Missouri Legal Last Will And Testament Form For A Single Person With Minor Children: Fill & Download for Free

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.