Vice President Kills Former US Secretary of the Treasury

By | August 11, 2012

“Sir, I challenge you to a duel!” While these words today are a joke, and at most would give you the opportunity to slap someone with a glove, not so long ago these words meant serious business. Since the dawn of time, men have always had the urge to show their male dominance. And what better way to accomplish this than by a potential deadly duel? But dueling could not be over a quibbling matter, no, dueling was reserved as a way to restore honor to one’s name.

I just started reading Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation1x1.trans Vice President Kills Former US Secretary of the Treasury , by Joseph E. Ellis, and the first chapter tells of the most famous duel in American history. In reading, I ran across a passage which informed the reader of the probability of injury. “But the inherent inaccuracy of a projectile emerging from a smoothbore barrel, plus the potent jerk required to release the cocked hammer, ignite the powder, and then send the ball toward its target, meant that in this duel, as in most duels of that time, neither party was likely to be hurt badly, if at all.” (1) I also found numerous other sources that indicated the same notion. “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.” (2)

While trying (unsuccessfully, I might add) to find a .gif of Inigo Montoya’s famous duel, from Princess Bride, I ran across this .gif which portrays how inaccurate pistol duels were.

1x1.trans Vice President Kills Former US Secretary of the Treasury

On a side note, if you haven’t seen the movie Princess Bride, here is the epic fight from the movie.

But back to pistol dueling. If this was such an ineffective way to duel, why even take part? I realize that the chance of dying is possible, but like all sources state, not likely. It almost amounts to dueling with billiard balls, which two Frenchmen did in 1843. (3) I am guessing that neither of these gentlemen died—well, not from billiards dueling anyway.

The Burr-Hamilton shootout, which would become the most famous duel in America’s history, took place on July 11, 1804. This duel, which took the life of Alexander Hamilton, would forever change the country’s opinion on dueling. Dueling, just as slavery, was a nasty, customary element of the era. The custom of dueling started in medieval times and came to America, with the Pilgrims, on the Mayflower. Only one year after establishing a colony in Massachusetts, in 1621, Edward Doty and Edward Lester had a sword duel. The punishment for this “crime”?—the two men spent one hour with their ankles tied to their necks. I would say the punishment hardly fits the severity of the crime.

In researching this topic, I ran across several stories about the duel between Andrew Jackson and Charles Dickinson. This 1806 duel led to the death of Charles Dickinson and an injury resulting in a lifetime of pain for Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson—yes, Old Hickory himself—fought in many a duel, and was known to leave a few lifeless bodies in his wake. In the earlier referenced PBS.org source (2), there was a quote, “In the eyes of many, Jackson’s behavior amounted to little more than murder.” Not only had he killed a man in this duel but he also broke a rule, which by today’s definition would label him as a cheater. This leads me to a question. Let’s say that Republican Nominee for President, Mitt Romney, participated in a duel in his younger years. Would he be elected president? Would the press not make this issue the issue? I think so!

Interestingly enough, somehow this history of dueling turned into a political survey and not so much a history lesson. But I digress. As America became a civilized country dueling, like slavery, would be seen for what it truly was and like slavery be abolished.

 

1. Ellis, Joseph J. (2003-12-16). Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (Vintage) (p. 24). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

2. PBS.org http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/dueling.html

3. Smithsonian Magazine http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/duel.html

email
Author: Grant Oster

"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." I love all history; however, my favorite areas are World War II, Civil Rights Movement, and U.S. Constitutional history.

4 thoughts on “Vice President Kills Former US Secretary of the Treasury

  1. Bob

    Your new theme looks good,

    BTW. As for Jackson, he was an interesting character. I read a Jackson biography, and my impression of the man is that he had a black/white view of the world. Not racial, but right from wrong. If he thought you had insulted him it was important to right that wrong. He carried a lead ball for the rest of his life, and some say that he was suffering from lead poisoning, and that gave him an irascible personality.

    As an aside, there was a famous duel between Button Gwinett, one of the Declaration Signers from Georgia. Gwinett was killed in that duel. My ancestor was his double. Strangely enough, a couple of years after Gwinett”s death, my ancestor was killed in a duel. Both duels were the result of Revolutionary War patriot factions in Georgia. Gwinett and my ancestor were the radicals, and the other guys were the ones who weren’t quite as patriotic towards the colonies as the radicals. At one time there were three groups of men saying they were the legitimate government of Georgia (including the British Governor). They didn’t mess around arguing. They put their lives on the line for what they believed.

    Reply
  2. fakename2

    I adored the gif :) And tell me, weren’t many of Jackson’s duels related to defending the honor of his wife Rachel?

    Reply
  3. Hankering for History

    Yes, but if someone called my wife a bigamist, I would not think a duel (to possible death) would be called for. Gosh, I have been called worse by eight year old children. And let’s be honest. While defending the honor of his wife may be the reason that he stated for the duel, both you and I know he was really just upset about the horse bet and being called a coward.

    The next line was taken from a History.com article. “Estimates of the number of duels in which Jackson participated ranged from five to 100.”
    Really? Possibly 100 men had an issue with offending Jackson’s wife’s honor? I think more likely he had a temper and try to use gentlemen intentions to get away with it.

    And ya, the gif was a great find!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *