The act of dueling has been around for a very long time. In ancient times each side would send out their "Champion" as the representative of their respective armies. The two men would fight to the death. Sometimes this would settle the issue. Other times it was simply the prelude to a battle. Perhaps the most famous of such duels is the one between David and Goliath.
Today, asking someone to step outside is generally considered an immature, low class thing to do. However, for centuries past challenging another man to a duel was a matter of honor, a practice reserved for the upper classes. Samuel Johnson quipped,"A man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house."
In ancient Europe dueling began as a "trial by combat," the loser assumed to be guilty.By the time of the Middle Ages these "trials" became spectator sports with the chivalrous knights squaring off in tournaments for bragging rights and honor.
Dueling became mainstream in Europe when two monarchs agreed to duel. The treaty between France and Spain broke down in 1526. Frances I challenged Charles V to a duel. After all the bickering over arrangements the desire to actually fight disappeared.
But the idea caught on. In France alone 10,000 Frenchmen are said to have died during a 10-year period under Henry IV. The king issued an edict against the practice but dueling continued with 4,000 nobles losing their lives during the reign of Louis XIV.
Dueling in America
The first duel in America happened at Plymouth Rock in 1621.
Dueling was more popular in the South where society placed a higher importance on class and honor. Most of the duels were fought by lawyers and politicians, timing their clashes for just before elections when the newspapers would carry the results.
Duels did not always mean death to one or both participants. Often the rules called for the fight to be over when "first blood" was drawn, thus allowing the "loser" to go on living. About 20% of duels ended in a fatality.
There were many critics of the practice of dueling, mostly on religious and moral grounds. But others argued that dueling actually reduced or prevented violence. By having one member of each side do the fighting there was less bloodshed than if a large number was involved, such as the famous feuding between the Hatfields and McCoys.
Dueling was also thought, by some, to increase civility throughout society. To avoid being challenged to a duel gentlemen were more careful with their words so as not to insult others. Courtly, formal manners of this time period - stately dress, bowing, toasting, flowery language - were designed to convey honorable intentions and avoid giving offense. Politeness was the order of the day to cover jealousies and resentments.
Tools of Dueling
The challenged party got to choose the weapons; everything from sabers to billiard balls. One duel was fought with blunderbusses over the skies of Paris. Each party trying to shoot holes in the other's balloon. One succeeded sending his opponent to his death.
 |
| Set of dueling pistols |
Swords were the weapon of choice until pistols became more popular in the 18th century. Arms makers made special dueling pistols. The idea was that each man would have an equal chance with weapons as alike as possible. The pistols were usually smooth bore in calibers as large as .65 caliber (caliber = inches of diameter).
The Code of Dueling
"A duel was indeed considered a necessary part of a young man's education...When men had a glowing ambition to excel in all manner of feats and exercises they naturally conceived that manslaughter, in an honest way (that is, not knowing which would be slaughtered), was the most chivalrous and gentlemanly of all their accomplishments. No young fellow could finish his education till he had exchanged shots with some of his acquaintances. The first two qualifications always asked as to a young man's respectability and qualifications, particularly when he proposed for a lady wife, were 'What family is he of? And 'Did he ever blaze?" - 19th Century Irish Duelist
Proper dueling protocol in the 17th and 18th centuries was recorded in books such as The Dueling Handbook by Joseph Hamilton and The Code of Honor by John Lynde Wilson. Dueling codes varied from one country and from one time period to another, but many aspects of the code were similar.
Duels were not spontaneous affairs in which an insult is followed by immediate action. There had to be a cool calmness to the affair to be considered dignified. The plans could take weeks or months. A letter asking for an apology would be sent. More letters would be exchanged. If a peaceful resolution couldn't be reached, plans for the duel would begin.
The first rule was not to refuse the challenge. You would lose face and honor; unless the challenger was not considered a true gentlemen. In that case, refusing would heap insult on the challenger.
Most of the time a "second" would appear for both parties. Their job was to make sure the duel was carried out under honorable conditions, on a proper field of honor and with equal deadly weapons. It was also they who would seek a peaceful solution to the matter without bloodshed.
To show up for the duel had its own honor but one also had to show courage and coolness; no sniveling or fearfulness.If he stepped off the mark, his opponent's second had the right to shoot him on the spot.
The Burr-Hamilton Duel
 |
| Burr-Hamilton Duel |
Politics has always been a rather raucous affair, even among our Founding Fathers. Here is a quote from Gentlemen's Blood: A History of Dueling: "Men in public life called each other, not just the traditional 'liar,' 'poltroon,' 'coward,' and 'puppy,' but also 'fornicator,' 'madman,' and 'bastard;' they accused each other of incest, treason, and consorting with the devil."
In the 19th century political tensions ran high because of the difficulty of separating political disagreements from personal insults. Again, from Gentlemen's Blood:
In our early years a man's political opinions were inseparable from the self, from personal character and reputation, and as central to his honor as a seventeenth-century Frenchman's courage was to his. He called his opinions "principles," and he was willing, almost eager, to die or to kill for them. Joanne B. Freeman, in Affairs of Honor, writes that dueling politicos 'were men of public duty and private ambition who identified so closely with their roles that they often could not distinguish between their identity as gentlemen and their status as political leaders. Longtime political opponents almost expected duels, for there was no way that constant opposition to a man's political career could leave his personal identity unaffected. "
Accepting a challenge to duel showed a man's constituents he had the guts to represent them in Washington. And so, public figures of all stripes were found dueling to protect their honor, whether personal or political.
The most famous American duel, of course, is the affair between Vice-President Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. The two had long been political enemies and after Burr was appointed V-P Hamilton supposedly said some nasty things about Burr which led to the challenge of a duel.
The two met on the field of honor on the morning of July 11, 1804; the same place where Hamilton's son died in a duel two years before. The same guns were used in both duels. It is generally thought that Hamilton fired first, aiming high and missing Burr, who then fired directly into Hamilton's torso. He died the next morning.
Even though Burr won the duel his political career suffered terribly.
James Shields Challenges Lincoln
In 1837 the nation suffered a financial panic. Illinois was in financial straits for several years thereafter, with debts higher than income. The value of the notes issued by the State Bank fell to a value of forty-four cents on the dollar. In one effort to save the state’s finances, state auditor James Shields ordered that taxes paid with State Bank notes be taken at actual value. A great deal of protest followed.
 |
| Young Abraham Lincoln |
 |
| James Shields - state auditor of Illinois |
Rumor had it that Shields was angry about the letters and would demand satisfaction from the author. Lincoln had showed his proud efforts to Mary Todd and Julia Jayne. They decided to write their own version of the Aunt Becca letters. Regarding the rumors she said, “I was so skart that I tho’t I should quill-wheel right where I was.” She admitted “Mr. S.” was “rather good-looking than otherwise.” In her “widowed modesty” she suggests that a marriage alliance be made with Shields. “And I don’t think, upon the whole, that I’d be sich a bad match neither – I’m not over sixty, and am just four feet three in my bare feet, and not much more around the girth…isn’t marrying better than fightin, though it does sometimes run into it.” She goes on to say that if Shields insisted on fighting, in the interest of fair play, she would don breeches or he could don petticotes and that would make things even.
Needless to say, Shields, a good Irishman, was angry. He demanded to know who authored those letters, which now numbered four. Lincoln told Simeon Francis, editor and publisher of the Sagamo Journal, to say he had written them all. Then Shields wanted an apology from Lincoln, who offered an explanation, but no apology. Shields demanded a duel. The code called for Lincoln, as the challenged, to choose weapons. In an effort to slough off the challenge he chose “cow dung at 5 paces.” Shields was a good shot with a pistol so Lincoln chose cavalry broadswords instead. Lincoln, at 6’ 4”, believed he could easily disarm the 5’ 9” Shields. A ten foot plank would be fixed on edge on the ground as the line between the combatants, which neither was to cross, under penalty of death. Then a line, parallel to the plank, was to be drawn the swords’ length plus three feet from the plank. Crossing this line would mean surrender.
There was one problem, however. Dueling was against the law in Illinois. So, the parties agreed to go to ‘Bloody Island’, located on the far side of the Mississippi River from Alton, Illinois on the Missouri side. The day came for the duel with both parties and their seconds arriving on the island. Mr. Shields second, General Whiteside, saw Lincoln cut a twig from a branch at a height beyond the reach of anyone else. He convinced Shields to withdraw his note demanding the apology and the duel was off.
Lincoln was very much embarrassed by the whole ordeal and he and Mary Todd agreed to never speak of it. Years later, during the Civil War, a Union officer is said to have brought up the subject. Lincoln said he did not deny the event but if the officer wished to remain his friend he would never bring it up again.
Lincoln was humiliated and embarrassed that he, an officer of the court, had deliberately broken the law. He had also allowed himself to be ruled by emotion at a time when he had urged his fellow citizens to be guided by “reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason.”
 |
| Mary Todd Lincoln |
There was one further lasting effect of this incident, which took place on September 22, 1842. Six weeks later, on November 4, Lincoln was married to Mary Todd, who was delighted by his actions to cover her part in the affair, in the parlor of her brother-in-law, Ninian Edwards.
Some of the information for this post comes from an article titled Man Knowledge: An Affair of Honor - The Duel by Chris Hutcheson and Brett McKay posted on the website, The Art of Manliness.
