Let’s suppose that you intentionally or unintentionally insult someone; after all, that’s something that does happen from time to time. You deal with it by apologizing or refusing to apologize. There may be words. The possibility of a little fisticuffs isn’t beyond the realm of possibility. After all, if push comes to shove ... well, that happens ... somebody gets a bloody nose or black eye ... no big deal.

But let’s suppose that one fine morning you receive an e-mail captioned “Satisfaction Requested.” You open the e-mail and read: “Sir, when a man’s feelings and character are injured he ought to seek a speedy redress. My character you have injured. I therefore call upon you as a gentleman to give me satisfaction for the same. Be kind enough and man enough to meet me at the Clingmans Dome parking area at 6:30 this evening. I shall bring a small-bore pistol and anticipate that you will do the same. Kindly bring the surgeon of your choice. The distance will be, as per usual, set at 10 paces and the firing will commence upon the command of your surgeon. I further call upon you to give me an answer forthwith without equivocation of your sincere intention to honor this request.”

Jeepers creepers. You’ve just been invited to participate in a duel! In reality, that’s not too likely to happen in America in the 21st century. But up until the mid-19th century, duels were rather commonplace. If you didn’t rise to the challenge in that day and time, your honor in the community was forever tarnished.

There’s a website devoted to “The History of Dueling in America” (http://www.pbs. org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/dueling.html) that provides some fascinating background on this topic. Here are some dueling tidbits culled from that site:

° The fatal duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr shocked the nation. But it was the identity of the man killed, not the fact of the duel itself, that produced such dismay. By 1804, dueling had become an American fixture. And for another 30 years or more, its popularity would continue to grow.

° Like many early American customs, dueling was imported. Starting in the Middle Ages, European nobles defended their honor in man-to-man battles. An early version of dueling was known as “judicial combat,” so called because God allegedly judged the man in the right and let him win. In an era known for its bloody encounters, judicial combat probably prevented men from killing in the heat of passion. Still, numerous authorities, including heads of state and the Catholic Church, banned dueling — with little effect.

° In a typical duel, each party acted through a second. The seconds’ duty, above all, was to try to reconcile the parties without violence. An offended party sent a challenge through his second. If the recipient apologized, the matter usually ended. If he elected to fight, the recipient chose the weapons and the time and place of the encounter. Up until combat began, apologies could be given and the duel stopped. After combat began, it could be stopped at any point after honor had been satisfied.

° Most duelists chose guns as their weapons. The large caliber, smoothbore flintlock pistols Hamilton and Burr used in their encounter typified the American dueling weapons. Many American men owned a pair of such pistols, and, from about 1750 to 1850, many were called to use them.

° The chance of dying in a pistol duel was relatively slim. Flintlocks often misfired. And even in the hands of an experienced shooter, accuracy was difficult. Generally, pistols had to be discharged within three seconds. To take aim for a longer time period was considered dishonorable.

° For every man who gloried in the duel, there were many others who feared it. A word or two passed in private company on a Friday night could well mean a challenge on Saturday morning and death on Sunday. Avoiding a challenge wasn’t easy. Particularly in the South, where men who refused to duel would be “posted.” A statement accusing them of cowardice would be hung in public areas or published in a newspaper or pamphlet.

° Due to the partisan nature of their work, politicians frequently received challenges — as did newspaper editors and attorneys. As a young man, attorney Andrew Jackson, future president of the United States, earned a reputation as a formidable duelist. His honor suffered, however, after a duel against Charles Dickinson in 1806. Dickinson fired his pistol, slightly wounding Jackson. Jackson’s weapon misfired — which, according to dueling rules, counted as a shot. Technically, the duel should have ended there. But Jackson coldly pulled his hammer back again and fired, this time killing Dickinson. In the eyes of many, Jackson’s behavior amounted to little more than murder.

° The only source I have been able to locate for duels in this region is John Preston Arthur’s Western North Carolina: A History (From 1730-1913), which was published in 1914. In a section entitled “The Law of Dueling,” Preston notes that “from the beginning of the 19th century the practice of dueling had been common throughout America, the North, even, not being exempt, as witness the fatal encounter between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. North Carolina had, in 1802, made it a crime to send a challenge or fight a duel or to aid or abet in doing either; but, according to the strict letter of the law, it would be no crime to send a challenge from without the State or to fight a duel on the soil of another State, and in all the duels fought in this section great care was taken to go across the State line into either South Carolina or Tennessee.

Most of the duels cited by Preston involving WNC residents concluded with little or no bodily injury. The exception was a duel between Dr. Robert Brank Vance of Buncombe County and Samuel P. Carson. Carson, a state representative, lived in Pleasant Gardens, a community in present-day McDowell County. Vance “was encouraged by his friends, and especially by young Samuel P. Carson, then in the state legislature, to oppose Felix Walker, whose popularity then was in the descending node, for Congress, but declined to do so till 1823, when he ran for Congress and was elected by a majority of one vote.”

The friends became rivals in 1825 when Carson and Vance “were opposing candidates for Congress, and Carson was elected; but in 1827 Dr. Vance invited some of his friends to meet at Asheville, and announced that he would oppose Carson’s re-election.’ In regard to a political issue involving both men, Vance made reference to Carson’s ‘benevolent hand’ having been put ‘into some other man’s pocket than his own.’ Carson answered that ‘until Vance should withdraw the charge that he had put his hand into another’s pocket to save his own,’ they could be friends no longer; and proceeded to charge Vance with inconsistency. Thereupon Vance charged Carson with being a demagogue, and when Carson replied that but for Vance’s diminutive size he would hold him to account for his ‘vile utterances,’ Vance retorted, ‘You are a coward and fear to do it.’ Carson’s failure to challenge Vance, after having been publicly called a coward, confirmed Vance in his belief that he would not.”

Vance then attacked ‘the character of Carson’s father on a floating tradition that, after the defeat of our army at Camden, Carson, with many other hitherto patriotic citizens of North Carolina, had applied to Cornwallis, while near Charlotte, to protect their property.” After more name-calling by both men, “the challenge was delivered and accepted. It was agreed that three weeks should elapse before the duel, which was to be fought at Saluda Gap, on the line between North and South Carolina, on the Greenville turnpike. Davy Crockett is said to have been present as a friend of Carson’s.

“The distance was ten paces and the firing was to be done between the words ‘Fire, One, Two, Three,’ with rising or falling pistols. Vance chose the rising and Carson the falling mode; and at the word ‘Fire,’ Carson sent a ball entirely through Vance’s body, entering one and a half inches above the point of the hip and lodging in the skin on the opposite side. It does not appear that Vance fired at all. Vance died the next day, thirty-two hours after having received his wound, at a hotel on the road.

“When he saw that Vance had been wounded Carson expressed a wish to speak to him, but was led away; and before his death Vance expressed regret that Carson had not been permitted to speak with him, and stated that he had ‘not the first unkind feeling for him.’ Vance also told Gen. Burgin that he had fallen where he had always wished to die ‘on the field of honor.’”

One of Preston’s informants, Silas McDowell, informed him that prior to the duel Vance had said: “I wish he would fight and kill me. Do you wish to know why? I will tell you: My life has no future prospect. All before me is deep, dark gloom, my way to Congress being closed forever, and to fall back upon my profession or former resources of enjoyment makes me shudder to think of. Understand me, McDowell, I have no wish to kill or injure Carson; but I do wish for him to kill me, as, perhaps, it would save me from self-slaughter.”

(George Ellison is a writer who lives in Bryson City. He wrote the biographical introductions for the reissues of two Appalachian classics: Horace Kephart’s Our Southern Highlanders and James Mooney’s History, Myths, and Sacred Formulas of the Cherokees. Readers can contact him at P.O. Box 1262, Bryson City, N.C., 287713, or at ellisongeorge@cs.com

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News