Chatham County GaArchives History .....Savannah Duels - Chapter I ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/ga/gafiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Joy Fisher http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00001.html#0000031 October 25, 2004, 3:24 am ANNALS OF SAVANNAH SAVANNAH DUELS AND DUELLISTS 1733-1877 BY Thomas Gamble COPYRIGHT 1923 REVIEW PUBLISHING & PRINTING COMPANY SAVANNAH, GEORGIA FOREWORD We look back on the customs and standards and ideals of the men of former generations with critical eyes, sometimes with amusement twinkling therein, all too frequently with condemnation wrinkled on our faces. The quickly passing years have mad-e it most difficult to put ourselves in their places, to understand their surroundings, the social atmosphere in which they lived, to visualize the spirit of their times. Perhaps it would be better, before we criticise, if in all humility we studied the customs and standards and ideals of to-day, and asked ourselves, what will future generations think and say of them and of us? It is not necessary to endorse duelling to emphasize that in some of the cardinal elements of high manhood the forefathers of Savannah, who believed in and fought duels, do not suffer by comparison with their progeny of the present. They need no apologist. They were made virile—and sometimes bitter—men, by the severe trials and tribulations they unflinchingly faced and overcame. They had strong virtues, and what to us may seem equally pronounced weaknesses. They transmitted to their posterity the best of their traits, and the sterling character of many later Georgians may be traced to the qualities inherited from these men who, sword, or pistol, or rifle, in hand, faced each other complacently on the "Field of Honor." There is no use in wrapping the notables of early Savannah, shadowy silhouettes though they have become, in what has been so aptly termed "The rosy halo of a vanished past." They were very human, disinclined to veneer their dislikes and hatreds, quick to open the gates for a full flood of vehement passion when their bitterness against others was stirred. Some of them, like Jackson and Mclntosh and Charlton and Troup, were almost volcanic in their outbursts, at times almost eager to find or create an occasion to vent their splenetic feelings. If they lived today they would chafe under the more restrained and more orderly procedures of an artificial society further removed from the natural outlets for personal grievances and enmities. Their calendar of mortal sins was headed by ingratitude and treachery as the basest and least forgivable. Once aroused they seemingly saw little that was good in an opponent. They were the fruit of the period in which they lived, an era of turbulence, of disregard of life, a day when their little world was "Turned upside down," the hours of the travail of a new nation born through force of arms. Savannah and Georgia needed such men as leaders. Conditions demanded them. It was no time for those of sluggish temperament, for the pacifist, for those who shrank from violence and bloodshed. They were the political pioneers of a new commonwealth, and successful pioneers have always been men of their type. They not only wrested the State from the control of the British, but they likewise wrested it from those of a reactionary trend and planted it firmly on the highways of democracy as Georgians know it today. T. G. VI ILLUSTRATIONS Page Facing Death at Fifteen Paces Frontispiece Oglethorpe at Age of Eighty-Eight 6 General Lachlan Mclntosh 10 Grave of General Lachlan McIntosh 12 Old Home of General Lachlan McIntosh 14 Captain Denis Cottineau 24 Grave of Captain Denis Cottineau 28 Page from Log of Corvette John Adams 32 James Jackson, Savannah's Most Noted Duellist 38 General "Mad Anthony" Wayne 42 Map of the Yazoo Land Grants 50 Thomas Gibbons, Once Mayor of Savannah 58 General Nathaniel Greene 72 Governor George M. Troup 80 Proclamation by Mayor Bulloch 86 By the Wall of Old Fort Wayne. 98 Governor David B. Mitchell 110 Old Jewish Burial Ground 116 Vice-President Aaron Burr 121 The Burr-Hamilton Duel 128 Grave of James Wilde 149 Grave of Odrey Miller, the Mystery of Colonial Cemetery 157 I. K. Tefft, Founder of Georgia Historical Society 161 Smets and Tefft Residences 163 Commodore Josiah Tattnall 167 Tomb of Edward Fenwick Tattnall 170 Tomb of Commodore Josiah Tattnall 180 Dr. George Jones, Organizer Anti-Duelling Association 184 Old City Hotel on the Bay 193 Tybee's Old Martello Tower. 196 William Charles Macready in 1843 208 The Landing at Screven Ferry, S. C 256 Cut from Savannah River to Back River and to Screven Ferry 258 Road Leading Over Marsh from Screven Ferry 258 Pistols Used in Last Fatal Duel at Savannah 262 Savannah Duelling Pistol Case. 266 General Joseph E. Johnston 285 VII CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS Page 61, line 18, read "Gibbons vs. Ogden," instead of "Ogden vs. Gibbons." This noted case was first incorrectly docketed in 1820 as "Aaron Ogden vs. Thomas Gibbons." Dismissed by the Supreme Court in 1821 because of defective record, it was docketed again in 1822, this time under the corrected title of "Thomas Gibbons vs. Aaron Ogden." Page 63, line 28, read "Pinkney, of Maryland," instead of "Pinckney, of South Carolina." Page 195, above sixteenth line from bottom, insert line, "County. Colonels Alston and Hayne, of South Carolina." Page 132, difficulty between Francis H. Welman and John Moorhead. Welman published a card stating that the senior and junior officers of the military company of which Moorhead was a lieutenant had reflected upon the conduct of Moorhead. David Taylor, Jr., as captain of the company, stated that this was incorrect. Welman charged that when referred to as a "spy and traitor," Lieut. Moorhead had failed to promptly resent the insult. At the request of Lieut. Moorhead, a Board of Commissioned Officers of the Sixteenth Battalion met to "enquire into the charges reflecting on his character as an honorable soldier." The Board reported that "in the most patient, solemn and deliberate manner" it had enquired into the "validity of the charges" and that "nothing can be found derogatory" to Moor-head's "spirit as a soldier," and that "if he had understood the insult in the manner and shape which report afterwards gave to it, he would immediately have acted under the impulse of an honorable resentment." As to Welman, the Board believed it was through error and want of complete information that he was led to the belief that Moorhead was "not influenced by his own sentiments of honor in demanding satisfaction," and "had not acted until urged to do so by others." The members of this early Board were Ralph May. chairman; Sterling Grimes, secretary; Thomas Stewart, David Taylor, John W. Mendenhall, William Magee, Robert J. Houstoun, A. G. Oernler, Charles Machin, Thomas Telfair, William Gaston. It is evident that a challenge passed, not accepted by Welman, and that then Lieut. Moorhead advertised or posted him. Whether a duel was later fought is not ascertainable. Page 151, referring to Capt. R. P. Johnson, who slew James Wilde in duel, the records of the Adjutant General's office, War Department, Washington, show that Roswell Post Johnson served as first lieutenant and as captain in the 8th U. S. Infantry within the period of the war of 1812, but neither the date of his appointment nor the date of his separation from the service has been found. His name appears upon various records from July 6, 1813, to April 30, 1815, at which latter date he was reported absent with leave at Savannah. In a letter dated Georgetown, June 5, 1815, addressed to the Secretary of War, he states that he was appointed a first lieutenant on March 12, 1812, and expresses a desire to be retained in the peace establishment of the Army. "Heitman's Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States Army, 1789-1903," an unofficial publication entitled to credit, shows "Johnson, Roswell Post, S. C., 1st Lt. 8th Inf. 12 March, 1812; Capt. 13 Feb. 1814; honorably discharged 15 June, 1815." CONTENTS Chapter Page I Duelling in Colonial Days 1 II Duelling During the Revolutionary Period 9 III The Cottineaus, Father and Son 23 IV James Jackson, Chief of Savannah Duellists 37 V A Trespass Suit Instead of a Duel 57 VI When Gunn Sought Gen. Greene's Life 73 VII Did They Fight, Or Did They Not Fight 90 VIII When Jefferson Used the Guillotine 105 IX An Era of Numerous Hostile Meetings 120 X Political Feuds and Resulting Duels 136 XI The Slaying of a Poet's Brother 150 XII The Tattnalls, Congressman and Commodore 168 XIII The Savannah Anti-Duelling Association 183 XIV An Assortment of Duels, Odd and Otherwise 207 XV A Mock Duel That Cost An Eye 222 XVI The Pen Is Mightier Than the Bullet 228 XVII With Rifles at Twenty-five Paces 249 XVIII Savannah's Last Fatal Duel, In 1870 260 XIX Some Savannah Courts of Honor 270 XX The Last Duel Between Savannahians 298 CHAPTER I. Duelling in Colonial Days THE CODE CAME TO GEORGIA WITH THE FIRST SETTLERS —FATAL MEETINGS TOO COMMON AMONG OGLETHORPE'S OFFICERS—OGLETHORPE ASSERTED A MAN'S RIGHT TO DEFEND HIS HONOR—THE MEMORABLE DINNER AT OGLETHORPE'S LONDON HOME. DUELLING came into Georgia with the first settlers from England as an accepted element of the social code. Among the army men who soon came to its shores were unquestionably those who had participated in duels either as principals or seconds. It was an age when few questioned the propriety of settling personal affairs of honor at the point of the sword, or with bullets from a brace of pistols. When the first duel occurred in the colony cannot be definitely stated, but Stephens in his Journal settles beyond dispute that Georgia was but an infant when recourse was had to the code with fatal results. In that most interesting of diaries appears this early item: "Thursday, June 12, 1740. This Day began with the melancholy News of more Duelling at the Camp in the South, and the fatal Consequences of it. Ensign Tolson, of Capt. Norbury's Company, having a Quarrel with Mr. Eyles, a Surgeon in the Army, they fought; and the latter was killed on the spot; a Man of very good skill in his Profession, and well esteemed; Not many Days after Peter Grant, lately of this Town, and a Freeholder, afterwards made Naval Officer at Frederica by the General, and since changing to be a Cadet in the Army; having a Quarrel with one Mr. Shenton, a Cadet likewise; which Mr. Shenton endeavoured (as far as he well could) to avoid deciding by the Sword; but the other admitting of no Terms of Reconciliation, they fought, and the Aggressor dropt dead. "These Tidings came by a small Boat on its Way from the Camp to Charles Town. It is not very long since (December, 1739) Ensign Leman, in a Rencounter (with Sutherland, another ensign) being wounded in his leg, and a Mortification ensuing he was forced to suffer an Amputation, and supply its Place with a wooden one. Surely our Enemies will hear this with pleasure." Peter Grant, one of the earliest freeholders in Savannah, seems to be entitled to the honor of having been the first citizen to be killed in a duel in Georgia. The possibility of the Spaniards rejoicing over these signs of internal strife could not keep the swords of angry, half-drunken disputants, within their scabbards. Wine and beer were furnished in abundance at the camps and heated brains were quick to resent affronts. A few months later two of the officers at St. Simon's fell out at a dinner party. Attempts to pacify and smooth the ruffled feelings of wounded honor and reconcile them to one another were of no avail. They met and one was slain. This was in May, 1741. Stephens tells of it briefly: "In the evening arrived the long look'd for Captain Thompson from St. Simon's, who spent an Hour or two with Mr. Jones and me. One Piece of ill News we now learnt, that in a Duel betwixt Captains Norbury and Desbrisay the former was killed on the Spot." Fortunately a more detailed statement of this affair was published in the South Carolina Gazette, complete files of which are in the keeping of the Charleston Library. In its issue of June 25,1741,I found this extract from a letter from Frederica, dated May 16, 1741: "Capt. Richard Norbury, Capt. Albert Desbrisay and several other of General Oglethorpe's officers dined together at St. Simon's Camp on Sunday, the 10th of this month; there arose a Dispute between Capt. Norbury and Capt. Desbrisay; the other Gentlemen interposed and in appearance reconcil'd the two captains and they drank several Glasses of Wine together (after the Dispute in a friendly Way); soon after, the Company broke up, and went different ways; but unfortunately Capt. Norbury and Capt. Desbrisay met, upon which a fresh Dispute arose, they drew their Swords, and before any Body had Time to part them, Capt. Norbury received Three Wounds, one in his Belly, the other two in his Arms; he died on the Spot. Capt. Desbrisay receiv'd Three Wounds, he was run through one Thigh, wounded in the other, and in his left Hand." Captain Desbrisay was soon after appointed by Oglethorpe to command a privateer. He was a brave officer, figuring in the capture of Fort St. Francis from the Spaniards in 1740. In the retreat of the English from the unfortunate expedition against St. Augustine that year he was one of the officers who headed the little force which drove the Spaniards within their works when they sallied out to attack the retiring English. More references to this duel are found in the Journal of the Earl of Egmont, under date of June 29, 1741: "Col. Oglethorpe wrote to the Trustees concerning the Tryal of Capt. Desbrisey for killing Capt. Norbury in duel; that he was brought in Manslaughter, but the widow intended to appeal into England for a new Tryal; whereas all the Colonys try finally in criminal causes." And under date of October 2, 1741: "Accts of the Court proceedings relating to Capt. Norbury's being kill'd in a duel by Capt. Desbrisay 11 May, which last was brought in Manslaughter." From William Bowler, surgeon, who had returned to England, the Earl had the statement that "Capt. Norbury was a quarrelsome, drunken officer". Inasmuch as Oglethorpe had Norbury with him as his aide on a visit of importance to Charleston this statement by Bowler may be assigned to the ill feeling all too early engendered among the colonists and soldiers alike. Georgia, and particularly Savannah, was very far from being the abiding place of the dove of peace and brotherly love at that time. Norbury, though, in 1739, had been required by a Court Martial to beg the pardon of Lt. Col. Cochrane for disrespectful language toward him. England had laws against duelling, but they were in the main ignored. Army and navy men were especially immune from prosecution. That Capt. Desbrisay suffered beyond the inconvenience and humiliation of a trial is doubtful. The colonial records throw no further light on the case but it is reasonable to assume he escaped imprisonment even though the verdict of manslaughter was returned. The jury's finding may have been the result of a desire to check the too frequent duels at the camps and the consequent antagonisms among the officers at a time when the Spaniards were threatening the very existence of the colony. There is no evidence that Oglethorpe himself dealt at all harshly with his officers who resorted to the code to settle their difficulties. Did Oglethorpe ever fight a duel? There is no record that he did, yet that is not conclusive proof that he did not. His views were pronouncedly in favor of the code. To Georgians there is no incident in Boswell's life of Dr. Samuel Johnson that is so full of interest in every line and word as that in which the founder of Georgia expressed himself on this subject. Boswell served the very useful purpose of introducing topics of conversation. On this memorable occasion he "started the question whether duelling was consistent with moral duty." This was on Friday, April 10, 1772, when the great lexicographer dined at Oglethorpe's London home with Oliver Goldsmith and Boswell as the other guests. Oglethorpe was then in his 76th year, but still full of animation. "The brave old General fired at this," wrote "Bossy," "and said with a lofty air: " 'Undoubtedly a man has a right to defend his honor.' " Goldsmith turned to Boswell: "I ask you, sir, what would you do if you were affronted." "I answered I should think it necessary to fight." "Why, then," replied Goldsmith, "that solves the question." Dr. Johnson was accustomed to delving deeper in their topics than that. At once he began moralizing. "No, Sir, it does not solve the question," said he. "It does not follow that what a man should do is, therefore, right." Boswell wished to "have it settled whether duelling was contrary to the laws of Christianity." "Johnson immediately entered on the subject," says his biographer, "and treated it in a masterly manner; and so far as I have been able to recollect, his thoughts were these: " 'Sir, as men become in a high degree refined, various causes of offence arise, which are considered to be of such importance that life must be staked to atone for them, though in reality they are not so. A body that has received a very fine polish may be easily hurt. Before men arrive at this' artificial refinement, if one tells his neighbor 'he lies,' his neighbor tells him 'he lies'; if one gives his neighbor a blow, his neighbor gives him a blow; but in a state of highly polished society, an affront is held to be a serious injury. It must, therefore, be resented, or rather a duel must be fought upon it; as men have agreed to banish from their society one who puts up with an affront without fighting a duel. Now, Sir, it is never unlawful to fight in self defence. He, then, who fights a duel, does not fight from passion against his antagonist, but out of self defence; to avert the stigma of the world; and to prevent himself from being driven out of society. I could wish there was' not that superfluity of refinement; but while such notions prevail no doubt a man may lawfully fight a duel." And Boswell added as his interpretation of this: "Let it be remembered, that this justification is applicable only to the person who received an affront. All mankind must condemn the aggressor." Fifty years later Boswell’s own son and heir, Sir Alexander Boswell, died from a bullet wound received in a duel resulting from "political squibs he had written imputing cowardice to another Scotch gentleman." General Oglethorpe, sitting back in his easy chair, had no doubt followed with interest the learned doctor's remarks. Perhaps his mind went hastily back through the many years of martial service, from early boyhood to the half-century point of life, for Oglethorpe's active army connection had extended from 1710 to 1746. He recalled the many duels that had come under his own observation, even those which had been fought on St. Simon's Island in that far away Georgia, when his own officers had taken each other's lives despite the fewness of their numbers and the nearness of the Spaniards., In those few minutes, while the doctor was rolling out his sentences, many scenes in his eventful life may have flashed from memory's inexhaustible picture gallery, and from among them all he selected one to show how he himself had met an affront that called for a challenge except for the high rank of the aggressor. And to Boswell all Georgians are indebted for that particularly delightful glimpse of the gallant Oglethorpe in this first flush of approaching manhood: "The General told us that, when he was a very young man, I think only fifteen, serving under Prince Eugene of Savoy, he was sitting in company at table with a Prince of Wirtemberg. The Prince took up a glass of wine and, by a fillip, made some of it fly in Oglethorpe's face. "Here was a nice dilemma. To have challenged him instantly might have fixed a quarrelsome character upon the young soldier; to have taken no notice of it, might have been considered as cowardice. "Oglethorpe, therefore, keeping his eye upon the Prince, and smiling all the time, as if he took what his Highness had done in jest, said: 'Mon Prince' (I forget the French words he used, the purpose, however, was) That's a good joke; but we do it much better in England'; and threw a whole glass of wine in the Prince's face. "An old General who sat by, said ‘I1 a bien fait, mon Prince, vous 1'avez commence'; and thus all ended in good humor." And so the talk about duelling closed and Oglethorpe then told them of the famous siege of Belgrade. Can any one doubt that Oglethorpe stood ready to give a challenge if, in his opinion, the necessity arose, and that no officer under him felt other than "the right to defend his honor" at the point of the sword? For a hundred years after this little dinner party at the old General's home, Georgians held with Dr. Johnson that "A man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house." What a pity some great painter has not seized upon that scene for a picture of rare historic and literary interest: The venerable founder of Georgia at his ease, the "hulky, uncouth" Johnson, greatest of English conversationalists, his "deep impressive tones" filling the room, "Jupiter-like to praise or damn", dogmatic and brilliant; Boswell, paragon of biographers, whose work is at once "a classic and a companion", and the smiling Goldsmith, poet, novelist, historian, one of the delightful figures of eighteenth century English literature, saying so little that one recalls it was said of him, that he "Wrote like an angel and talked like poor Poll." No wonder Oglethorpe enjoyed his old age when he could gather about him companions like these. All praise be unto Boswell, on the sensitive plates of whose memory were so deeply impressed the utterances of this and other occasions, to be later chronicled for the enjoyment of the world for many generations to come. Other duels, no doubt, came during the colonial period. It would have been wondrously strange if it had been otherwise. But in all the musty pages of the Savannah and Charleston papers of 1740-1775 I found no allusions to them. Interesting though the colonial newspapers are, they are signally deficient in the items one seeks for so diligently. Additional Comments: From: ANNALS OF SAVANNAH SAVANNAH DUELS AND DUELLISTS 1733-1877 BY Thomas Gamble COPYRIGHT 1923 REVIEW PUBLISHING & PRINTING COMPANY SAVANNAH, GEORGIA File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ga/chatham/history/other/gms404savannah.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/gafiles/ File size: 24.5 Kb