Chatham County GaArchives History .....Savannah Duels - Chapter XIV 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 26, 2004, 6:02 pm

CHAPTER XIV. 

AN ASSORTMENT OF DUELS, ODD AND OTHERWISE

TRAGEDIAN MACREADY SHOCKED BY HIS EXPERIENCE IN SAVANNAH—FATAL DUEL FOUGHT AT
FORT PULASKI—CAROLINIANS EXCHANGE SHOTS ON HUTCHINSON'S ISLAND—ONE CHALLENGER'S
COURAGE WILTED ON FACING BUCKSHOT—PATTERSON KILLS BARNARD—GRIFFIN-RUSSELL
DUEL—AN IRATE SOCIETY MAN CHALLENGES AN ENTIRE BOARD OF GOVERNORS—NOBLESSE OBLIGE!

    The author of a little book published at Baltimore, in 1847, entitled "The
Code of Honor, or the Thirty-nine Articles," who dubbed himself a "Southron,"
after mentioning the penalties prescribed by statute in some of the states,
sagely added: "These penalties are never inflicted. Such laws are mere brutum
fulmen. They are evaded or trampled upon by the very legislators who framed
them. And were they even carried into effect, which popular feeling would render
somewhat impracticable, duelling would not be prevented, because the practice of
duelling is supported and encouraged by public sentiment, and because that man
who declines a fair and honorable challenge is branded as a 'coward'."

    This "Southron" also, while deprecating duelling and its abuse, held that
"The duel is a sharp but salutary remedy for rude and offensive conduct, and its
most inveterate opponents must admit that wherever encouraged it has produced at
least a marked courtesy and polish of manners. Duelling, like war, is the
necessary consequence of offence, and when the cause shall have ceased the
effect will no longer have existence."

    Three years before this was written, W. C. Macready, the noted English
tragedian, while visiting Savannah, had a peculiar example of the fact that
public sentiment sustained duelling and coerced public officials into
quiescence, if not actual co-operation with those violating the law, as had been
the complaints of grand juries two and three decades before.

    Macready spent several days in Savannah, playing to large houses. The
weather was wretched, he was not well, his nerves were doubtless unstrung. It
was in such a condition that on January 25, 1844, after packing for the journey
to New Orleans, he came into contact with the extraneous circumstances of a
duel. He tells of it fully in his reminiscences:

    "Walked down below the bluff, and saw the places of business, etc.; I
admired the novel appearance of the street upon the face of the bluff, planted
as it is with trees, and looking over an extent of low land, river and sea. Was
accosted by a rough person, who gave his name, Nichols, whom I heard say—to the
observation that 'Crowds were hurrying down below'—'They need not be in such a
hurry, the duel is not to be till twelve.’

    "I turned round and looked with amazement in his face.

    " 'How do you do, sir?' he answered to my surprised and shocked gaze.

    "Did you say a duel was to be fought ?"

    " 'Oh, yes; just over the water, but not before twelve.'

    " 'And can such a thing be publicly known and no attempt on the part of the
legal authorities to interfere ?'

    " '0, Lord, no, they dursn't; they've too many friends about them for any
number of officers that could be got together to have any chance with them.'

    " 'And are the crowds going down to see them fight?'

    " 'No; they go to wait for the news—it's across the river they fight.'

    " 'Do they fight with pistols?'

    " 'I don't know; either pistols or rifles—but they generally fight with
rifles in this part of the country.'

    " 'Um.'

    " 'They are two gentlemen of the bar here. It was a quarrel in court; one
said, 'The lie was stamped on the other's face,' so there was a challenge. I
suppose you don't do such a thing as take a glass of wine in the morning ?'

    " 'Oh, no, never.'

    " 'Well, it's our way; just come in and see the reading room; it's the best
room in the South; come, it's just here.'

    "I complied with the importunity of my new acquaintance, who informed all
about himself, but my stomach felt sick with horror at the cold blooded
preparation for murder with which he acquainted me."

    Not a word was printed in the Savannah papers about this duel. It has been
commonly accepted that it was fought between Henry R. Jackson, afterwards the
noted soldier, poet and diplomat, and Solomon Cohen, one of the leaders of the
local bar. Evidently neither was wounded.

    Macready appears to have been an irritable personage, with an exalted
impression of himself. His bete noire was the average American hotel man. To
Macready an inn keeper was an inn keeper—and nothing else. The "glad hand"
variety of Boniface did not sit any better on his stomach than the duelling
stories with which Nichols regaled him. In his diary, under date of January 21,
he wrote:

    "It grew dark after we passed the lighthouse and the merchant ships lying at
anchor before the river's mouth. There were burning woods in different parts
along the banks, and we went on our dark way between narrow banks till we
reached the window lights of Savannah. Costas met me at the boat; he accompanied
me to the Pulaski House. The landlord, Captain Wiltberger (I had a true instinct
at the name) was standing at the door, and a stiff-necked, old piece of fat
importance I found him; he could not give me my meals in my room, then I could
not stay; then he led me to several rooms, all indifferent, and finally I took a
double bedded room."

   Showing his antipathy to the American variety of hotel proprietors, Macready
later in his diary wrote: "It is curious what important persons the landlords
generally are; they receive you much more like hosts that are going to give you
shelter and entertainment than as inn keepers who are served and obliged by the
preference of your custom."

    As an antidote to the unpleasant impression one receives from the
tragedian's comments, a quotation from the "Morning News" on the death in 1853
of Capt. Peter Wiltberger, probably the most popular hotel man Savannah ever
had, may be apropos: "His death will awaken in the memories of many the
courteous and gentlemanly attentions of which they were the recipients whilst
sojourning beneath the shelter of his hospitable roof. All the relations of life
were maintained by him in a manner to command the respect of all who knew him."

    The "Republican" of September 9, 1852, contained a brief statement of a duel
fought on Hutchinson's island the previous morning "by two gentlemen from
Beaufort, Mess. Whaley and Jenkins." In the Charleston "Courier" I found a more
detailed account: "We have been politely furnished with the following correct
version of the affair of honor between Col. E. M. Whaley and E. E. Jenkins,
Esq., of this state. The parties met at Major Starke's plantation, opposite
Savannah, and after a single exchange of shots the challenging party, in
response to a demand of the other side whether they were satisfied declared they
were, and there the matter ended, but without a reconciliation having been
effected."

    In October, 1855, a duel was fought at Fort Pulaski between John Chaplin, of
South Carolina, ex-lieutenant in the United States navy, and his brother-in-law,
Dr. Kirk, of Savannah. Three shots were exchanged. On the last fire Dr. Kirk was
killed. Chaplin was slightly wounded in the foot. The statement was made that
Chaplin fired his first shot in the air, but Dr. Kirk refused to acknowledge
this gracious act with a reconciliation and forfeited his life.

    Another ante-bellum story, and perhaps apocryphal, is that of the young man
with poor eyesight who became involved in a dispute at the old City Hotel, on
the Bay near Whitaker, for many years Savannah's leading hotel for the planters
and other visitors. Its bar was the gathering place for the convivially
inclined, and there the best of liquors, domestic and imported, satisfied the
palates of the most critical of connoisseurs. More than one duel that ended
without bloodshed, as well as one in which a man was winged, was hatched behind
the brick walls of the famous old hostelry, now decadent and given over to
varied businesses. In this particular instance, as the tale goes, the aggressor
was a man inclined to be bulldozing in his tendencies, while the aggrieved was
less pugnacious but, as developments showed, of really truer grit.

    Whatever the origin of the quarrel it forced the man with defective vision
into a duel. He had resented the others man's offensive attitude and remarks and
was challenged to combat. He was quick to announce the acceptance and his terms:

    "I am entitled to be placed upon an equal footing with you as regards
ability to see," said he. "At ten or twenty paces I would be at a serious and
unfair disadvantage. Here is a table convenient. I will sit on one side, you on
the other. Each will have his pistol in readiness for use. You will hold one end
of a handkerchief with the left hand, I the other end. At the signal from the
second pistols will be raised and fired."

    "That is not a duel, that is murder," declared his opponent.

    "With my eyesight it would be murder on your part for me to meet you
otherwise," was the calm reply. "I am ready; are you?"

    Friends interposed, proper apology came from the offender—and the man with
the defective eyes received more respectful consideration thereafter.

    Even in Savannah men sometimes despoiled the homes of other men. One can
only wonder why in such an event the husband whose honor had been outraged
should give to the seducer the opportunity to take his life in addition to the
great wrong he had already done him. Yet there were rare instances here, as
elsewhere in the South, where that course was followed, and in one notable case
the husband carried to his grave a bullet received from the pistol of the
wrecker of his home and happiness, the latter escaping with his life but also to
carry a bullet in his hip as an ever present reminder of the sin which forced
him to the duelling ground. At this late day the mantle of charity may well be
permitted to fall upon them all.

    Then there are instances, still told with amusement by men grown venerable,
of angered citizens who dilly-dallied with their notes until the public made a
joke of their prospective meeting- and fairly laughed the would-be, but not
overly-zealous, combatants away from the field, and of other instances where men
deliberately refused a challenge in the days when duelling had more or less
fallen into disrepute in Savannah and so helped to put a few more nails into the
coffin of the obsolete custom.

    Curious, indeed, are some of the stories one finds, either in traditions
among the "oldest inhabitants," or embalmed in the cold print of forgotten
newspapers, or in family letters, concerning affairs of honor between 1850 and
1870, in which neither participant suffered injury. Sometimes these affairs grew
out of family differences, whereas almost inevitably the earlier meetings seem
to have been the outgrowth, directly or indirectly, of impassioned politics, or
business misunderstandings. The local newspapers continued to ignore the
meetings as a rule, or simply made a passing comment, of which the following
from the "Morning News" of October 21, 1868, is a fair sample:

    "An Affair of Honor: It is commonly reported among persons who are
acquainted with the parties that a little difficulty between two young men of
this city is to be settled to-day at Screven Ferry, S. C., in accordance with
the Code of Honor."

    The old fire department was the source of many difficulties, growing out of
the-jealousies between the companies and internal criticisms and disputes, but
there is only one recorded instance where a duel ensued. This emanated from a
sharp exchange of personalities, at a meeting of the Oglethorpe Fire Company,
between John A. Griffin and R. Wayne Russell. Some of the comments of Griffin
were bitterly resented by Russell as a reflection on the character of his
father. Nothing that friends could do lessened the bitterness, a sharp
correspondence ensued, and a challenge from Russell was promptly accepted by
Griffin. The "News and Herald" told of the affair as follows:

    "The place, on the Carolina side, opposite Screven's Ferry, the time
yesterday (May 21, 1868) at 6 o'clock; the weapons, Colt's 4 1/2 inch revolvers;
the distance, ten paces. Mr. Robert Lewis acted for Mr. Griffin, and Mr.
Benjamin Sheftall for Mr. Russell. Early yesterday morning the principals and
their friends proceeded to the scene of combat, but an officer getting wind of
the affair made an attempt to arrest the parties; they, however, succeeded in
getting away in a boat, but the pistols and a case of surgical instruments were
captured by the officer.

    "They reached the ground about 8 o'clock, and preparations were entered
upon. Other weapons were obtained, and there being no possible chance of a
settlement of the difficulty, excepting upon terms which could not be agreed to,
the arrangements for the fight were completed, and the parties principal, their
seconds, and Drs. Myers and Rogers, took their posts. Mr. Russell drew the
choice of position, Mr. Griffin having the word, which being given both fired
simultaneously, doing no damage. Mr. Griffin called for another shot, but the
seconds upon consultation coming to the conclusion that the honor of both
principals was sufficiently vindicated, proposed a settlement, which was agreed
to, and the contending parties shook hands and with the crowd returned to the
city. Thus fortunately closed the bloodless duel."

    The statement is made that the principals wore the long linen "dusters," in
common use at that time, and that the bullets went through them, but several
inches from their bodies—perhaps just close enough to promote the peace efforts
of the seconds.

    Duels and rumors of duels continued to excite the public mind for some years
after the cessation of civil warfare and the return of the people to the
ordinary vocations of peace. Where there was one meeting, with or without
bloodshed, there were several difficulties with actual or prospective challenges
that were amicably adjusted. On one occasion, too, there was a duel arranged and
all the preliminaries carried out that had a farcical, where a most tragical
ending might have been looked for. This was in the latter part of 1869, and for
a few brief hours the town was stirred by wild reports as to what had taken
place. Instead of "Pistols for two and a coffin for one" there was every
likelihood, if this duel had gone to its full conclusion, of coffins and graves
for two. Looking at the meeting through the intervening half a century and more
it tickles the risibilities almost as much as the famous duel in which Bob Acres
so distinguished himself. The report in the "Morning News" is humorous enough.
in its quiet suggestiveness to have been written by Thompson, author of "Major
Jones' Courtship," who was then the editor of that paper. It was as follows:

    "The gentlemen had a personal difficulty, and a challenge was passed and
formally accepted. At a very early hour yesterday morning two boats were seen to
cut through the heavy mists which had settled on the river, on their way to the
old duelling ground, on the Carolina side. They arrived upon the ground about
four o'clock a. m. and after searching for a fitting spot found one where
without the dread of magistrates they could settle their difficulty. The weapons
selected by the challengee were double-barreled shotguns loaded with fifteen
buckshots, distance twenty paces, the parties to wheel and fire at the word. At
5 1/2 o'clock the antagonists were placed by their respective seconds and the
loaded weapons handed to them.

    "The challenged party had doffed his coat, bound his head, and was in
position as though he meant business, and while waiting for the words 'Are you
ready' was astonished to find that the challenger had thrown down his gun,
stating at the same time that 'He would not fire on his antagonist.' This
unanticipated event naturally excited the indignation of the challenged party
who, supremely disgusted at the turn affairs had taken, with his friend and
physician returned to the city after administering a sound reprimand to the
challenger."

    Double-barreled shotguns, loaded with fifteen buckshot, at sixty feet! No
wonder the challenger grew tenderhearted and refused to fire on his antagonist.
And imagine the relief of the challenged party who had selected such weapons
when he found that instead of fifteen buckshot coming his way the gun in the
other's hands had been thrown to the ground. What subtle touches the writer gave
to the near-duel in the "indignation" and "supreme disgust" and "sound
reprimand." And how unfortunate that it was a day in the history of Savannah
journalism when names were as frequently omitted as they were published. The
challenger's last moment prudence reminds one of Judge Dooly's famous remark
after his encounter with Judge Tait: "I would rather fill a dozen newspapers
than one coffin."

    To an earlier period belong other duels about which information is scarce,
unreliable, and mainly traditionary, diligent search failing to bring to light
written or printed records thereof. In one of these local affairs of honor the
principals were John Barnard, of the well known family of Wilmington Island, and
William Patterson, also a large planter of some prominence. This meeting is said
to have been at the Screven Ferry ground. The origin of the difficulty between
the two men is not known. The terms of the duel, it is a matter of family detail
provided that the two men should stand twenty paces apart, with their backs
toward each other. At the word from the second they were to wheel and fire.

    Barnard, repute has it, was an excellent shot, while Patterson was an
indifferent marksman. The odds were presumably in favor of the former. But the
race is not always to the swift—nor the duel to the sure-shot.

    When the signal came Patterson proved the quicker on the trigger. Before he
had completely faced his antagonist the bullet from his pistol speeded across
the short space between them and found its target. It was a chance shot but a
true one. Another grave in the family burial plot at their island home marked
the resting place of John Barnard. The claim was made that Patterson had fired
prematurely, that he should have waited until fully facing Barnard. But the fact
that the result of the duel was accepted by the public attested that he had
acted within the conditions prescribed for the meeting.

    Then there are the Arnold-Mongin duel and others, the very haziest memories
of which remain—not tangible enough to hazard an account, duels in which there
were no casualties, and in one or more of which family skeletons even to-day
have a visible tremor when a bare reference is made to the provocative causes.
Buried in Laurel Grove and Bonaventure are all of those who might speak with the
voice of authority concerning these meetings.

    Most interesting of all is the story of the duel that threatened wholesale
slaughter and concluded as a comedy farcical enough for the most humorous skit
of the burlesque stage. Don Quixote, in his most extravagant illusion, never
imagined anything more deliciously absurd than this.

    The memory of ante-bellum duelling still lingered and the sense of personal
honor and affronts to it was still acute in many. Among those who retained this
feeling in a somewhat exaggerated form was a former South Carolinian who had
already played his part in a duel, not fatal but in which, it is said, he had
winged his opponent. He had been a member of the Soiree Club and when its great
annual function arrived invited a visiting Carolina young lady to accompany him
to it, either oblivious or indifferent to the fact that for non-payment of dues,
or some other minor reason, his name had been stricken from the roll.

    Arriving at the hall where the dance was being held he met the cold
announcement that he was not eligible for admission. It was a situation of
extreme strain. A friend relieved the young lady of embarrassment by escorting
her within while the irate escort freely expressed his views, denounced the
Board of Governors and then and there verbally challenged them, individually and
collectively, to deadly combat.

    The following morning the challenges were sent in a more formal manner to
the five governors. The tempestuous Carolinian sought to fight them one after
the other. The governors were amazed at the brain storm they had provoked and
sought in vain to assuage his wrath. Nothing remained but to accept. Probably by
concerted action each challenged man selected a different weapon, so that the
list ran something like this: Rifle, pistol, sword, shotgun, sabre. The day was
selected and in view of the number involved arrangements were made for a special
train of two coaches to run some distance down the old Gulf road to a suitable
place.

    The story got out, as rumors of all such meetings will and, doubtless
without opposition from the challenged parties, steps were taken to prevent the
progressive duels. Early in the morning the house in which the belligerent
lived, and in which he and his second and physician, and probably one or more
friends, were gathered, was invaded by the Chief of Police with several of his
force in citizens clothes, and the entire party were notified that they were
under arrest and must furnish peace bonds.

    The challenger was outraged.

    "You are a gentleman," shouted he to the chief; "would you interfere with an
affair of honor?"

    The chief merely smiled. "I am obeying the instructions of the Mayor," was
his reply. "The other parties to this unfortunate affair will all be required
likewise to give bond."

    Protests were useless, no matter how vociferously made. Everyone connected
with the affair gave security to keep the peace and before long cordial
relations were re-established. But the most wonderful duelling incident in the
history of Savannah had been spoiled by the interference of the law's minions.

    There are several accounts, all reminiscential, none published, of this
incident. I have given the one that appears the most authentic—absurd though it
may seem to-day.

    References have been made to public posting where an invitation to the field
of honor had been declined or ignored. As illustrating the method of standing by
the posting of an adversary and awaiting developments, I will cite an instance
of the early days of the Confederacy.

    It was in March, 1861. Military companies were being rapidly organized.
Drilling was the order of the hour. Every day the parade ground was occupied by
the men who had responded to the call of the South and were preparing for the
bitter years of war ahead. Hardly a moment from dawn until night that companies
were not maneuvering on its broad acres or practicing the manual of arms, their
work witnessed and commented on by the assembled admiring youth of the city. It
was during one of these periods of training that Francis L. Gue alleged that he
had been insulted by Edgar L. Guerard. Being in uniform and under the restraint
of discipline, he did not resent it at the time but the next day hunted up
Guerard and demanded an explanation of his remark. There was scant satisfaction
forthcoming. Guerard's reply was:

    "I see that you want a fight with me and if you do you can have it."

    Angered by this Gue struck Guerard and a fisticuff ensued, with the latter
apparently worsted in the combat.

    Speedily Mr. Fraser, as the friend selected for Mr. Guerard, called on Gue
with a demand for satisfaction, for what Guerard claimed was an "unprovoked
assault." Apparently Guerard had meant by his words to Gue that he would meet
him on the duelling ground, whereas Gue interpreted them to be an invitation to
a fist fight then and there.

    Dr. Banks acting for Gue, carried the reply from that party:

    "I am right on this issue and will not fight a duel on it. If you wish
further satisfaction you can come and take it."

    Finding his challenge repudiated Guerard posted Gue on the gate to the
postoffice. There by his card of denunciation Guerard stood for three hours
awaiting developments. If Gue or any friend had attempted to tear down the
offensive placard, those who know say, a shooting encounter would have ensued
without waiting for the formalities of the code.

    But the long vigil by Guerard was unnecessary. Gue ignored the posting and
stood pat on his announcement that if Guerard wanted satisfaction he could come
and get it whenever he pleased.

    In this, as in other cases, the conduct of the parties impugned the bravery
of neither. A few months after this trouble Gue appears as captain-elect of the
Republican Blues, but his active service must have been brief as in October,
1861, he was elected an Alderman, serving in the City Council for eight
continuous years. During the war he was chairman of the military committee of
that body and was active in the sinking of vessels and other impediments in the
river channel. He also served as aide-de-camp to Brig. Gen. H. W. Mercer,
commanding the military district of Georgia in 1863, when an attack on this city
by the Federals was feared. Gue came to Savannah from St. Augustine and was
quite popular.

    Guerard served bravely in the war, with the rank of captain, and was the
subject of highly favorable comments from his superior officers for his
effective work in the quartermaster's department. In his report on the fight at
Olustee, in February, 1864, for instance, Gen. G. P. Harrison said of him: "I
would ask particular attention to the gallantry of Capt. E. L. Guerard, acting
brigadier quartermaster. His services, together with the gallantry and
promptness of Lieut. H. P. Clark, my aide-de-camp, was of the greatest
importance during the whole engagement and particularly after the remainder of
my staff had gallantly fallen and been borne from the field." After the war
Guerard settled in South Carolina where he died.

    Too many duels were taking place at the time of the clash between these two
men. News reports from over the South showed a disposition among officers in the
newly formed forces to resort to the code and the feeling grew that the
headstrong and hot headed might better give their blood to their country than
shed it in the satisfaction of personal wrongs, imaginary or otherwise. Probably
mutual friends, with this in mind, obviated further trouble after Guerard's
posting at the postoffice, where Savannahians of every class could read his
denunciation of Gue for treating his challenge with contempt.

    As emphasizing the fact that even after a challenge had been passed and
accepted, and the parties were actually on the way to the duelling ground, the
amenities of gentlemen were not to be lightly laid aside, there is extant a
letter written by a Savannahian of prominence before the war between the States,
who had become involved in a personal difficulty with another well known public
man. In it he stated that on his way to the meeting place his carriage broke
down. While in this embarrassing predicament another carriage came by in which
sat the gentleman with whom he was to fight the duel.

    Without the slightest hesitation this party expressed his regret at the
inconvenience to which his antagonist was subjected and requested that he permit
him to leave his servant to help with the carriage, and that the gentleman take
a seat with him in his conveyance and proceed with him to the house of a mutual
friend.

    The invitation was accepted. Arriving at the home where the second gentleman
had arranged to spend the night the other prospective duellist was invited to
remain. Politics, the cause of the difficulty between them, was barred from
conversation. They ate supper together and were escorted to the same room where
they slept, but in different beds. In the morning they performed their ablutions
in the same bowl, breakfasted together, and bowed formally in parting, the
damaged carriage having in the meantime arrived.

    At the duelling ground three shots were exchanged but neither was wounded.
They then shook hands and parted friends.

    Noblesse oblige!


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/gms418savannah.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/gafiles/

File size: 28.9 Kb