Oh, so now Brooks "mugged" Sumner. And you call me "all over the board" on this issue?
Then you claim he just had to bring a second along because dueling tradition required it, even though it wasn't a duel?
No, items covered by a code of seeking recourse of honor in general bring along a section, be that course a duel, caning, sword fight, joust, beating or what have you.
Why not call it what is was?
I am calling it what it was, Non-Seq. It was a caning by an individual seeking satisfaction from an insult to his honor. He conducted that caning under, and with the guidance of, traditional chivalric honor codes, which state very clearly that, while dueling and other such combats may settle a matter between peers, an insult to honor from a social inferior (i.e. a vagrant or other societal low life) is properly met by caning, beating, or other such act. Brooks considered Sumner, with some merit mind you, to be the equivalent of a vagrant and treated him accordingly.
Two men got together and half-killed another
How can you "half kill" somebody, non-seq? The act of killing either occurs or it does not - there is no in between.
unarmed man for what they saw as an insult to their relative?
I don't believe Brooks' second was related to Butler.
Why toss in this crap about dueling when that wasn't their intention in the first place.
Because the same code that governed dueling led Brooks to cane Sumner. Simply put, had Sumner been a gentleman rather than a vagrant, he would have been challenged to a duel. And if you think Preston Brooks was simply trying to avoid dueling, you don't know much about Preston Brooks. But since, under historical codes of dueling and other combats of honor, gentlemen do not duel with those who are not their peers, a caning was chosen.
Homicide was.
If that is so, you should be able to prove the intent. But looking at the facts of the case, you will never be able to prove that it was anything other than a good beating for the recompensation of honor.
Oh, and quit trying to pass Sumner off as a decrepit old senior citizen. He may have been cranky all the time and probably smelt funny like many old people, but at the time of the 1846 beating Sumner was a grand total of about 45 years of age.
"Mugged" is a reasonable description for the act of sneaking up on an unarmed man and beating him with a club.
No, items covered by a code of seeking recourse of honor in general bring along a section, be that course a duel, caning, sword fight, joust, beating or what have you.
And the second also comes in handy to keep other's at bay who might want to interfere while your beating a man as he lays on the floor. I assume that's part of your 'code of honor', too.
He conducted that caning under, and with the guidance of, traditional chivalric honor codes...
But not, it seems, under the Criminal Code which, I believe, outlawed dueling in D.C. and most Northern states, as well as assault and attempted homicide.
How can you "half kill" somebody, non-seq?
He beat Sumner so badly that he was unable to return to the senate for three years. That comes as close to 'half killed' as I would ever want to get. Brooks, by comparison, didn't lose a minute of time with his 'harlot' slavery.
Oh, and quit trying to pass Sumner off as a decrepit old senior citizen.
Sumner was eight years older than Brooks. Not decrepit, but he was older and unarmed. On the other hand, Sumner outlived Brooks by 17 years so I guess there is some justice in this world after all.