Chatham County GaArchives History .....Savannah Duels - Chapter VIII 1923 ************************************************ 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, 6:34 pm CHAPTER VIII WHEN JEFFERSON USED THE GUILLOTINE. VINDICTIVE BITTERNESS OF THE OUSTED FEDERALISTS OF SAVANNAH—HOW AN AFFAIR BETWEEN THE NEW COLLECTOR OF THE PORT AND AN ENEMY WAS ADJUSTED ON THE FIELD OF HONOR—A FUTURE GOVERNOR KILLS A POLITICAL FOE—CITY COUNCIL POLITICIANS SQUABBLE, BRINGING AN ALMOST FATAL MEETING. Andrew JACKSON is generally credited with introducing the spoils system, but Thomas Jefferson anticipated both Jackson and William Jennings Bryan in appreciation of the virtues of "deserving Democrats." Federal head after Federal head fell into the basket, giving more force than ever to the Federalist cry of "Jacobins" against their enemies. Senator James Jackson expressed the Jeffersonian party idea as to the proper use of the party guillotine when he wrote to John Milledge in September, 1801: "It will not do to be squeamish. Those fellows would have cut your throat and mine six months ago." The houses of Savannah Republicans had been brightly illuminated to express their great joy over the election of Jefferson and a subscription festival held under the auspices of Mitchell, Troup and Charlton. The faithful clamored for the loaves and fishes. Savannah proved no exception to the rule of displacement. It was then the maelstrom of Georgia politics. Capt. Ambrose Gordon, United States Marshal for the District of Georgia, was removed without ceremony, and Benjamin Wall appointed. Henry Pitman became commander of the revenue cutter here in place of John Howell. A new navy agent held that lucrative post. But more grievous than all others was the dismissal of James Powell, collector of the port, to give room to Major Thomas DeMaltos Johnson. All government positions were soon Jeffersonianized. Jubilation reigned among the Republicans and the disconsolate Federalists deplored the ruin being brought upon the country. The big business men of the city were largely Federalists. They united in a published appreciation of the services of Collector Powell, and objected to his enforced resignation. Forty-six leading men of affairs comforted him with the thought that "You have the consolation of quitting public life accompanied by some of the best patriots of our common country." One paper, signed by many, attacked Jefferson personally. Truly, it may be said, the Federalist cup of bitterness overflowed. But Jefferson was establishing a party and its principles and routing the enemy from the vantage ground they held as office holders. Even the sustained accusation that he had thrown on the charity of the world many old revolutionary soldiers and officers was void of effect. A few weeks after assuming office Major Johnson, Collector of the Port, pistol in hand, stood facing a defamer in South Carolina, one of the earliest parties to cross the river, there being no law then against duelling in Georgia. Among the disgruntled Federalists was Captain Gresham, of Greene county, evidently a man of position. One day while in Savannah a discussion came up in the store of George Ponsonby about the bogus bank bills then in circulation and the men held in jail charged with their printing and issuing. As Ponsonby told the story, Gresham observed that "these men were not at the bottom of it, and that if the business were properly investigated it would be found that a iran lately put in office in Savannah would also be implicated." On asking him if he alluded to Major Johnson, recently made Collector, Capt. Gresham replied "Yes." Doubtless Gresham gave his views unsolicited to others. News of his remarks came quickly to Johnson's ears, a challenge was prepared and delivered by T. U. P. Charlton, now become a major, and accepted by Gresham, with Robert Fisher as the latter's' second. Dr. James Ewen, only recently arrived from Virginia, accompanied them as surgeon. In view of the seriousness of the remarks made by Gresham there was every reason to expect the surgeon's services to be required before the affair was over. It was on November 25,1801, at an early hour, that the parties met at the appointed spot. "Every arrangement being adjusted, usual in an affair of honor, it was the expectation that an exchange of shots was inevitable," wrote the seconds later, "but at this crisis the surgeon, Dr. Ewen, requested permission to interfere and speak to Captain Gresham." Major Charlton informed the doctor that such permission could only be given by Mr. Fisher. Gresham's second having consented, the surgeon held an interview with Captain Gresham, the upshot of which was that the captain "was disposed to make any concessions not incompatible with his honor." The day preceding Major Charlton had prescribed the terms of an apology to his principal, and would consider no adjustment save a denial from Capt. Gresham that he had made the assertions reflecting on the honor and integrity of Johnson, and "if he had made the assertions that they were unfounded, false and malicious." To this Capt. Gresham assented, and moreover added "that he- might have expressed himself improperly in an inadvertent hour, and that he would call on Mr. Ponsonby, whom he understood to be the original author of the defamatory report, and tell him what he had propagated he had very much misrepresented." The seconds signed a statement that "no man placed in a similar situation could have conducted himself with greater coolness and determination than Major Johnson, or have acted with more candor than Capt. Gresham." This left George Ponsonby, Federalist, in an awkward position, and he added a little fuel to the rancorous hatreds engendered by politics in Savannah by stating that Capt. Gresham had informed him that "Mr. Johnson was a damned rascal", and "that he would furnish papers that would astonish me." "Gresham's apology has been couched in language intended to injure my character, but it cannot suffer by the shafts of such malicious insinuations, which are themselves groundless and contradictory." And as a further illustration of the lack of brotherly love in Savannah in those days, let me quote this one more expression from Ponsonby: "Mr. Johnson in his letter to Capt. Gresham calls me a British Tory merchant. I have always before supposed myself to be an American; to be a merchant is no disgrace, and that I am a Federalist and despise Jacobinism I will never deny." The feeling that is expressed in these lines continued between the two contending political parties for several years. The Federalists were "Tories", the Republicans were "Jacobins"; the Federalists were "royalists" or "imperialists", the Republicans were the red-capped guillotinists of property rights and intelligence and integrity. The country fairly reeked with political prejudice and passion. In that fierce clash of contending ambitions and principles one could hardly retain a passive neutrality. Conditions political were still mirrored in the picture George Walton drew in 1779 when he wrote: "The demon Discord yet presides in this country, and God only knows when his reign will be at an end." When on May 1, 1802, St. Tammany's Day, dedicated to the patron Indian saint of America, the military had their annual celebration and closed the observance with dinners, the Chatham Troop of Light Horse gathered around the banquet board at Gunn's tavern on the Bay in honor of their own anniversary, with Capt. Ambrose Gordon at the head of the table. They closed their formal toasts with one purely political and Federalist in character: "To Timothy Pickering: The upright man amidst a host of enemies." Pickering had been dismissed from the Secretaryship of State by President Adams, largely because of his efforts to promote the presidential aspirations of Alexander Hamilton. That the Chatham Troopers, smarting under the President's dismissal of their captain from the marshalship of Georgia, should show their displeasure by a toast to a New Englander of the rankest Federalist type, and whose views were extremely obnoxious to the Republicans, shows how political factionalism invaded every phase of life in the Savannah of that period. Out of such unrestrained villification and personal antagonism came many duels in Georgia and throughout the country in the next decade or two. At Savannah there were several bloodless affairs. In one, though, a prominent citizen and politician was slain, and in a succeeding meeting another man of local note was severely wounded. Nowhere in the opening years of the nineteenth century was there more of this political hatred than here. In the Federalist ranks were the greater number of the leading business men of the city, those of large commercial and property interests. The Federalists were making a losing fight, here as elsewhere, and this did not decrease the acrimonious sentiments they entertained for the opposition leaders who were overthrowing their conceptions of strong, centralized government and superior class control. The bitterness of the party antagonisms ran into every phase of politics, and it was deemed just as necessary to have Federalist or Republican mayor and aldermen as to have one's party dominating at Washington. Out of these conditions grew two of the most dramatic duels in the history of the city. Prominent among the political figures of the town when the century opened were David Bradie Mitchell and William Hunter. Mitchell was a Scotchman, born in 1766, who had come to Savannah in 1783 to look after property that had been left him by his uncle, Dr. David Bradie, an old resident of Georgia and one of the patriots outlawed by Gov. Wright and his Tory legislature. The freedom and opportunities of the new world appealed to him and he remained, to become one of the most distinguished of Georgians. He studied law under Hon. William Stephens, became a member of the legislature, voted against the Yazoo act in 1795, was active in the agitation for its repeal in 1796, was elected solicitor-general by his fellow legislators (1796-98), and then judge of the Eastern circuit (1798-1804). In 1801 he was elected mayor of Savannah for the year ending July 12, 1802. In military life he also forged rapidly to the front, and passing through the various ranks by 1802 had become colonel of the First Chatham regiment, succeeding Josiah Tattnall when the latter became governor. Although the revolutionary war was over before he came to Savannah, Mitchell was intense in his feelings' and expressions against Americans who had failed to align themselves with the patriots, and in his early years in the legislature in a noted speech declared: "If I ever find it in my heart to forgive an old Tory his sins, I trust my God will never forgive mine." A feeling almost as bitter he displayed toward the Federalists. Hunter was a man of business affairs, largely interested in shipping and in imports and exports. In 1802 he took James Hunter in partnership with him and the firm was one of the leading factors in the thriving, progressive life of the little city. He served on the directorate of the Bank of Discount and Deposit, composed of the leaders of the Savannah business world. He was one of the commissioners of pilotage and in 1802 with Robert Bolton represented those Savannahians who had spoliation claims against the French government. He was also active in local politics and in 1798-99 served as an alderman. In May, 1801, he was appointed Navy Agent for Georgia, succeeding Ebenezer Jackson, whose resignation was forced. As Jefferson had assumed office sixty days before this the natural conclusion would be that Hunter had supported his candidacy. He held the office but a year, though, as one of the little news items of the "Columbian Museum," June 22, 1802, was: "We are informed William Hunter. Esq., has resigned his appointment as navy agent for this port." What brought about the meeting between Mitchell and Hunter is not now known. One might infer from the resignation of Hunter that he had differed with the Jeffersonian administration, perhaps returned fervently to Federalism as a first love. Not a clew is obtainable in the local newspapers of the day, which discreetly refrained from referring to the affair. Be the causes what they may, two months after Hunter's resignation as Navy Agent, and but a few weeks after Mitchell retired from the mayor's chair, they faced each other, on August 23, 1802, duelling pistols in hand, at the Jewish cemetery, then in the open country beyond the city limits, now at Stewart and Guerard streets. In the New York Daily Advertiser of September 6, I found a brief story of the duel. The depth of the antagonism between the two men may be measured by the conditions under which they fought. Starting at ten paces, or thirty feet, they were to advance two paces after each shot. At the first fire the ball from Hunter's pistol struck Mitchell's side, evidently but a glancing shot, and was stopped by a fold in his shirt. Mitchell's shot entirely missed. Moving forward two paces each, bringing them twelve feet closer, the second shots were exchanged with the duellists but eighteen feet apart. The bullet from Hunter's pistol struck Mitchell in the hip, but again passed through his clothing without injury to him. Col. Mitchell's aim had been more accurate and more deadly. Hunter fell to the ground a corpse. The bullet had gone through his heart. "Mr. Hunter's funeral was attended by the most respectable citizens of Savannah, by whom he was highly esteemed and respected." On the next Fourth of July, 1803, when the military celebrated the natal day of the republic, with parade and review, and then gathered for their dinners, in separate commands, the Troop of Light Horse once more had a significant toast, this time to one of its officers who had more than surrendered a public position at the behest of partisan politics, a toast to one who had forfeited his life to political convictions. In fancy one can see Capt. Gordon and his company standing at attention in the dining room of the old tavern, and drinking in sorrowful silence: "To the memory of our invaluable citizen and brother soldier, Lieut. William Hunter—his virtues were rare, may his example be ever present and influencive with us." Hunter had been the first lieutenant of the Troop from 1781 until his death. At another tavern not far removed, where the glasses clinked and good cheer reigned, where toast succeeded toast until one wonders how men could withstand the liquid strain, Col. David B. Mitchell, surrounded by applauding admirers, drank, among many and other toasts, to "Thomas Jefferson. May that virtuous Republican statesman continue to deserve the title of the 'Man of the People' ". But the comrades of the dead Lieut. Hunter drank no toast to the then President of the United States. Mitchell went on to higher and higher honors. Two years after he had slain Hunter he became United States District Attorney, a position he resigned after a few months service. The preceding year (1803) he succeeded Tattnall as Brigadier-General of the Georgia Militia. In civil life he was active in all that pertained to the welfare of the city. In 1806-07 he was president of the Union Society. In 1809 he was elected governor of Georgia, filling that office in 1809-12 and again in 1815-17, resigning to accept the appointment by President Monroe as agent to the Creek nation. He died at Milledgeville in 1837. Whether Mitchell ever felt compunctions over the killing of Hunter no one can tell. That he did not approve of duelling may be construed from his action as Governor when, on December 12, 1809, he signed the Georgia law against duelling. This act made it unlawful to extend or accept a challenge or be concerned therein as principal or second. On conviction the parties were excluded from the right to hold any office of trust, honor or emolument in the State. What a strange sequel, the scene in the Governor's office at Milledgeville on that winter day when Mitchell appended his name to this act, to the picture presented that mid-summer day seven years before, when, with the smoke oozing from the barrel of his pistol, he looked down upon his political foe, lying prostrate in death in the old Jewish cemetery at Savannah. In December, 1804, Mitchell was one of the five arbitrators who adjusted the difficulty between Gen. John Clark and William H. Crawford, between whom a challenge had passed and been accepted. The killing of Hunter by Mitchell may not have been the first baptism with blood of the Jewish burying ground. It was not the last. Situated convenient of access, enclosed by a recently constructed heavy brick wall, and with few graves, it seems to have been selected as a suitable spot for the settlement of political and other disputes. There was no public sentiment against duelling in Georgia then, and no necessity to leave the state to avoid indictment. Five minutes from home, a walk of a half mile brought the duellists to the selected spot, as free from intrusion in the early morning as though they had gone miles' away. Another warm summer morning, a year later to the very day, on August 23, 1803, two other prominent figures in Savannah politics faced each other at the same place, each ready to take the other's life. Again the newspapers fail to give an inkling as to the cause of the meeting. Everybody knew it, why print it? That was the local newspaper attitude of the day. But fortunately the old City Council proceedings are still in existence and in their brown and musty pages the story can be traced. It is the old tale of political maneuvers to secure a party advantage, with consequent bitterness rapidly developing a position that forced the chief figures to the duelling ground. Perhaps it may be well to formally introduce the principals to the Savannah public of to-day. Joseph Welscher was an active Republican. In 1802-03-04 he represented Washington ward in the City Council. In those days each of the aldermen represented one or more especial wards. In 1803 he was elected to the legislature along with George M. Troup and Thomas U. P. Charlton, Edward Harden going to the Senate, a quartette of staunch Republicans, or Democrats as we would call them to-day. Welscher was also active in professional and business circles. Samuel Howard was a Federalist, a man of greater commercial prominence than Welscher. A number of vessels came consigned to him, and he was largely interested in the import and export trade. In 1803 he was elected as alderman from Warren ward. Out of this municipal election of 1803 grew the duel of that August. When the box at the polling place in the new market house was opened, Thomas U. P. Charlton and Samuel Howard had an even number of votes. A new election was ordered and Howard was elected. The minutes of Council say: "July 25,1803, Samuel Howard. Esq., attended and produced the return of his election as an alderman to represent Warren ward and was thereupon qualified and took his seat in Council." The Republicans were still in the majority in the aldermanic board. Howard took a step calculated to upset this predominance and give the Federalists control. At the very next meeting after his installation he introduced a resolution: "Whereas, the law of the State expressly enacts that no person holding an appointment under this1 State or the United States (except Justices of the Peace and officers of the militia) shall be eligible to the appointment of aldermen, and whereas, it appears to Council that Joseph Welscher and Edward Stebbins, Esquires, hold the office of Commissioners of Bankruptcy, an appointment under the United States, Resolved, that Joseph Welscher and Edward Stebbins, Esquires, are by law disqualified from acting as aldermen of the city of Savannah." An amendment to defer action resulted in a tie vote, and Mayor Charles Harris, whom Charlton a few years later described as "distinguished by devotion to Republican principles", voted in its favor. Nothing further was heard of the Howard resolution. Two weeks later its author lay at the point of death with a bullet wound through his intestines. Welscher had challenged him and the challenge had been accepted. Welscher's second was George M. Troup, member of the legislature, afterwards representative in Congress, United States Senator and Governor. George D. Sweet, alderman from Reynolds ward, acted as Howard's second. Could it have been more than a coincidence that this second duel between representatives of the bitterly contending factions was set for the same day of the year and at the same place as the previous one, and that in both instances there was an apparent determination to shoot tg kill? Those were not mollycoddle days in Savannah politics and men staked their lives on their opinions and their words. Again the local papers disappoint the searcher after facts. Nothing is told of the duel at the time. But by one of those strange peculiarities of the journalism of that day a flood of light is1 thrown on this and the Mitchell-Hunter duel, and on the feeling of the political parties toward each other, two months later in the republication in the "Columbian Museum" of a letter from a Savannahian to "The Hornet", of Frederickton, Md., a letter reproduced without a word of comment. The letter was dated Savannah, August 23, 1803: "This day, at 12 o'clock, a duel was fought by Capt. Joseph Welscher, barrister-at-law, and Mr. Samuel Howard. The subject of dispute arose in the City Council, of which they are both members. Mr. Howard was dangerously wounded, by being shot in the belly. He has since been brought to town, his wound examined, and it is expected he will recover. Col. George M. Troup was Welscher's second, and Mr. George D. Sweet was Howard's. The place of action was at the Jews' burial ground (or as the Republicans call it 'The Jews' Holy Ground' for certain reasons). What is very remarkable, the very day of the month the year before, a duel was fought between Col. David B. Mitchell and Mr. Hunter, at the same place, when the latter was killed on the spot. Politics was the cause of both of these duels—the Republicans are not to be trifled with in this part of the world. "In giving you a short history of this unhappy circumstance it may not be improper to mention that however desirous the Republicans in this quarter may be to live upon terms of friendship with those who differ from them in opinion, yet they are determined never to court it by tame submission to the haughty, insolent and overbearing conduct of the despicable few whose views, had they but the power of putting them into operation, would lead us to misery, desolation and death. We have gotten them in the background—far away—and there we shall keep them. "Capt. Welscher is a man of amiable manners, a truly honorable character, highly beloved by a number of respectable friends and acquaintances—hated by none but Tories—the worst of Tories—the enemies of Washington and Jefferson—the enemies of sound order, peace, liberty and happiness. But, as I have mentioned just now, we have got them in the background, far away, and there we shall keep them." If this had been originally published in a Savannah paper and the author had been made known another duel would have been the inevitable result. The reference to "Tories" recalls that at this time the Savannah "Republican" having made a threat to publish "a list of old Tories", and having failed to do so, the editor of the "Columbian Museum" stated that the "Republican" editor had probably received "a cautionary hint for its suppression". If he had no such list, though, "and wanted one, the Museum would furnish it if he would really publish it". The list was never made public. In a day when a duelling pistol was considered an essential part of a gentleman's equipment "discretion was the better part of valor." The partisan politics behind both duels is clearly shown in the remarks of the Federalist "Daily Advertiser", of New York: "The place of action was the Jews' burying ground, where our friend Hunter gloriously but unfortunately fell". Howard recovered from his wound and lived for years, a prominent member of the business world. He served again in Council in 1805-06. He was elected one of the directors of the Office of Discount and Deposit of the Bank of the United States, perhaps filling the vacancy caused by the killing of Hunter, and served for several years. Welscher was in Council until 1806, and during the same years continued to represent Chatham in the State legislature. He died during the session of the Assembly at Milledgeville on November 30, 1806, aged 45 years. His popularity is shown in the fact that in the 1806 election he led the Republican ticket. His strength with the Republicans was' doubtless increased by his meeting with Howard. Shortly before he died he had the law regulating the election of aldermen and city officers changed, doing away with the property qualification. "This places a poor man on an equal footing with the rich. The Republican electors will therefore now have full opportunity of selecting- men whose principles are congenial with their own and in whom they can place implicit reliance." So commented the editor of the "Republican". But already, in 1804, the editor of the "Republican" had relished the sweet joy of announcing that "The Aldermanic Board now stands eight to four in favor of the Republicans". If any one questions the acerbity of Savannah politics in those days or the fact that their forebears here took their politics very much to heart, let them read and ponder these two extracts from the "Republican" in 1806, when Welscher and Morel and Harden triumphed over John M. Berrien, and Chatham retained its prestige as a Republican stronghold by sending another solid delegation of that faith to the legislature: "On election day, Republicans, it will become you to declare to the world your strength. On that day be at the polls, exercising the inestimable rights of freemen, on that day convince your opponents that you are jealous in a good cause, that you are mighty in strength, that you are a free and independent people." And the morning after the election: "The Federalists have been unusually active. They have left no means untried. They have traduced the characters of the Republican candidates, they have endeavored to incense the good people of the city against men whose reputations defy the most poisonous arrows. Notwithstanding all their cunningly devised artifices, the Sons of Freedom have baffled their attempts." The only wonder is that there were not more duels. Twenty years later a writer in the "Georgian" proudly declared that "The representatives of Chatham in the legislators have been Democrats since 1775, with one exception only." 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/gms411savannah.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/gafiles/ File size: 27.7 Kb