The purpose of this paper is to talk about dueling in our American history. Some of this information will hit home with you, and help you realize dueling was a global practice. Even some of our former presidents have participated in duels, and some have also avoided the dueling altercations. Thus is the life of our late ancestor who just on the fact of honor, chivalry, and what it means to be a gentlemen fought to the “death” so that we in the future may be well respected and humbled. Brief History Americans faced seemingly impossible obstacles. When the guns fired at Lexington and Concord in 1775, there was not yet even a Continental Army.
Those battles were fought by local militias. Few Americans had any military experience, and there was no method of training, supplying, or paying an army. Moreover, a majority of Americans opposed the war in 1775. Many historians believe only about a third of all Americans supported a war against the British at that time. Dueling In the summer of 1778 Pennsylvania militia general John Cadwalader encountered Thomas Conway in Philadelphia and accused him of cowardice at the battle of Germantown. To defend his honor, Conway challenged Cadwalader to a duel. Conway, as you probably know, was one of the Revolution’s most notorious goats.
He had ignominiously resigned his commission as a major-general that April after conniving to remove General Washington as Commander-in-Chief. Cadwalader admired Washington, detested Conway, and was a little hot-tempered. Months earlier he exchanged letters with Tench Tilghman, one of Washington’s aides, about giving Conway his just deserts. Colonel Benton is quoted in saying; “Certainly dueling is bad, and has been put down, but not quite so bad as its substitute — revolvers, bowie knives, blackguarding, and street assassinations under the pretext of self-defense.
The opponents met outside Philadelphia on July 4, 1778 and chose pistols as their weapons. Cadwalader fired first and his shot smashed into Conway’s cheek. The wound to his mouth was horrible, but not fatal. Single combat between two champions has been around for a while. “Judicial combat” where two nobles solved disputes through fighting, developed in the Middle Ages. The practice spread through Europe and became really popular in France and Italy. By the seventeenth century some European rulers outlawed dueling but people kept fighting anyway.
The laws were tough to enforce among nobles and dueling became engrained in European aristocracy. Dueling did not automatically move to America. English Common Law banned the practice and the early Puritan, Quaker, and Dutch colonists did not cotton to such aristocratic swordplay. Nevertheless, an argument between two men in Virginia led to America’s first duel in 1619. Some colonies passed additional laws to put a lid on dueling, and the practice was only infrequent up to the early 1700s. But as American society matured, the colonists mimicked the European aristocracy, and dueling with it.
The frequency of dueling increased after about 1760. When the Revolution began, the Continental Congress established Articles of War to govern Continental forces. Copying the British model, Article VII of Articles of War made dueling, challenging someone, and assisting duelists court-martial offenses. Some gentlemen were joining the Continental Army under the impression that dueling was a perfectly acceptable practice. Continental Army officers were members of the eighteenth century gentleman class with its concept of “honor. ” An honorable man lived with integrity and a sense of duty.
In the Continental Army, honor required gentlemen to faithfully serve the cause of liberty, care for their soldiers, and fight bravely in combat. This earned them their positions as leaders and the respect of their soldiers and peers. Honor involved an officer’s character, reputation and respectability, and it was all or nothing a gentleman either had it, or he didn’t. This link between honor and leadership made some officers sensitive to insults. To question a man’s honor was to question his command ability. An officer’s blood would boil if someone called him a liar, a cheat, or uestioned his battlefield abilities or courage. Calling someone a “scoundrel” or “rascal” carried a lot more weight that it does today. Other slights, such as being ignored for promotion, could also damage an officer’s honor. In their minds, an officer had to protect his honor or his peers and soldiers would consider him cowardly. Gen. Philip Schuyler captured the concept: “a man’s character ought not to be sported with, and he that suffers stains to lay on it with impunity really deserves none nor will he long enjoy one. ”
A serious insult often led to an “affair of honor,” which was an argument that required redress. The affair could end if either party satisfactorily retracted or explained the offending comments (though the two may still hate each other). An affair of honor advanced to a duel if neither side was interested in explanations, if negotiations failed, and one principal directly challenged the other to a duel or “interview” as it was euphemistically called. Once that happened, honor compelled the other party to accept. A duel was a complicated affair governed by multiple conventions that existed at the time.
In 1777, a committee of gentlemen in Ireland captured the various rules in 26 “commandments” for dueling known as the Code Duello, which became popular in Europe and America. Under this code, the challenged man chose weapons for the battle pistols, swords and sabers were popular. The antagonists, or “principals,” chose “seconds,” usually trusted friends, as representatives. The seconds named the location, all parties met at the field at a designated time, and the principals took positions at a distance designated by the challenger. Usually on a command, the principals fired single shots, or struck at each other if using swords.
Pistols were notoriously inaccurate and combatants could exchange rounds until “a severe hit be received” on any party. Fighting with swords continued “until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed or until . . . the aggressor begs pardon. ” Many duels ended without bloodshed, as the Code allowed for the apologies between the principals at several points so everybody could go home alive. At the same time the Irish Code Duello became popular, Continental officers were improving in competence through battle and in training at Valley Forge.
The more competent officers became, the more they began to consider themselves military professionals who commanded an extra measure of respect. This made them even more sensitive about insults to their honor. It seems a bit odd, but the self-confidence that officers gained in the first few years of the Revolution actually made them more inclined to duel. This dueling was a wonderful and great phenomenon even though most would not survive the altercation. Identifying the extent of their inclination is problematic.
Anecdotal evidence of several duels exists, but I am not aware of a comprehensive and reliable record of duels. This makes sense considering that it was punishable under the Articles of War so most antagonists probably fought in secret. The records of Continental courts-martial show only seven officers and three enlisted men prosecuted for dueling charges during the war. This may indicate that dueling was not as widespread as we might think. Or, it may mean that dueling remained generally accepted and therefore not punished. Many were certainly minor affairs.
Historian Thomas Fleming wrote that over the Valley Forge winter, some duels occurred between friends because of boredom or over minor jokes that touched on honor and the opponents often remained friendly. I suspect that a lot of commanders looked the other way unless a duel created a big problem. Court-martial records show light sentences for dueling. Of the ten officers and soldiers that faced charges,seven received convictions but only one suffered a sentence that was anything more than a slap on the wrist. The court found Sullivan guilty of the first charge and counted his time confined while awaiting trial as fair punishment.
Sullivan was also guilty of the second charge but received no sentence because his challenge was “the instantaneous resentment of an incensed gentleman and was not sent on cool reflection. ” Therefore, not a real challenge under the Code Duello and no violation of the Articles of War. Somebody looked really hard to find that loophole. With punishment scarce, it is little wonder that some of the Revolution’s most famous, and infamous, characters were embroiled in duels. The purpose of this paper was to talk about dueling in our American history, and give a little insight on the American Revolution.