Maryland Legal Last Will And Testament Form For Single Person With No Children: Fill & Download for Free

I like your question! What an eloquent description of the way most of us feel most of the time! When I first answered it, I was hasty as usual — and found on reading it to my wife that it was too wordy and too harsh. So hopefully this version will be more positive, and more accepting of the wide scope within which the God I have experienced seems to operate.One reply spoke of God feeling like a wave of the ocean, making her feel alive all over. Hmmm.My experience — anyone’s experience — is unreliable testimony. Let me quote a passage from Peter’s first epistle. He could have said, “god will look this way, or touch you that way.” Instead he said you have not seen him, but you love him anyway — even though he may leave you immersed in many trials:3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be begotten anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 8and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of souls.10As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.13Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”The future, the shape and texture of God (which is a meaningless concept since God is an invisible spirit being) — all of that is unrevealed. So in a literal sense your question cannot be answered.But God does reveal himself to people, in ways that defy any formulas, customs or denominational norms.Let me share a couple of my encounters with God. My most frightful moment in life occurred 9 years ago in Ocean City, Maryland. I was pulled out to the deep, seven-meter waves by a rip-current. I was helpless as the surf pounded me. I couldn’t catch my breath, and was fighting for my life. After a few brief minutes, I was defeated, and prayed to God my wife, four daughters and grandchildren on the beach two hundred yards away might not have to watch me die. It was more of a question, really. Is this phase of my life over already? When I stopped struggling, the current apparently pushed me laterally, then back toward shore, until suddenly the water was shallower and I could stand up. I made it a few steps before collapsing in the sand as the lifeguard finally arrived — alerted to my danger by another swimmer who had tried to help.In that case God was not in the ocean, nor was there a supernatural deliverance. It was a normal situation that could happen to anyone. However, for someone who has become a child of God, these kinds of daily experiences that are indistinguishable from what is “common to man” come with the assurance that they are supervised by the Almighty in a way that, upon reflection, teaches us valuable lessons.It is not that we are specially good or deserving to be “heaven’s favorite”. It is a simple case of him deciding to take one ordinary lump of clay and make a “chosen vessel” out of it. To put a little extra attention into the character development of that individual so that his own purposes in grace can be achieved. Anyone who is a Christian can assume that s/he is less deserving, less refined, less useful than most others, and therefore, if they humble themselves under God’s hand they will prove to future generations what an amazing teacher and coach God is.When I was in seventh grade I met a kid in my class named David, who was thin and sickly but an instant friend. We shared an interest in chess, science, music, turtles, and rockets. We were also both intensely competitive. A few weeks after the school year began our History/Science/English/Homeroom teacher, Miss Potter, kept me after school. “Kindig,” she said in her usual clipped and business-like way, “I want to tell you something about Gregorek. He has Leukemia and has been given six months to live.” I guess no one had thought of HIPPA back in 1965. My favorite teacher of all time continued: “He doesn’t know about his disease. His parents have not told him he is going to die. I want you to compete with him. Do not show him any pity. Give him something to live for.”Was that an encounter with God? I am certain that it was. David became my mission in life. We competed in chess, in music solo and ensemble contest. In science fairs. In who had the most and biggest turtles. In rocket club.And David lived four more years. Sometimes he was in remission, but mostly he continued to struggle and go up and down with the disease. He had almost beaten it when he finally succumbed to a hospital food-transmitted infection that caught him at the age of 16 in 1969.I had spent four years in almost daily immersion with my best friend. Most days I walked home to his house, two or three miles away from mine. We argued about everything, including religion. He was a Lutheran who believed in Hell but thought the animals evolved. I was a Bible Student who didn’t believe in Hell but thought the earth was too young for millions of years of evolution. We debated that topic in Latin class in 8th grade, and much to the chagrin of my Latin teacher, the class voted me the winner. Now I am convinced that though I was right about the Hell issue, he was right about the evolution/age of the earth issue.At any rate, the death of my best friend is how the almighty chose to reach inside of me. It turned me against Him at first, and then turned me against myself. It made me angry that a boy who was in every way my superior would have to die, while I got to live. But over the next two years, it drove me to the Bible, and knocked me brittle and bashful to my knees. When the logos and pathos of my encounters with the divine brought me, finally, to the brink of presenting myself in full commitment to God, I had a new problem.In tenth grade, the year David died, I had gotten involved in a “College Bowl” type TV competition that each high school competed in. By the time the year was over, my whole summer was going to be filled with practices and study sessions for our first meet of the coming year, against the previous year’s champion. It was a single-elimination event — so if we lost we would be done for the year. But if we beat the champs — well, we’d be in a good position to go all the way ourselves. Trouble was, I was getting really excited about Bible study, and was starting to feel like In the Know was not what I wanted to be investing my time in. So I asked my dad what to do. I told him if I studied hard, as the art history/science/general knowledge guy, we could win as a team. But if I didn’t I would be letting the whole team down. My dad told me to pray about it. He said, “Tell the Lord you are willing to do your best, but leave the results with him.” So I worked hard with the team all summer. In September when we faced Whetstone, I was on fire. I think I had 125 points in the match. But we lost by 5 points — 135 to 130 as I recall. It was as though the other guys’ buttons weren’t working. After the match I was as elated as the other guys were disappointed. I asked my friend Bruce, who usually got the most points and was a math and geography whiz, “What happened?” He said, “They just didn’t ask me any questions I knew the answer to.”That was the moment, at almost the age of 17, when I first was conscious of the awesome but gentle power of God in my personal life. (I had already experienced it multiple times without seeing what Shakespeare called “the providence that shapes our ends”). In direct answer to an unimportant request by just a kid, the librarians gathered facts that happened to be in my brain, but in none of my teammates’ brains. I knew that it was as random as the infection that killed my best friend. I couldn’t escape the simplicity of what occurred, and yet the mathematical implausibility of it happening by chance. Suddenly I realized that there must be something much bigger than my desires, and another person’s life, at work if there was going to be a sensible destination for human history. I realized I cannot see what needs to happen. I cannot know what is going to happen. I can only attempt to be in step with what ought to happen. And that became the goal of my life.My point? God has many faces, many ways of experiencing him. And I believe the explosion of atheism in this century is a direct result of factors that are NOT a sign of some sort of hardness of heart or darkness in the minds of atheists. It is a result of circumstances and historic trends that — if there is a God who is what the Bible claims him to be — have brought out very useful ways of thinking to a broad swath of the human race.I wish my Christian friends would allow their god to be bigger than they can imagine. Has Christianity in the 20th and 21st century been well served by refusing to read the book of Nature, which has been opened by scientific research? Clearly the time has come for the human race to discover what god has been up to for the last 14 billion years, and he has been recruiting anyone who is willing to use their five senses and the clues left behind in every eon to figure out how precious and amazing this planet is. And apparently the era of superstitious, intolerant Christianity has outlived its usefulness. If there’s a god, everything that is happening fits within the competing, opposing wheels of his movements.The lonely road you described, a journey that lacks heartwarming assurance of the divine, and the certainty of a deity’s love, is a desert that seems to be necessary for the growing percentage of the human race who self-identify as Atheists — without the comfort of a Christianity that has mostly failed in the mission it has claimed for itself.The Bible says that God hides himself. It says that everyone can see his wrath, but few can see his righteousness — only those whom he has engaged in a different way, Christian faith.We all know that ancient Genesis account in which God does walk and talk with humans. In that scene we are told that another intelligent being [serpent in Hebrew is a homonym that also means “bright one”] — lied to them: “you will not surely die”. Right there, most of the competing religious narratives were born — including the neo-Platonic influence which came to dominate Christianity in the third century of its existence.The Genesis story seems to present the devil’s argument as being in favor of unlimited access to knowledge, while painting God as preferring to keep his people in ignorance. And so the battles began. In many respects, it seems to me, Atheism in the 21st Century is akin to a form of higher ground, which at least allows its adherents to escape unverifiable conflicts, and arrive instead on the rocks that tower above the religious tide. Though it would naturally feel lonely at times, that spot allows you to use the tools of inquiry you can count on, while waiting to see if a deity emerges who is willing to speak the language of reason and verifiable fact. So I am writing my answer to you in a way that does not urge you to jump back into the waves of religious claims and counterclaims.You may have already noticed that most of the answers you have gotten stress deep inner experiences with tremendous spiritual joy, power and peace — but are relatively fuzzy on the details and do not really explain why thy world is so FUBAR. In that sense, I would argue that the “gnostic” (knowing) approach of my fellow religionists can often hide the worst kind of ignorance, because it sets aside the ropes and anchors of critical thinking that I suspect has been your best tool in the last 30 years. How can you turn your back on that tool, and try to move forward without objective observation and verifiable fact? (I especially liked the answerer who assured you that God is truly, amazingly handsome! Wouldn’t it be sweet if they had encountered God with their cell phone camera in hand — so we could verify their observation!) :-)There is a big difference between fever and fervor, my friend. Sincerity is cheap, and emotional passion, we now know, can be manufactured in a test tube. Any number of pills or philosophies can fool our brains into manufacturing oxytocin.But look around the world. Who will benefit from escaping the planet’s problems by entering an endorphin-zone of pain suppression? We need testable, workable answers, and if there is going to be a happy ending to the story of vertebrate life on earth we are starting to realize what epic interventions our planet is going to need. Our problems are reaching Biblical proportions.Would I advocate a return to the “old-time religion” — orthodox Christianity? Absolutely not! I think we are very close to the time when Christianity will be all gone — God’s doing — and the field where it has grown is already being cleared for a new planting — an entirely different crop.Hang in there, and don’t abandon the tools of reason and evidence-analysis that have brought you this far. You will ALWAYS need those tools. They are what make you human, even though in the pinch of darkening doom they don’t offer much comfort. A consoling, self-indulgent religious feeling seems attractive. It is attractive. But it won’t guide you through the coming storm.Right now, there are a thousand religious siren songs, from eastern religion to “the church of your choice”. Each holds a mixture of verifiable facts, along with a bunch of ideas that cannot hold up to scrutiny.Am I saying all faiths are deceived and no one knows God personally? No, I find evidence that the best and truest of God’s people are being guided through their own peculiar wilderness, feeling their way toward where God wants them to be. I do think that Judaism and Christianity offer the clearest guidance toward the North Star of useful navigation.The Bible says that at sundry times and in a wide variety of ways God has spoken to people in the past, but that he has in New Testament times revealed himself through his son. How?An admittedly remarkable human being made the personal acquaintance of a few dozen men and women. A few public speeches, three resurrections, three dozen recorded miracles, eight “signs”, one public execution. That was enough to cause the world almanac to call 23% of the world his followers. But He is reported as having said that when he returns, he will have to revise that number downward. :-)Am I saying no one but the true initiates have useful information about the supernatural? No — I’m simply saying that Jesus seemed to imply that a relatively small number would have a close personal relationship with him when he shows up again.But if the Bible is true, God still loves them. Jesus doesn’t come to wind things up and say, “I told you so.” He comes to make all things new. He comes to restore the planet, and bring the kind of clarity and actual communication with an approachable, attentive God that your question so eloquently seeks.So yes, God is nice. Yes, he likes people. Restoring closeness with all people is a priority, and in the Plan. And the Bible could not be more crystal clear that everyone is included in his redemptive blueprint.But I would argue that guarantees of mansions in the sky in the future — or American riches right now — are as bad a bet on the God presented in the Bible as they are to George Carlin.You asked what it feels like to be with God. I would answer that until the apocalypse, the world-wide revealing that everyone is afraid of, it is not particularly easy to know and communicate with God.The prophet Ezekiel presented one view of present-day access to God when he described the deity as having four attributes or faces: the deity as Ezekiel saw him appeared sequentially as four different creatures.The first face of God Ezekiel saw, toward the end of the Jewish era of history, was of a cherub or angel that looked like an ox —a powerful but peaceful domestic animal that was regularly sacrificed in Israel to atone for the sins of the entire nation. But it wasn’t a static living creature — it had “wheels”. Always moving, pivoting rolling. That was the first impression of God Ezekiel saw and described.The second side of God Ezekiel saw was a man — a human being he could apparently relate to. (Ezekiel didn’t tell us how handsome the man was.) :-)The next part of God the prophet glimpsed was a Lion — an emblem of legal power. And the last part he saw was an Eagle — farseeing wisdom.What does it feel like to get to know God? It is a dynamic and changing experience, symbolized by the wheels which allow each creature to move constantly. Its first impression to Ezekiel was a Jewish concept, tzedakah which can mean righteousness but also generosity, fairness, kindness and grace. We see that in the fusion of an angelic figure with a sacrificial animal. A heaven-sent sacrifice; a gift of unmerited favor.The second attribute that comes out when we walk alongside God is humanity. God has a face, can see us, talk to us, understand what we are feeling. Sometimes that face can make us feel warm and comforted. Other times, it can frown and silently motivate us to make major changes in our lives.Both the cherub/sacrifice and the human face remind us of the characteristics most people see displayed in Jesus. “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”, he said. It portrays an accessible and relatable deity, willing to give itself on our behalf.But there were two more attributes of the divine persona that Ezekiel also glimpsed in his visions. The third face of god was a lion. This fittingly reveals the frightening power of the creator. Yet it is not an indiscriminate power. Lions display their power at times, with a warning roar. And at other times, for appropriate reasons, the awesome power of the Lion is unleashed against its prey. It captures food, defeats rival lions, and protects the family which leads. Here too, we see a link to Jesus, because in the battle flags of ancient Israel Judah carried the standard of the Lion.The fourth attribute of the divine that Ezekiel glimpsed was the Eagle. Eagles have frightful powers to hunt and kill. But their lofty perch and amazing vision draw our attention to the divine attribute of wisdom, contemplation, discernment.I would argue that every person who has ever authentically been invited by God into his until-now limited family has experienced a mixture of all these attributes at work, just as Ezekiel did in the poetic language of his vision.And that would harmonize with something else the Bible says about those whom God has touched: the true children of God do not experience a ton of sweetness and light at the present time.There’s a parable about that experience in the Book of Revelation— John says that the word of God came to him, and in his mouth it was as sweet as honey, but when it reached his belly it felt very bitter. Often our first experiences as followers of God are rewarding and even exciting. But sooner or later we, like Jesus and all the Apostles, will be allowed to undergo pain.Why would that be? Well, there’s a lot of work to be done in us. Even Jesus learned from his sufferings.And the world is suffering, too. If we are going to be useful in restoring that world, we need to understand how it feels to be hopeless, powerless, and alone. An entire planet is now on the brink of destroying itself. Lost in our powers of discernment yet our powerlessness to effect change, we cry for help and often decry those who offer it.This is of pivotal importance: God as the Bible claims to reveal him is deadly earnest about loving people, and surprisingly interested in their pleasure — but not at all squeamish about waiting what feels like a good long time before he actually blesses us. He keeps his own councils, “works in mysterious ways”, and often allows a world of hurt to enter our lives before we are ready to handle the world of blessings that he assures is lie waiting, around the corner — beyond the “veil”.So I would avoid the sugary drinks you are being offered in most of your other answers. Real faith is not unaccompanied by careful observation and analysis. It listens carefully, thinks logically, demands proof that the prouncement is indeed from God and not an imposter — and then patiently continues to do authentically good things in sunshine and rain, persistently and with hope.Real faith, if you are lucky enough to experience it, will come to your doorstep and yet make you pursue it; it will be based upon evidence but leave oceans of guesswork; it will reveal inklings of the the divine mind yet keep him shrouded in mystery.For you, for me, for everyone on this narrow journey, the divine mind has carefully calculated what will be sufficient to carry each of us through the night. It will water us through the drought, and feed us in any desert we need to face. At times, these moments of recognition, of feeling known by the Almighty, are indeed awe-inspiring.But in these dark days when precious, fine-grained character is being developed, don’t expect the warmth, the kindness of God to be much in evidence.All we can do is press on.

DUELING IN EARLY AMERICAViolence as Part of Regime ChangeIt is a dictum of history that, “all revolutions devour their own children.” Any cursory study of the topic appears to bear out this claim. Certainly a pattern of violence notoriously appeared in the French Revolution of the late eighteenth-century, and this pattern was repeated in the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution that followed in the twentieth century. It is logical if regrettable that during a period of major upheaval when a long-standing government has been overturned, and the old channels of power and its expression have been destroyed, that a period of experimental violence would follow as disparate factions grab for dominance and settle old debts. But in America, at least, there was no Reign of Terror; there was no corresponding period of organized domestic violence among our burgeoning political factions.Thomas Jefferson famously said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” But he was remarkably chary with his own. He also supported the bloody excesses of the French Revolution long after his contemporaries had backed away in horror. So here in America, while we clearly had the rhetoric, not so the widespread or politically targeted bloodshed.There are undoubtedly several reasons for this. For one thing, we had a unique viewpoint regarding our politicians and politics. In the beginning, belonging to a party or a faction was actually considered to be just plain wrong. Factions were presumed to be corrupt. Therefore engaging in “politics” was evil, and being called a “politician” was a mortal insult. Men of good conscience and ability were expected to think independently for themselves, be guided by their principles, and then act for the common welfare. Our Constitution was actually written and our government formed with absolutely no conception of political parties. By the same token, for most of our history it was considered wrong to campaign for the presidency. The applicable maxim was, “The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.” Only in the openly venal 20th century did our presidential candidates begin to openly campaign for the job.George Washington never considered himself to be a member of any political party, and he would have been deeply outraged by anyone who suggested otherwise. Today historians classify him as a Federalist because of his beliefs and policies. This general abhorrence of politics and distaste for political faction would certainly have had a dampening effect on the passions of the earliest participants in our political system. But while keeping politics personal might have solved some problems, it would have exacerbated others. In a time when the abstraction of political parties was avoided, or at least viewed with suspicion, a proportionately greater burden would have been borne by the individual. It would have proved difficult, if not impossible, to separate one’s personal persona from a civic persona, or personal honor from a public reputation. What mechanisms existed in the early republic to resolve these challenges to belief and character? The answer was just one—the private duel.History of DuelingDueling had certainly existed in the Colonies long before the War of Independence, and was always the preferred method for gentlemen to settle affairs of honor. In fact, dueling came to our shores along with the pilgrims. The first recorded American duel took place in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1621, between Edward Leicester and Edward Doty, both of whom were actually servants rather than gentlemen. In this particular instance the weapons were swords and both parties were only mildly injured.The rules for dueling were fairly simple, and a code duello with 25 rules was established in Ireland in the 1770s, and widely used here. The injured party chose a “second” to act as a go-between. The second delivered the challenge to the “injurer,” who could apologize at any time and end the matter. Alternatively, the injurer could accept the challenge, in which case he got to pick the weapons, the time, place, and conditions for the duel. His second would meet with the injured party’s second to arrange the details.In America, the dueling weapon of choice was most often the smooth-bore flintlock pistol. Since these weapons were highly inaccurate and prone to misfire, this meant that the chances of anyone being killed were usually pretty slim. Duels were usually not fought to the death. With swords, “first blood” was often considered to be enough to satisfy honor, while with guns a single inconclusive volley was often judged sufficient to end the matter. On the other hand, a severe blow to one’s honor might demand a more drastic outcome, with as many as five volleys or more. And in those days there was an omnipresent threat of septicemia and even a minor wound could prove fatal—so there was inevitably a genuine degree of risk.Famous DuelersAfter the American War of Independence, political, as well as private duels became relatively commonplace. A politician’s personal honor was inseparable from his political reputation, so public attacks, no matter how partisan, often demanded redress upon the field of honor. Samuel Johnson expressed it well: “A man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house.” Many of our most famous political and historical figures fought duels. For example, a signer of the Declaration of Independence named Button Gwinnet was killed in a duel with General Lachlan McIntosh. Three framers of our Constitution were killed in duels—Gwinnet, Richard Dobbs Spaight, and Alexander Hamilton. Dueling was common enough in these early days for both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin to feel compelled to publicly condemn the practice.A famous duel occurred in 1802 between DeWitt Clinton (see below) and John Swartwout, a close friend of Aaron Burr’s.Clinton was challenged by Swartwout, who claimed he had tried to cast aspersions on his good friend Burr. The duel was fought with pistols and went on for five rounds. Swartwout was shot twice, once in the ankle and once in the thigh, but he refused to quit unless Clinton would sign an apology. It ended when Clinton simply refused to shoot any more holes into the wounded man. Swartwout survived and was one of Burr’s seconds in his later duel with Alexander Hamilton. Clinton went on to become the Mayor of New York City and a famous Governor of New York State.Hamilton and BurrThe prototypical American political duel took place on July 11, 1804 between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton has come down to us as the good guy, while Burr is portrayed as the villain of the piece, but the actual details are well worth a closer look. For starters, both participants had a staggering amount in common. At least one historian has suggested that they each viewed the other as his “evil twin,” and the idea bears serious consideration. Both Hamilton and Burr were short, slight, and good looking, and both flattered themselves to be ladies’ men, although Burr undoubtedly had better cause. Both had genuinely distinguished careers as army officers in the War of Independence, both saw more than their share of front line action, and both had served as aides-de-camp to General George Washington. Hamilton stayed in this position for four years, becoming one of Washington’s most trusted advisors, while Burr apparently didn’t get along with the great man and only lasted for two weeks.After the war the two were friends—each had a successful practice as a lawyer in New York City. They moved in the same circles, attended the same parties, dined together, and even occasionally worked the same cases—sometimes in consultation, and sometimes as opposing counsels. In the end it was politics that came between them, with Hamilton founding the Federalist Party, and Burr becoming a prominent Republican. Both were budding financiers—Hamilton founded the Bank of New York, while Burr founded the Bank of the Manhattan Company, which later became the Chase Manhattan Bank. Both men were ambitious over-achievers. Hamilton rose as high as becoming the first Secretary of the Treasury and later was briefly appointed as the commanding general of the United States Army. Burr’s military career peaked as a lieutenant colonel in the Continental Army and he was the third Vice President of the United States.They first fell afoul of each other in 1791, when Burr (see above), then attorney-general of the state of New York, defeated Philip Schuyler, Hamilton’s father-in-law and became the Senator from the same state. In the presidential election of 1800, when Burr was tied with Jefferson in the Electoral College vote, Hamilton intervened. He threw all of his influence against Burr, even though it meant that the House of Representatives then elected Thomas Jefferson as president. Hamilton was the head and founder of the Federalist Party at the time. Since Jefferson was his life-long rival and the head of the opposing Republican Party, Hamilton’s reason for challenging Burr was clearly personal.Even with Hamilton’s help, it took a whopping 36 ballots for Jefferson to defeat Burr for the presidency. When Jefferson did gain the office, Burr became vice president, but Jefferson never trusted him again. Realizing that his future as a Republican was now dim, Burr tried to redeem his political fortunes by running for the governorship of New York. He was resoundingly beaten by a complete unknown, largely due to a smear campaign launched by Hamilton. Burr’s patience was already wearing thin when he was informed that Hamilton (see below) had expressed a “despicable” opinion of him. This, by the standards of the day, was unforgivable.Burr wrote repeatedly to Hamilton asking for an explanation of this remark. It was well understood by all that a failure to produce a satisfactory explanation or an apology would result in a duel. No one was more aware of the consequences than Hamilton—just three years earlier his son Philip was killed in a duel while defending his father’s reputation. Still, Hamilton responded to Burr’s increasingly urgent requests with several rounds of lawyerly hairsplitting and weasely prevarication. His reaction is a bit mystifying, even to this day. If he wasn’t prepared to explicitly repeat his insult, and he clearly wasn’t, then he could quite easily have deflected all consequences merely by suggesting that he had spoken in error. But he did neither. In the end Burr had no choice but to challenge his rival to a duel. At that time, there was simply no other mechanism for equitably resolving this conflict, and it would surely have been fatal to Burr’s status to allow such a blatant insult to stand.In 1804, dueling in New York was enough of a problem to have already been outlawed—the punishment for a conviction on the charge was severe—death. But it still occurred so often that the woodsy plateau of Weehawken, just across the Hudson was a regular meeting place for gentlemen to settle each other’s “hash,” along with their differences. At least eighteen duels are known to have occurred there. New Jersey had also outlawed the practice, but didn’t prosecute the crime quite as aggressively as her sister state across the Hudson.Whatever Hamilton’s true intentions, his chicanery now becomes quite Machiavellian. The night before the duel he penned a verbose statement descrying the practice of dueling and denying any intention of actually shooting Burr. But everything he did subsequently seems to contradict this testament. As the challenged party, Hamilton had the right to choose the weapons. At dawn the next morning, he showed up with a particularly large-barreled and lethal set of matched pistols. These particular pistols, crafted by a famous gunsmith named Wogden, had already exercised a powerful effect on the lives of the two principals. Five years earlier they were used in a duel between Burr and one of Hamilton’s brothers-in-law, and miraculously Burr’s only injury on that occasion was to have one of the buttons on his coat was shot off. But make no mistake, these pistols were thoroughly lethal.These were also precisely the same pistols used in Philip Hamilton’s fatal duel, which also had taken place at Weehawken. Additionally, these pistols, which still exist, each had a secret and optional hair trigger setting. Exerting the necessary ten pounds or more of pressure on a trigger could easily cause a pistol to wiggle in one’s hand—spoiling the aim. But a hair-trigger eliminated problem Since this setting was unknown to Burr, Hamilton would have retained a considerable advantage over his opponent. The pistols were actually the property of John Barker Church, Hamilton’s close friend and brother-in-law, and one of Hamilton’s sons were named after him. But Church was also a business partner of both Hamilton’s and Burr’s. Lastly, Burr had actually engaged in another duel with Church four years before, but on that occasion no one had been injured and they had used pistols supplied by Burr, since he had been the challenged party.In keeping with the customs of dueling, each participant brought an official “second” to the event. Burr’s second was his long-time close associate William Van Ness and they were accompanied by Samuel Swartwout, another Burr intimate. Van Ness, an attorney and prominent Republican, had worked hard back in 1800, in a vain attempt to swing the presidential vote in the House for Burr instead of Jefferson. In 1803 Van Ness actually wrote a book defending his friend from the charges of his enemies. Future president Martin Van Buren later served in his law office.Swartwout was another close ally of Burr’s in the New York State political scene, and he was also involved in Burr’s later notorious adventures. Like Burr, he too would be arrested for treason, but the charges were quickly dropped. Swartwout later became a close associate of President Andrew Jackson, who appointed him to the position of Collector of the Port of New York. But he is best known to history for his participation in what became known as the Swartwout-Hoyt Scandal. Swartwout supposedly embezzled something in the neighborhood of $2 million and fled to Europe, replaced as Collector by one Jesse Hoyt. Several years later it came to light that Hoyt too, was possessed of sticky digits. This episode became the origin of an old expression which has since fallen into disuse—any person who stole federal funds and fled to another country in the hopes of evading extradition was said to have, “Swartwouted out.”Hamilton’s second was Judge Nathaniel Pendleton and they were accompanied by Dr. David Hosack. Pendleton was a Revolutionary War veteran and prominent attorney who had been appointed to a federal judgeship by George Washington. Hosack, a native New Yorker was a renowned physician, as well as a leading educator and botanist. Ominously, the good doctor had also ministered to Hamilton’s son Philip, when he was fatally injured three years earlier in a duel at precisely the same spot.Burr’s party arrived on the scene around 6:30 am, and they busied themselves with removing underbrush from the field of fire. Hamilton and his companions appeared about 7:00 am, carrying the fateful pistols with them as was Hamilton’s right as the challenged party. Peculiarly, and adding to the confusion later, at the duel’s climax these seconds turned their backs on the principals and did not actually watch the exchange of fire. All participants were concerned by the legal niceties of the event and if called upon to testify they wished to be able to truthfully claim that they had seen nothing. And it’s surely no coincidence that of the six participants, three were lawyers and one a judge.Just before the two adversaries squared off, Hamilton carefully pulled on a pair of spectacles—obviously unnecessary if he planned to miss. Hamilton also carefully balanced the pistol in his hand and repeatedly sighted along the barrel—more strange behavior if there was no violence in his heart. Also, there was a well known and commonly used tactic of the day for saving face and throwing away a shot rather than shooting at your opponent. It was called deloping, and required the duelist to hold his pistol pointed to the side in an obvious manner. If a duelist telegraphed his intentions in this way, his opponent was honor bound to do the same. By all witness accounts, Hamilton never chose to delope.In the event, two shots were definitely fired, separated only by a second or two. The first shot seems to have been Hamilton’s. He fired high and severed a branch above Burr’s head. Burr apparently took an extra second to aim and his shot caught Hamilton in the lower abdomen. Hamilton immediately dropped his pistol and crumpled to the ground. Burr appeared to be horror stricken by the result and in concern started to approach his fallen adversary, but he was then hustled away by William Van Ness. When Dr. Hosack drew near him, Hamilton whispered, “This is a mortal wound, doctor,” before fainting away. When Hamilton regained consciousness, he told Hosack to be careful as his pistol was still loaded and added that “Pendleton knows I did not mean to fire at him.” This suggests that Hamilton may have been his own victim. Due to the hair trigger he had set, he might have discharged his weapon somehow without realizing what he had done. But under the circumstances, Hamilton’s written and verbal statements must be viewed with enormous suspicion.Burr was always convinced that Hamilton had done his best to destroy his career and then to kill him, and many historians share the opinion that Hamilton’s written statement was merely a malicious attempt to ruin Burr in the event that Hamilton lost the duel. If so, Hamilton succeeded. Burr’s bullet not only killed his hated rival, but also dealt a death blow to his own political ambitions. The stricken Hamilton was rowed back across the river and taken to the home of a friend in Greenwich Village, where he died the following day.Burr was charged with Hamilton’s murder in both New York and New Jersey, but was never brought to trial. After briefly fleeing the unexpected uproar with a trip to South Carolina, Burr returned to finish his term as Vice President with probity and dignity. Even his enemies reportedly cried at his farewell speech. But despite these crocodile tears, his political career was over.Burr Treason TrialSeveral years later Burr was tried for treason at President Jefferson’s insistence. Burr was apparently trying to retrieve his fortunes by engaging in military adventurism in either Mexico or the Southwest. He may have had the goal of forming an independent state, or of carving out a principality and then returning to the U.S. in triumph. (If so, then he was ahead of the curve—in the future other defeated politicians would move West in an effort to reinvent themselves and revitalize their ambitions—Sam Houston and Davy Crockett come to mind.) Whatever Burr’s intentions, there was never any genuine evidence against him and accordingly, despite Jefferson’s best and quite partisan efforts, he was acquitted. But the older Burr (see below) was never able to regain the former eminence he enjoyed in his younger years. His reputation would have been served better if he had died dramatically with Hamilton. He returned to New York to practice law and slowly sank into gray obscurity.Andy Jackson, Frontier DuelistWhatever his repute as a statesman, in his lifetime Andrew Jackson was well known as a hot-tempered and vengeful man—quick to take offense, and quick too, to resort to violence. In addition to the fact that in that day political passions tended to run high, Jackson’s personal life was a considerable source of aggrievement to him. The delight of his existence was his wife, Rachel, née Donelson, and the loving couple was joined together in marriage in 1791. The problem was that at that moment Rachel was still married to her first husband, and so she was technically guilty of bigamy. Apologists posit that communications were quite imperfect in rough and tumble frontier Tennessee, and that Rachel had sincerely believed that her divorce was complete when the papers had merely been filed. But there is also evidence that she cohabited with Andrew and titled herself as “Mrs. Jackson” even before the wedding took place. In any event, proprieties being what they were, a nasty little scandal ensued. A second marriage ceremony was conducted in 1794, after Rachel’s divorce was finalized. Despite the belated resolution, this affair provided a permanent chink in the armor of this cranky and belligerent politician. And it was impossible that an imbroglio as juicy as this would not be used repeatedly by Jackson’s adversaries.Only two are well documented, but “Old Hickory” claimed to have fought the prodigious total of fourteen duels over his career. Considering a character as preternaturally touchy as his, this gory aggregate offers no serious strain to credulity. Jackson had been wounded so frequently in these brouhahas that in later life it was said that he “rattled like a bag of marbles.” While politicians usually fought duels with the goal of protecting their reputations, this tactic could also backfire. In 1806, the young Andrew Jackson fought such a duel with Charles Dickinson. Dickinson had published an attack on Jackson (Rachel again), and Jackson had typically responded by issuing a challenge to a duel. The outcome would be notorious and the effects long-lasting.Jackson’s pistol failed to go off while Dickinson’s bullet wounded his adversary. Under the code duello, this exchange should have ended the matter, but Jackson was incensed. He cold-bloodedly pulled back the flintlock and fired again, this time striking his opponent dead. By the rules governing “affairs of honor” this was pretty close to outright murder. Dickenson’s bullet had lodged close enough to Jackson’s heart that doctors refused to remove it. For the rest of his life it occasionally caused “Old hickory” to cough up blood. Another lasting result was the damage that the Dickinson duel did to Jackson’s reputation. Contemporary judgments were somewhat arbitrary, but in this instance Jackson was commonly felt to have crossed the line of gentlemanly conduct. But overall, and unlike Burr, Jackson’s penchant for violence and his many exercises in defense of his honor enhanced rather than hurt his standing. Andrew Jackson is the only American president known to have killed another man in a duel. And on the very last day of his presidency, the cantankerous Tennessean expressed but two regrets, that he “had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun.”By the time of the Burr-Hamilton duel, the custom was already falling seriously out of favor in the North. A number of anti-dueling organizations had formed, and ministers and public officials were regularly speaking out against it. Prosecution had become vigorous. But the practice was much more resilient in the South. Interestingly, the majority of Southern duels were fought by politicians and lawyers. Legislators, judges, and even governors used dueling to sort out their disagreements, and politicians regularly continued their “debates” on the dueling ground. South of the Mason-Dixon Line, a man who refused a duel was punished by being “posted”—a notification of his cowardice was either printed in a local newspaper or hung up in a local place.John Randolph, Jefferson’s Eccentric CousinOne of the most interesting politicians of the early republic who also dabbled in dueling was John Randolph of Roanoke. A scion of one of Virginia’s leading families, Randolph was a first cousin to President Thomas Jefferson, and the nephew of Edmund Randolph, the first Attorney General of the United States and the second Secretary of State. Tall and lanky, as a young man John was good looking, but an unusual disease described as a form of “tuberculosis” left him smooth cheeked, high voiced, and probably sexually impotent. He spent most of his career as a gadfly Congressman, although he also served one term as a U.S. Senator.Randolph was an eccentric character, famous for his “flashy” dress, often showing up in the House booted and spurred and swishing a riding crop. Wherever he went he would often appear surrounded by his slaves and a frolicsome pack of hunting dogs. He was always a notable speaker, and at his best he could be a highly effective orator—he would become famous for his invective. When an opponent in the House had the temerity to imply that he was sexually incapable, he responded in an aristocratic Southern drawl, “You pride yourself upon an animal faculty, in respect to which the negro is your equal and the jackass infinitely your superior.” In criticizing the appointment of a politician he felt unqualified to the position of Secretary of the Treasury he commented, “Never were abilities so much below mediocrity so well rewarded; no, not when Caligula’s horse was made Consul.”As would be expected of such a volatile character, living in such times, Randolph fought his share of duels, often with little cause. While attending college as a young man, dueling was considered to be an essential part of a Southern gentleman’s education. Randolph had a dispute with a fellow Virginian student over nothing more weighty than the pronunciation of a word. Still, they fought a duel to settle the matter and Randolph shot his opponent, who luckily survived.Under the code of dueling, the greatest insult of all was to refuse a challenge on the grounds that your antagonist was too far beneath you to merit a response. In 1807 Randolph refused to duel with the notorious General James Wilkinson, the commanding officer of the U.S. Army. The irate Wilkinson responded by “posting” Randolph for cowardice. Randolph, who had seemingly spoken ill of Wilkinson, held his object in such contempt that he felt he owed him no explanation—Wilkinson possessed no honor to be tarnished. He coldly replied, “I cannot descend to your level.” The posting by Wilkinson was entirely ineffective in damaging Randolph’s reputation. The general was a particularly shady character who had been revealed to a paid agent in the employ of the Spanish government and who had also conspired with Aaron Burr in the latter’s aborted scheme for conquest in the Southwest.One of the major issues in Randolph’s political career was a notorious swindle called the Yazoo Land Fraud. Even when he chose not to duel, his passions ran high. He had a violent argument over this issue with an individual named Wright, whom he clearly felt to be wrong. In a quaint letter he asks one of his seconds to arrange the affair without bloodshed. “I threw a tumbler at him, which hit him in the head. He returned, and, while my friends very kindly pinioned me, struck me twice in the face. You will oblige me by settling matters with him, or his friend, as soon as may be, in such a way as you know calculated to give me ease.”Despite his bellicosity, Randolph actually had decidedly mixed feelings towards dueling. He thought the mechanism was used too often and too lightly, but that ultimately the practice was a necessary evil. In another letter he said, “Abolish dueling and you encourage bullies as well in number as in degree, and lay every gentleman at the mercy of a cowardly pack of scoundrels. In fine, my good friend, the Yahoo must be kept down, by religion, sentiment, manners if you can—but he must be kept down.”Late in his career, long painful illnesses seemed to have taken a toll on Randolph’s mental stability and his enemies had occasion to accuse him of insanity. In this period he had a serious falling out with the famous Henry Clay, who challenged Randolph to a duel in 1826. Randolph immediately accepted. At the event he was oddly attired in a long dressing gown, which Clay managed to put two bullet holes in, while Randolph himself managed to perforate Clay’s own coat. Meeting in mid-field, Randolph remarked to Clay that he now owed him a coat. The “Great Compromiser” responded, “I am glad the debt is no greater.” With honor served, the two quickly restored their former cordial relationship. Among Randolph’s many friends were Francis Scott Key, composer of our National Anthem, and Thomas Hart Benton, the famous Congressman and Senator from Missouri. Coincidentally, Benton, a seminal figure in early nineteenth-century American politics was also a violent and touchy man, famous for his own duels. We’ll come back to him.Commodore Decatur, Naval DuelistProbably the most popular dueling site in America was located at Bladensburg, Maryland. Dueling was strictly illegal in the new capital of Washington, D. C., and the laws were strictly enforced. But for a time Maryland offered no such encumbrances and Bladensburg was just across the Potomac. One of the most famous Americans to duel there was the renowned Commodore Stephen Decatur, a sterling figure and one of the very greatest heroes of the United States Navy. Dueling was amazingly commonplace in early nineteenth century navy as Decatur’s life illustrates.One particular story of Decatur’s first voyage as a midshipman aboard the frigate U.S.S. United States bears telling. The ship was on duty in the Mediterranean Sea, and Decatur had become close friends with another midshipman named Richard Somers. One day he and Somers playfully mocked each other, but overhearing, the other midshipmen aboard demanded that Somers challenge Decatur for his supposed insult. Instead, Somers challenged all of the messmates and requested Decatur to serve as his second. Decatur tried to assuage the situation, but Somers was adamant. In a scene reminiscent of The Three Musketeers, Somers challenged all of the ship’s complement of midshipmen, arranging to meet each officer at subsequent hours.In his duel with the first midshipman, Somers was wounded in the left arm. In his second duel he was “pinked” in the thigh and fainted from the blood loss. Decatur offered to take his place, but the defiant Somers refused. Firing from a sitting position he still managed to wound his third opponent, whereupon the other officers acknowledged his courage and the affair ended. In light of subsequent events, it’s fascinating to note that Decatur’s training officer at the time was First Lieutenant James Barron, ten years his senior. Describing their close relationship, Decatur was to say, “I was more indebted to him than my own father.”Decatur fought his own first duel in Philadelphia in 1799, while a young lieutenant, still stationed aboard the United States. This time the Chief Mate of a British Indiaman made the mistake of making a number of derogatory remarks about Decatur and the American navy. When the man refused to apologize, Decatur challenged him to a duel. The young lieutenant was a crack shot and he contented himself with wounding his adversary in the hip.In 1801 the First Barbary War began, when Jefferson opted to send a U.S. naval force to do battle with the Barbary States rather than to continue to pay tribute to them. In 1804, Decatur distinguished himself in this conflict by taking the captured Philadelphia in Tripoli harbor and setting fire to the ship, depriving the pirates of her use. For his feat, Decatur became the youngest man in American naval history to hold the rank of captain. He fought heroically in further fleet actions and the following year the Bashaw of Tripoli surrendered. The dashing Decatur married young Susan Wheeler, the daughter of the mayor of the naval town of Norfolk, Virginia. She was a great beauty and quite vivacious—her earlier suitors had included Jerome Bonaparte, the younger brother of Napoleon, and that ubiquitous roué, Aaron Burr.In 1807, the notorious Chesapeake-Leopard Affair took place, an international incident which would eventually lead to Decatur’s final duel. In June of that year the frigate U.S.S. Chesapeake set sail under the command of Commodore James Barron and headed for the Mediterranean Sea. Shortly afterwards they were accosted by the British frigate, H.M.S. Leopard, whose captain demanded to search the American ship for British naval deserters. Barron properly refused and shockingly, without warning the Leopard opened fire, savaging the Chesapeake, killing three of her crewmembers and wounding eighteen others. Have just left port, the Chesapeake was unprepared for battle and could not return fire. Barron struck his ship’s colors and was forced to allow the British to board him. The Chesapeake eventually limped back to port with two crippled masts and twenty-two shot holes peppering her oaken sides.As a consequence, Commodore Barron was court-martialed and Decatur was ordered to serve on the board. Barron was disgraced—the court found him guilty of “unpreparedness,” and he was barred from command for a period of five years. As a final insult, the navy appointed Decatur to command the refitted Chesapeake. By the time the War of 1812 broke out, Decatur was now captain of the 44 gun frigate U.S.S. United States. In a famous battle he defeated and captured the British frigate H.M.S. Macedonia. Decatur also served with distinction in the Second Barbary War of 1815.In October of 1818, Decatur was asked to serve as a “second” in a duel between his good friend Oliver Hazard Perry, another renowned hero of the War of 1812, and Marine Captain John Heath. Heath fired and missed, while Perry declined to shoot. The seconds performed their part in smoothing things over, both parties agreed that honor had been satisfied, and the affair ended without casualty. But Decatur’s next duel would not end so felicitously.In 1820 Commodore James Barron challenged Decatur over remarks the latter had made regarding the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair of thirteen years earlier. Barron had just returned to the U.S. after a number of years in “exile” in Copenhagen, and was now seeking reinstatement in the navy. Decatur, among other officers, blocked this return to duty, and so Barron chose to call him out. At this point in time dueling between naval officers was so prevalent that it was actually causing a serious shortage of qualified personnel. In Decatur’s case, the dangers of the duel were magnified by the sinister element of betrayal.Barron’s second was Captain Jesse Elliott, a pugnacious fellow well known to dislike Decatur. But Decatur’s second was his erstwhile friend, Commodore William Bainbridge. Decatur was too generous of nature to realize it, but the older Bainbridge was jealous of his fame and not inclined to do him any favors. Under the code of dueling, the first duty of the principals’ seconds is to resolve the affair peacefully, if this is in any way possible. Not only did Elliott and Bainbridge make no serious effort to do this, but the details they arranged virtually guaranteed that the encounter would be lethal.The combatants met at Bladensburg on March 22nd, at a popular dueling venue known locally as “The Valley of Chance.” They faced off at the extremely close range of only eight paces. Both men fired simultaneously, and not unexpectedly, both were badly wounded. Decatur tried vainly to staunch his wound and said, “Oh, Lord, I am a dead man.” Lying in a puddle of blood Barron told him that he forgave him from the bottom of his heart. As his opponent was carried away, he cried out, “God bless you, Decatur.”Decatur died at 10:30 that night in his elegant mansion on Lafayette Square, near to the White House. Barron was lucky enough to eventually recover from his wounds. Decatur’s funeral became a national event, with President James Madison prominent among the mourners. Afterwards, the reprehensible conduct of the seconds became known and Decatur’s widow spent many years vainly pursuing justice for “the assassins.” At his death the naval paragon was only forty-one. Barron would eventually be reinstated, but he was never to command a ship again.Senator Thomas Hart BentonThomas Hart Benton was born in 1782, and in his long life he served five terms as the powerful Senator from Missouri, and he was also the leading exponent of westward expansion—the policy that would become known as “Manifest Destiny.” But Hart’s beginnings were a bit more checkered. In 1799, while studying law at the University of North Carolina he was expelled after admitting that he had stolen money from his fellow students. Those same students jeered him as he left the campus and he responded colorfully by saying, “I am leaving here now but damn you, you will hear from me again.” He eventually moved his family to Tennessee, completed his legal studies, and became a state senator. There he attracted the attention of Andrew Jackson.During the War of 1812, Benton received a commission as a lieutenant colonel and became General Jackson’s aide-de-camp. But both Benton and Jackson were famed for their belligerence, and only a year later there was seriously bad blood between the two. This resulted in a nasty fracas which contemporaries quaintly described as a “tavern brawl,” but which today would undoubtedly be classified as a “fire fight.” In any event, it never came close to rising to the civilized level of a duel. On September 4, 1813, Thomas Benton and his brother Jesse arrived in Nashville, Tennessee and went to the City Hotel. Each of the brothers was carrying two pistols. Immediately afterwards, Jackson also entered Nashville, accompanied by John Coffee and a young man named Stockley Hays, who had been with Aaron Burr on the latter’s infamous expedition to the Southwest. All were heavily armed. The action that followed was confused, but this is roughly what took place.Jackson and Coffee approached the hotel’s porch where Benton was standing, and the general brandished a whip, shouting, “Now, defend yourself you damned rascal!” Jackson drew a pistol but was shot from behind by Jesse Benton. Thomas Benton fired twice more at Jackson as he toppled over. John Coffee took a shot at Benton and missing, tried to grapple with him. Benton staggered and fell backwards down a flight of stairs. Stockley Hays tried to skewer Jesse Benton with a sword cane, but the point caught on a button and the narrow blade snapped. Jesse then attempted to shoot Hays but his pistol misfired. When the smoke cleared, Jackson’s left shoulder had been shattered by a bullet and the wound was serious enough to have nearly required an amputation. But when doctors attempted to perform the operation, the steely “Old Hickory” replied, “I’ll keep my arm.”In 1815, Benton moved to the new Missouri Territory. Describing himself, he once said, “I never quarrel, sir, but I do fight, sir, and when I fight, sir, a funeral follows, sir.” Two years later he proved the truth of this. In 1817 he engaged in a bona fide duel with an opposing attorney named Charles Lucas. They first clashed in court, calling each other liars. At a later date Lucas accused Benton of being ineligible to vote, and the colonel had responded by dismissing Lucas as a “puppy.” Lucas then formally challenged Benton to a duel. The practice was already illegal, so they met on a sandbar in the middle of the Mississippi River between Illinois and Missouri. It was called “Bloody Island” because of the many duels it had hosted.They fought with pistols at thirty paces, but the first volley was ineffective. Their arguing continued and they met again the following month. On that occasion, only nine feet apart, Benton fired first and fatally wounded Charles Lucas. Benton went on to have a highly impressive career as one of the senators from the new state of Missouri. He and Jackson managed to put their personal differences aside and became political allies. Benton’s steadfast championing of the gold standard earned him the nickname of “Old Bullion.” He pushed tirelessly for westward expansion and was the author of the first Homestead Act. John C. Frémont, “the Pathfinder,” became his son-in-law. He was also an advocate of the intercontinental railroad and the new invention of the telegraph. One of his most famous utterances was, “Benton and the people, Benton and Democracy are one and the same sir, synonymous terms, sir…” On his deathbed, nearly forty years after the event, Benton regretted the killing of Lucas.Abe LincolnOne of the most unlikely duelists of early America was a gangly fellow from Illinois, named Abraham Lincoln, who was actually challenged to a sword fight by a state official named James Shields. Lincoln had adopted a number of pseudonyms and under them published a series of satirical letters mocking Shields. But in this case, as in so many others, a woman would be central to the quarrel. Doubtless inspired by her beau’s wit, young Mary Todd and a friend wrote several more letters which unfortunately strayed across the boundary from satire to outright insult. Shields blamed Lincoln for all of this and immediately challenged the “Rail Splitter.” Unwilling to be disgraced and anxious to impress his betrothed, Lincoln accepted.As the challenged party it was Lincoln’s privilege to choose both the weapons and conditions for the duel. Accordingly he selected cavalry broadswords and in hopes of limiting the damage he dictated that the contest be held in a large pit, with a board separating the two combatants. On September 22, 1842 the two met to settle the affair. Lincoln deliberately occupied himself by slashing off branches from a high tree limb. Noticing how much longer the lanky Lincoln’s arms were than his own, Shields began to have second thoughts. Lincoln’s seconds did their part by using every blandishment to soothe Shields. Lincoln explained that he had not actually penned all of the letters and apologized for the entire misunderstanding. Shields accepted and became a prominent U.S. Senator. Lincoln, too, reportedly went on to a career in politics.Dueling Winds DownUltimately, it was the Civil War that marked a precipitous decline in dueling, particularly in the South where it had still been prevalent. Evidently this national bloodbath served to cool the warm passions and perpetual quest for gentlemanly honor that were for so long hallmarks of the American Southland. Certainly by the 1870s social standards had changed and political and personal honor were no longer identical. By that point there were other, more peaceful mechanisms in place for defending one’s good name and reputation.By contrast, in Europe the practice of dueling still thrived until they had their own epiphany after the apocalypse of the first World War. But during the early days of our republic, when the nation’s growing pains might so easily have turned to excess and resulted in politically directed bloodshed on a wide-spread scale, dueling seems to have absorbed this excess energy and vitriol and served to make the American scene a safer and more stable place. And it will likely remain the mootest of points whether today’s politicians are more genteel than their counterparts of old, or just totally lacking in even pretensions to honor.