Thursday Thinking—Duels

I’ve been thinking about conflict resolution this week, partly because it clutters every news cast. Prompted by Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals, I’ve been specifically thinking about early American duels—the conflict resolution strategy that southern gentlemen employed to defend their honor.

I think these duels interesting:






July 11, 1804: Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and Vice-President Aaron Burr. Hamilton was killed. (Can you imagine VP Joe Biden in a duel today with say . . . former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell?)

May 30, 1806: Andrew Jackson and Charles Dickinson. Dickinson, with 26 dueling wins to his name, was killed; Jackson was only wounded. Jackson later became the 7th President of the United States.

September 22, 1842: Abraham Lincoln and James Shields. Lincoln was an Illinois state legislator at the time and accepted a duel by James Shields who was the state auditor. Hoping to diffuse the crises, Lincoln suggested they use cow-pies as weapons. Shields was insulted so Lincoln chose cavalry broadswords. Before the duel, Lincoln made an ostentatious display of his long arms and superior reach by hacking the upper branches of a nearby tree. Shields cowered and called the duel off. (Oh, ho. Cow-pies. Yes, that would be my weapon of choice, too—cheap, plentiful, harmless, light-weight, earth-friendly.)

Dueling in the early centuries seemed a legitimate source of resolving accusations and severe offenses—even Henry Clay, THE GREAT COMPROMISER, dueled; but it seems so savage in today’s society.

However, upon hearing the following argument I began to wonder which society (19th or 21st century society) is the more coarse, uncivilized and unkind.

Edward Bates (father of 17, mind you) was usually soft-spoken and easy mannered. However one day he got in a heated argument with George McDuffie, a representative from South Carolina, on the floor of the House. McDuffie ridiculed Bates publicly with crude language, which Bates took personally, and hastily challenged McDuffie to a duel. Fortunately McDuffie declined and publically apologized to Bates (good thing, because we’re going to need Bates as Lincoln’s attorney general). Years later, Charles Gibson, a friend of Bates reflected on the southern code of dueling, “As wicked as the code was the vulgar public behavior following the demise of the practice was worse still. The code preserved a dignity, justice and decorum that have since been lost, to the great detriment of the professions, the public and the government. The present generation will think me barbarous, but I believe that some lives lost in protecting the tone of the bar and the press on which the Republic itself so largely depends are well spent.”

Because we no longer have to put our money where our mouth is we can make offensive accusations or write rude memos (oft-times anonymously). We can spit and run. Hardly the thing you could do in dueling days.

Interesting to think about isn’t it? Do you think Gibson's assessment correct? Is society’s tenor soured and off-key because men don’t have to defend their accusations? Hmmmm. That’s what I’ve been thinking about this week.