideration, withdrew his
preamble and resolve, giving notice that he would reoffer them on the
morrow.

"I listened to his proposition with intense indignation.  It was based on
an assumption notoriously false,--namely, that the organization of the
House was impeded by personal aspirations and rivalries,--when all knew
that the conflict was one of principles, and that Rust himself was
invincibly hostile to Banks only because Banks represented resistance to
the further diffusion of Slavery.  And Mr. Banks's supporters, with his
hearty concurrence, had once and again offered to let a plurality choose,
so that his and their opponents would be compelled to concentrate their
strength or submit to a defeat.  So far as the Republicans were concerned,
they had long stood ready and eager to close the contest in any
practicable way; and it was a wrong and an insult for the antagonist
parties, who could not unite on a candidate, to combine their forces for
the purpose of driving from the field the chosen candidate of the
Republicans.  This dictating by one side who should or should not be
supported by the other seemed to me a gross outrage; and I so
characterized it in my despatches and letters to The Tribune.

"Mr. Rust renewed his proposition on the 23d; when the House refused to
order the main question upon it, and it went over under the rule to the
next day; when, on motion of Mr. Pringle, of New York, it was laid on the
table by 100 to 99.

"I believe it was on this day that, just after the House had adjourned,
and while all in attendance were returning to their respective lodgings, I
was accosted by a stout, athletic man, whose name I did not then know, but
afterward ascertained to be Rust, with the abrupt question, 'Would you
resent an insult?'  'That depends on circumstances' was my answer.  The
words were scarcely spoken when a powerful blow, that I neither saw nor
anticipated, temporarily stunned and staggered me; but I brought up
against the wooden railing of the walk down through the public grounds,
from the Capitol to the Avenue.  Dozens of all parties were around, but no
one interposed; and Rust, whirling on his heel, proceeded on his way.
Soon recovering my consciousness, I followed; and just before reaching my
(National) hotel, overtook Rust and his party, who were probably awaiting
me.  He turned, with three or four friends, flanking him, and again
assaulted me; this time with a heavy cane, which he broke over my arm,--
raised to guard my head, as I was trying to close with him.  My arm was
badly swelled by the blow, as my head was by its predecessor, but I
neither fell nor recoiled; and Rust, soon whirling again, went on his way,
while I repaired to my room in the hotel, which I was obliged to keep for
some days thereafter.  The only excuse or pretext for this assault was
afforded by my strictures in The Tribune on his baffled attempt to coerce
his political opponents into voting for some one else than the man of
their choice for Speaker...

"Some weeks after these assaults, I was waited on at the Capitol by the
Marshal of the District, who wished me to go before the Grand Jury as a
witness against Rust.  This I declined to do, unless compelled by due
process of law; for, I urged, there were fully a score who witnessed
either assault, all under circumstances more favorable to observation than
mine; and if these did not see fit to testify, why call on me?  I did not
choose to figure as an informer or complainant.  I decidedly preferred not
to have the wrath of the law placated by a fine of $25 or $50.  So nothing
was ever done in the premises.  I do not even remember that Rust was ever
presented by his admirers with a cane, as Mr. Brooks of South Carolina was
with several by those who exulted over his far more savage and damaging
attack, a few weeks later, on Senator Sumner,--a crime for which a
Washington court fined the Hon. culprit $300."
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1402168365&id=rB0oOyPCYEIC&pg=RA5-PA347&lp
g=RA5-PA347&sig=u1JvuxtwjqLSSlWOiAkaSBiMNkM

This reminds us that the caning of Charles Sumner was not the only time
that Southern members of Congress had sought to violently uphold "Southern
honor" against Northern critics. (Greeley had called Rust's motion "a more
discreditable proposition than I had ever known gravely submitted to a
legislative body."  William Alexander Linn, *Horace Greeley, Founder and
Editor of the New York Tribune*, p. 167
http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN03006577&id=qWGsJoOe-0MC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA166 )
Suppose complicatons had set in after Rust's initial "powerful blow" to
Greeley's head, and Greeley had died?  Or suppose that in Rust's second
assault, Greeley had not raised his arms in time, and the cane had hit his
head instead of his arms--with fatal results (especially given the damage
already caused by the first assault)?  If a non-fatal assault on a prominent
anti-slavery Northerner (Sumner) could, combined with the violence in
Kansas, greatly increase Northern support for the Republican Party (which
as of early 1856 had still not clearly established itself as the major challenger
to the Democrats in the North [1])   what would a fatal (even if not necessarily
intended as such) assault do?

There is also the question of what the absence of Greeley from the
political scene might mean.  Greeley's opposition to Seward in 1860
(though his own choice, Bates, fared poorly) no doubt helped Lincoln, but
I am inclined to believe that Seward would not have gotten the nomination,
anyway--he just had too many weaknesses, including the opposition of the
powerful ex-nativist faction of the Republican party, and an exaggerated
reputation for anti-slavery militancy that was a disadvantage after
Harpers Ferry.  (And Seward's attempt to re-cast himself as a moderate
simply lost him Radical support without helping him with Conservatives.)
So I think that Lincoln, as the most universally acceptable alternative to
Seward within the party, still gets the nomination.  The *Tribune*
continues, presumably under Charles Dana, who had been Greeley's managing
editor.  One difference:  Dana would not flirt with "peaceable secession"
the way Greeley did for a while in 1860-1.  (I'm not sure whether that's totally
insignificant.  After all, the *Tribune*'s support, however temporary and
qualified, for peaceful disunion, may have helped to convince wavering
Southerners that secession would not be seriously resisted by the North.)  Also,
obviously the Liberal Republicans have to find another candidate for president in
1872.  They can hardly do worse than Greeley, though I don't think they can win
anyway.  See
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/94d5a331326de036
for my analysis of the various potential candidates.

(One thing I wonder about:  Did Rust get his voting rights restored under
the Amnesty Act of 1872, and if so did he vote for Greeley that year?)

[1] The Whig party was clearly dying but it was not yet clear whether the
Republicans or the Americans (Know Nothings) would replace it as the major
non-Democratic party in the North.  Of course many northern "Americans"
opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and a Republican-northern American fusion
was talked about; but many believed that such a fusion would have to be on
the Americans' terms.  (Furthermore, there was still some hope that the
breach between northern and southern Americans might be healed.)  Probably
three things in the first half of 1856 were most instrumental in establishing the
primacy of the Republicans over the Americans:  Banks' victory in the
Speakership race, the violence in Kansas, and the assault on Sumner.