Chatham County GaArchives History .....Savannah Duels - Chapter XVI 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, 7:53 pm

CHAPTER XVI 
THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE BULLET.

EDITORS SQUABBLED BUT SELDOM FOUGHT—HOW THE DIFFICULTY BETWEEN BULLOCH AND
CHAPMAN WAS ADJUSTED BY ARBITRATORS SELECTED BY THEIR SECONDS—MAYOR WAYNE'S
LITTLE TIFF WITH A NATIVE AMERICAN PROPAGANDIST—HAMILTON AND SNEED ADJUSTED
THEIR DIFFICULTY ON THE FIELD OF HONOR—TRIBULATIONS OF CARPETBAG EDITOR
HAYES—NEGRO POLITICIANS FIGHT DUEL WITH BUCKSHOT—TABER SHOT AND KILLED BY
MAGRATH IN FAMOUS CAROLINA MEETING—HOW AN AUGUSTA EDITOR GOT BULLETS IN HIS
THIGHS—EDITOR DAWSON'S WORK IN SUPPRESSING DUELLING IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

    The bitterness of politics engendered a personal bitterness between old-time
editors which is happily missing to-day. In the decades that immediately
preceded the war with the North political differences were the source of
personal differences that quite frequently led the parties engaged in editorial
combats to the verge of the duelling ground, and occasionally forced the
wielders of the vitriolic pens to face each other with pistols.

    During the battle over nullification as championed by Calhoun, with many
ardent disciples in Georgia who pointed to stirring incidents in this State's
history as establishing its sympathy with the same principles in former years,
the Savannah editors were more than usually bitter in their personalities.

    The "Republican" championed the extreme States Rights theories of the South
Carolina leaders, while the "Georgian" espoused States Rights within the Union
and followed the leadership of Andrew Jackson. Toward election day, when the
latter party won a signal triumph, the bitterness increased in intensity. The
denunciation of one political editor by another, these few lines from the
"Georgian" furnish a fair sample:

    "The editor of the 'Republican' is a hired, pitiful slanderer, picked up
from the dunghill, an outcast of creation brought to Georgia that he may compete
with gentlemen."

    The columns of the Georgia newspapers teemed with letters assailing the
political record and creeds of the candidates. That such weeks of growing
excitement and bitterness could have passed without sufficient offense being
given to bring about one or more duels is hardly possible. If so, the scribes of
the press were not included among the antagonists who crossed the ferry to South
Carolina. They fought with pen and ink. Unfortunately, too, they failed to
record the hostile meetings of those whose brains were influenced by their
passionate exhortations.

    There was ample fuel in the political atmosphere of Savannah from 1830 to
1840 to keep a steady pilgrimage boating across the river. With hundreds of men
their political beliefs were so woven into the warp and woof of their daily
existence as to make their advocacy of them a matter of life and death.
Undoubtedly some of them exchanged more than verbal shots, but the local
historians failed to chronicle their meetings.

    It was a super-heated campaign of months, that early fight between the Union
men and the secessionists. In those days the representatives in Congress were
still elected by the State at large, instead of by districts, and two popular
Savannahians, James Moore Wayne and George W. Owens, were candidates on the
Union ticket and were victorious in October, 1834, so that Chatham had two
members-elect of the House at Washington. Matthew Hall McAllister ran for the
State Senate, with Wm. W. Gordon, John Millen and George Shick for the House,
while on the States Rights ticket the opposing candidates were Dr. James P.
Screven, Timothy Barnard, Joseph W. Jackson and Edward Houstoun. The States
Rights ticket was swamped at the polls.

    Of course the Union party had its campaign song. It was a day when the
voters loved to sing the merits of their candidates. So some local bard wrote a
song patterned after Burns' "A man's a man for a' that." This is how he extolled
the merits of the Savannah opponents of the Calhoun ideas:

There's Georgie Owens, of Chatham dear,
    A lawyer sound, and a' that; 
We'll fix him where his judgment clear
    Will rank him high, and a' that.

Another pillar, noble Wayne,
    Fair Georgia's hope, and a' that; 
Whose fame remains without a stain,
    So pure and free, and a' that.

McAllister was born to grace
    A Senate grave and a' that; 
A star so bright would soon efface
    The cloud so dark, and a' that.

There's Willie Gordon, who, we ken,
    Is fearless, free and a' that; 
We'll send him with three gallant men
    To guard our rights and a' that.

    When the returns came what more fitting place could there be to celebrate
the glorious victory than the decks of the good ship "Constitution" then lying
in port. Thither the "Union and States Rights Association of Chatham" marched,
beneath the Stars and Stripes, with the band playing "The Star Spangled Banner."
As the scowling "States Rights Nullificationists" watched them there came a
salute of twenty-four guns from the deck of the ship, one for each state in the
Union, not excluding South Carolina, and then from the Bay an answering salute
of twenty-four guns. Down on the deck of the "Constitution," beneath the gay
decorations of flags and bunting, the Union leaders gathered, and there Robert
M. Charlton read an ode written by him for the occasion, the last lines of which
stirred the crowd to a renewed outburst of enthusiasm and the wild waving of flags:

    "We swear that till our life shall end,
    Whilst one remains of all our band,
    With utmost vigor to defend Our Flag,
    OUR UNION, and Our Land!
    May He, to whom all spirits bow,
    Record, and bless this holy vow."

    There was a fervor to their politics in those days in Savannah akin to that
which comes in religious awakenings, when men allow their emotions to sweep them
from their usual apathy and full vent is given to the feelings that surge within
their breasts. Some Savannahians have the impression that local politics are
marked by too much bitterness to-day. If they study the politics of Chatham
before the last two decades, back to the very inception of the independence .of
the country, they will realize that present politics are of the milk-and-water
variety.

    Reference has been made to the fact that two Savannahians were elected
Congressmen in the 1834 contest. Before the new Congress convened, President
Jackson, on January 14, 1835, appointed Wayne to the United States Supreme
Court. He had already served three terms in Congress. By his acceptance of this
appointment Savannah lost one of its representatives in the House of 1835-36.

    Judge Wayne's devotion to the Union was no newly fledged sentiment, nor was
it of a transient nature. It was a deep-seated conviction that neither time nor
changing political conditions could weaken. His sympathies were with the Union
during the war, although his affection for Savannah and Georgia remained. He
continued on the United States Supreme Court bench until his death, July 5,
1867, a period of thirty-two years. Hampton L. Carson points out, in his
"History of the Supreme Court," that Judge Wayne was the last member of the
Supreme Court as constituted under Chief Justice Marshall, "a fact which was one
of the felicities of his career, and while it was the remarkable fortune of
President Jackson to fill a majority of the seats upon the bench of the Supreme
Court by appointment to vacancies occurring during his term, it was the lot of
Mr. Justice Wayne to be the last survivor of these appointees." "At the outbreak
of the Civil War his sympathy and efforts were all with the cause of the Union,
and his opinions indicate his fidelity to the Constitution, as interpreted by
the principles of Marshall. He lived to see the triumph of his views and the
restoration of peace under conditions which promised to be permanent."

    Judge Wayne's son, Henry C. Wayne, though, cast his lot with his native
state, and is well remembered as the adjutant and inspector-general of Georgia
under Governor Brown. After the war Judge Wayne was instrumental in securing
pardons for several of his old Georgia friends, among them General Edward J.
Harden, Judge of the Confederate Court for the District of Georgia, a well-known
Savannahian, father of the present William Harden, and also for former Senator
Benjamin Hill. The latter failing to acknowledge the pardon, Judge Wayne, in
seeming distress of mind over the ignoring of the executive clemency and his
part in securing it, wrote to Judge Harden, and a tardy letter from Hill to
Washington made the proper amende to his old Savannah friend.

    Succeeding political battles were fought just as bitterly, with
personalities verging toward viciousness, and "Courts of Honor" were more than
once called in to adjust personal differences that had provoked challenges.
Notable among such instances was the difficulty in the fall of 1844 between
William H. Bulloch, editor of the "Georgian," and S. T. Chapman, editor of the
"Republican." It was the year of the great struggle between the Democratic and
Whig parties, headed by Polk and Clay. Seldom in its history has Chatham County
been so closely divided in the political allegiance of its voters. The eyes of
Georgia were centered on the battle here. Already the slogan was, "As Chatham
goes, so goes Georgia." Great rallies of the contending parties were held,
intense enthusiasm prevailed in each camp, and as the election of November drew
near the bitterness between editorial writers, speakers, and the rank and file
generally, grew more and more intense. Editorial comments became more personal
in their nature toward the close of the campaign. The thin veneer of courtesy
was brushed aside, and finally the short, nasty words of "liar" and "coward"
disfigured the editorial columns. Editor Bulloch sent a challenge by Dr. Richard
D. Arnold to Editor Chapman, who accepted and named Robert R. Scott as his second.

    The seconds carefully considered the situation and decided to call in Robert
Habersham and George Schley as arbitrators in an endeavor to amicably adjust the
differences of the editors and prevent the exchange of shots. The arbitrators
did their work carefully and conscientiously, and their published conclusions,
accepted by the principals, are somewhat of a model. They decided that the
"Criticism of the 'Republican' (the Whig organ), although chafing in its
tendency, did not call for or render proper the personal bearing of the reply of
the 'Georgian'; that this reply was not so offensive as to justify the
imputations contained in the 'Republican's' retort; that the subsequent articles
on both sides assumed an asperity which we cannot consider justifiable, and we
particularly designate the underscoring of the word 'Gentleman', and the charges
of lying and cowardice, which we are confident emanated solely from the
intemperance of contest, resulting more from the peculiar public position of the
parties than from the convictions of their judgment.

    "We, therefore, believing that there was no proper ground for the inception
and harsh progress of this quarrel, consider and award that the particular
expressions which we have designated, and all others personal in their
character, shall be deemed by the parties as recalled and all personal
unkindness as remitted.

    "We trust that we shall be excused, as the friends of the parties (although
it be a supererogation) for concluding with a recommendation to them, that in
future personalities will not be allowed to mingle themselves in the discussions
which literary or political topics may claim from them as editors—they add no
force to the arguments and give no pleasure to right-minded readers."

    A few days later Chatham went Democratic, for Polk and Dallas, the vote
being 835 to 816 for the Whigs. Editor Bulloch called for "One Hundred Guns for
Old Chatham" "Redeemed from Whiggery," and a Democratic rooster crowed lustily
over a dead coon. A monster demonstration was held by the Democrats, joined in
by the unterrified of adjacent counties and near-by Carolina. To this came
perhaps the last surviving officer of the Revolutionary army that had sought to
recover Savannah from the British in the memorable siege and attack of
1779—Colonel Tarleton Brown, a "Life-long Democrat," who was received with
prolonged cheers as he rode in the procession.

    Flushed with their victory, the Democrats refused a proposition that
political lines be forgotten and a ticket be elected for Mayor and Aldermen of a
bi-partisan or non-partisan character. This was the first election in which the
people voted directly for their Mayor, the aldermen previously having chosen the
chief executive of the city from their number. Dr. Richard Wayne was at once
nominated by the Democrats for Mayor, and elected. During the brief campaign he
became involved in a dispute with William King that but for some reason not now
apparent might have brought a duel. Mayor-elect Wayne referred to it in his
comments: "It was our common misfortune that King's peculiar position precluded
him from the ordinary means of redress." What the "peculiar position" was that
prevented recourse to the code does not appear, but Dr. Wayne went on to say:
"He has learned that no position can protect the author of falsehood from
exposure, though the punishment may be escaped."

    King had been arousing and organizing the sentiment against those of foreign
birth. His close to this affair is a gem in its way, one of the most concise and
dispassionate verbal salutes at the close of any trouble of this sort to be found:

    "He has gained his office. I have saved my character. If he has a clear
conscience and is satisfied, so am I. Let us add no greater insult to the public
by annoying it with our communications."

    After the many columns of letters that had been inflicted upon the newspaper
readers in the Bulloch-Chapman affair, one can hear the audible "Amens" as the
readers of the "Georgian" and the "Republican" read this final card.

    In the campaign of the next year (1845) the Whigs triumphed and Dr. Wayne
was defeated in his fight for reelection to the mayoralty by Dr. Henry K.
Burroughs. Mayor Wayne became involved in an acrimonious dispute with the editor
of the "Republican," but there was no resort to the code. The Whigs for years
had their headquarters in the Lyceum Hall, at the southwest corner of Broughton
and Bull streets, while the Democratic headquarters were at the southwest corner
of Broughton and Barnard. Sallying from their respective castles for parades,
the contending political elements at times crossed paths with resulting
collisions that meant cracked heads and bloody noses. This particular election
day was marked by much disorder and bullying at the polls, one party being
doubtless as guilty as the other in its violent, tactics. In a fracas within the
court house Dr. Wayne was assailed by several bitter Whigs running amuck through
that building. At the expense of his arm, the Mayor protected his head from
blows from clubs. A bone was broken in his arm and one of his fingers fractured.
Wayne and Arnold and Daniell and Burroughs were a quartette of "Before-the-War"
physicians who took an active, one might truthfully say pugnacious or bellicose,
part in Savannah politics. Between them they held the mayoralty sixteen years.
Three other doctors, Jones, Screven and Waring, were also honored with the
mayoralty, and local history records that as Savannah's chief executives the
doctors were as active in the performance of their duties, as efficient, and as
satisfactory in the results achieved, as those business men and lawyers who held
the office.

    The excellent advice of the arbitrators in 1844, accepted though it was at
the time and printed for the public information, could not long restrain the
rival Savannah editors. Hardly a year passed before there were further sharp
exchanges of offensive personalities between Bulloch and Chapman, and the former
is found referring to Chapman as having "descended to the low and dirty work of
traducing character," coupled with the suggestion that the editor of the
"Republican" should "with his kindred reptiles crawl and die." Chapman was not
less severe in his strictures, but as their editorial pleasantries avoided such
expressions as "liar" and "coward" they managed to pull through the campaign
without a challenge.

    That was a famous battle, that Georgia fight for the governorship between
the Whigs and Democrats in 1845. Savannah had the honor of furnishing the
Democratic candidate, Matthew Hall McAllister having been enthusiastically
nominated in the State convention. Opposed to him was George W. Crawford, then
closing his first term as Governor. Political lines were too tensely drawn to
permit of Savannah rallying unitedly around McAllister as a native Savannahian,
a brilliant son, whose life had been spent in and devoted to the city. He was
fought as vigorously and as viciously as though he were not "to the manner born."

    Local political organizations were formed then, as in some former campaigns,
along lines of racial origin. The foreign-born elements and their children
aligned themselves with the Democratic forces. To enthuse and encourage them,
and create a spirit that would hold them steadfast in their allegiance,
beautiful banners were made by Democratic women and presented with much
formality. The Germans and Poles, united in one body, bore in their parades a
banner of satin with the eagle of America surmounted by thirteen stars, emblems
of the old thirteen states. The eagle bore aloft in its beak a scroll with the
honored names of DeKalb, Steuben and Pulaski. The Irish had another distinctive
banner with the harp. The old Democratic-Republican party for some years carried
as its main banner one of white satin with a golden fringe. On one side,
encircled with a green wreath, was the title of the Association, and on the
reverse the arms of Georgia enclosed by the motto, "The Union of the People for
the Sake of the Union." Near riots came when the opposition sought to wrest the
banner of Democracy from its strong-armed carrier. It was a day when brawn was
needed in politics much more than in the puerile present.

    McAllister was doubtless the first Georgian to bear the proud title of "War
Horse of Chatham." On political banners he was fondly inscribed as such, and
from one end of the State to the other the expression was used in praise of his
stalwart devotion to his party. But the Whigs aimed the shaft of "kid glove" at
him. Throughout the country districts he was dubbed an "aristocrat." Nowhere was
the governorship more heatedly contested than in his home county. So close was
the strength of the parties that he carried Chatham by but fifteen majority,
McAllister 715, Crawford 700. Polk had defeated Clay here by nineteen votes.
Welded together by both principle and prejudice, it was difficult to break the
ranks of the Democratic or Whig parties in other than purely local contests.

    In the state at large, Crawford triumphed. A Savannah correspondent of the
Charleston "Patriot" said of McAllister that he was defeated "simply because he
was a native of the city of Savannah," and the Savannah papers reprinted the
comment without dissent. Perhaps Georgia had already begun to look upon Savannah
as an outsider, and the "State of Chatham" was coming under the ban of political
ostracism when high offices were the prizes.

    The Whig party in Chatham at that time was almost a "Native American" party.
The "Georgian" tacitly admitted this in its editorial the day after the
election, congratulating Chatham on its endorsement of McAllister:

    "Thanks to the Sons of the Emerald Isle, who have disdained the presents
offered to tempt their political honesty;

    "Thanks to the noble Germans;

    "Thanks to the gallant Frenchmen;

    "Thanks to all, native or adopted, who have placed Chatham in her proper
position."

    The Democracy sent Joseph W. Jackson, J. W. Anderson and John E. Ward to the
Legislature at this time. When their legislative duties were concluded a mass
meeting of citizens, irrespective of party, was held, at which each legislator
gave an accounting of his stewardship directly to the people, and replied to
questions as to his course while in the Assembly. This was done at other times,
too—a plan which might be re-adopted with much advantage to both legislators and
constituents today.

    The local alignment of the hostile partisans of a somewhat later period,
Whigs, Native Americans, Democrats, was clear and unmistakable. Feeling ran high
at all times and satire, denunciation and abuse were not spared by the ofttimes
embittered journalists. Candidates for office, regardless of standing, seem to
have been pilloried as objects of contumely, if one is to accept as a correct
portraiture of conditions the comments of Editor Thompson, of the "Morning
News," when Seward, Democrat, and Bartow, Whig, ran for Congress in this
district in 1853:

    "Alas! Who will be able to recognize them when the canvass is over? He that
will believe one-tenth of all the meanness, the deceit, the downright villainy,
which will be laid to the charge of each candidate by the press which opposes
him, will be disgusted with human nature. If they are pelted with one-half the
filth, the slander, the detraction, the serious charges of dishonest purposes
under which the two candidates for governor (Johnson and Jenkins) have been
compelled to await the issue, their friends will be hardly able to recognize
them, they will hardly believe their own senses, and admit the fact of their own
existence. Messrs. Seward and Bartow may consider themselves in the stocks until
the election is over, there to be pelted."

    The public had apparently not modified its attitude toward candidates, nor
the press curbed its virulence, when Samuel Prioleau Hamilton became associated
with the "Georgian and Journal" three years after this campaign. It was the
period of the dissolution of the Whig party, before its members passed into one
or the other branches of the Democratic party, or temporarily espoused the false
issues of the American party in the vain hope of defeating their old-time
enemies. Hamilton was the son of General James Hamilton, the nullification
governor of South Carolina and advocate of armed resistance to Jackson's
enforcement of the tariff of 1828. He is described as a young, one-armed man,
full of fire and determination, aggressive in tone and very pronounced in his
opinions. The "Georgian" had merged its identity with the "Evening Journal" in
May, 1856, under the name of the "Georgian and Journal" labeled as the "Organ of
the Democratic party," and was edited by R. B. Hilton, assisted by Hamilton and
Isaac S. Clark. The "News" welcomed Hamilton to the Savannah fraternity as "a
young gentleman of talent, a ready writer, and a zealous supporter of Democratic
principles," and, it might have added, by heredity and education of the extreme
"Southern States Rights" variety. It was not long before he became involved in a
dispute with Editor J. R. Sneed, of the "Republican," the old Whig organ. The
dispute speedily became sufficiently acute and offensive, in Hamilton's opinion,
to justify a challenge from him.

    Sneed had come to Savannah in August, 1855, from Washington, in Wilkes
county, and had quickly become an active factor in the local politics, his
journal being conservative in tone, or, as Lee expressed it, "opposed to
secession as unjustified by any grievance then in existence." The "Georgian" had
been very bitter in its strictures both on the Whigs and the Union Democrats,
many of the former having taken refuge under the latter banner. Montgomery
Cummings bore the challenge from the sanctum of the "Georgian" to that of the
"Republican." The prominence of the two editors in this section of the state
aroused unusual interest in the prospective mortal combat and on the day the
duel was to be fought little else save its outcome was talked of in Savannah.

    The old ground in Carolina had been selected and the parties were making
their way from the ferry landing to the spot where the shots were to be
exchanged, when Cummings casually remarked to W. R. Pritchard, who represented
Sneed:

    "It is a shame for these two men to fight, especially after a willingness
has been expressed to withdraw the challenge."

    "Withdraw the challenge!" said Col. Pritchard in surprise. "This is the
first I have heard of it. Do you say with authority that your principal is
willing to withdraw the challenge?"

    "A letter looking to withdrawal was unquestionably prepared, and, I believe,
sent," said Cummings.

    "Under such circumstances it would certainly be a shame for either of them
to lose his life," commented Pritchard.

    Two friends accompanying the would-be duelists were called in for
conference. Under the code the seconds had the right, even the duty, to
intervene if they believed an amicable settlement could be, and should be, reached.

    The result of the conference was a satisfactory adjustment of the affair. It
appeared that the party to whom was entrusted the delivery of the note
withdrawing the challenge had unfortunately looked upon the wine when it was red
in the goblet. He had fallen by the wayside with the note forgotten.

    Instead of the Savannah papers the next morning conveying to the world the
intelligence that one or the other, or both, of the editors, had fallen on the
field of honor, they contained the following card:

                                  Screven's Ferry, So. Ca.,
                                  November 11, 1856.
    In an affair of honor pending between Mr. J. R. Sneed and Mr. S. P.
Hamilton, we, the undersigned, selected friends, express our gratification that
we have been enabled to make an adjustment of the difficulty between the
gentlemen, which is honorable and satisfactory to both parties.

                                      JOHN RICHARDSON,
                                      JOHN M. B. LOVELL.

    What the agreement was is not known. At the expiration of the month, though,
Hamilton retired from his editorial connection with the "Georgian and Journal,"
and was succeeded by Albert R. Lamar, who became associated with R. B. Hilton as
part proprietor and assistant editor. Hamilton had but a brief connection with
Georgia journalism. He continued to live in Savannah, married and died here. The
"Georgian and Journal" itself passed out of existence three years later, after a
life, on the part of the "Georgian," extending over forty-one years, marked by a
full average of political strife.

    When native editors, in sympathy with the South, its traditions and its
institutions, fell out as a result of their political and personal strictures,
or were called to account by a citizen outside of the editorial fraternity for
comments regarded as offensive, what could be expected when a rank outsider, who
had traveled in the wake of Sherman's army as a newspaper representative, seized
a Savannah newspaper and became the editorial exponent and protagonist of the
Northern viewpoint of the war and its results.

    James E. Hayes landed in Savannah on December 29, 1864. He had been war
correspondent of the New York Tribune but evidently decided that the local field
was more enticing, less dangerous, and probably more remunerative, and under
army auspices took possession of the office and plant of the "Savannah
Republican," without compensation to its owners, and continued its publication
as an organ of the radicals. From then until his sudden death on September 16,
1868, he was almost continually involved in troubles, sometimes of a most
serious nature. In 1867, Solomon Cohen, who had been the Democratic or
Conservative candidate for Congress, had him prosecuted in the Superior Court
for criminal libel and the jury found him guilty. He appealed and doubtless
death nol prossed the case. In this case Judge Fleming delivered an interesting
charge, holding that "A candidate for public favor puts his character and
competency on issue and any true information in regard to either would not be
libelous, unless the occasion was used for wicked and malicious purposes. If the
election was over, though, the lawful occasion did not exist, for it is of
candidates, and not of persons who had been candidates, that the law gives this
permission. That the candidacy (of Mr. Cohen) had been recent does not affect
the matter, for if this were so what a wide door would it throw open for the
indulgence of spleen and malice on the part of disappointed partisans. The
liberty of speech and the freedom of the press are not invaded when persons are
held liable for what they say or publish."

    Hayes' troubles as editor were not confined to Southern men. Even his own
radical friends, blacks and whites, had their dissensions with him, and either
maligned him in print or made physical assaults upon him. The notorious Bradley,
a negro ex-convict from New York, who had become the dangerous leader of his
people and a menace to the community, became his bitter foe. Hayes threatened to
shoot him and it is amusing to note the comment of the "News and Herald" thereon:

    "We regret when one of our profession permits himself to dispute with a
negro, and more particularly when he threatens to kill the negro and then fails
to do so."

    While Solomon Cohen would not acknowledge Hayes socially sufficiently to
challenge him for slander, a young Savannahian called the editor to sharp
account when Hayes permitted himself to reflect in the "Republican" on his
veracity. This was Frank D. Lee, who had entered the Confederate service in
1861, as a boy of seventeen, and served throughout the war. Lee believed that he
might provoke the carpetbag editor into a duel, but he was mistaken in his man.
This was Lee's last card:

    "John E. Hayes having impugned the honor and bravery of the writer, he takes
this opportunity of daring him to make good his accusations by meeting the
writer in open and honorable conflict at any time and place he may designate."

    Although Lee had previously advertised him as an all-round, wilful,
malicious and cowardly liar, Hayes ignored the cartel, apparently. But in the
four months that intervened before his death he brought additional troubles by
shifting toward the Conservative side in political matters. The white radical
leaders, the Hopkinses, assaulted him, the negro Bradley encouraged the idea of
his assassination, and his path was a veritable briar patch of the sharpest
thorns. Some of the negroes had been induced, either from intelligent
comprehension of the benefits their race would receive by co-operation with
Southern whites, or by promises of reward, to espouse the Conservative side in
politics and a number of them are said to have voted for Gen. John B. Gordon for
governor and Henry S. Fitch for Congress, the Conservative candidates at the
1868 election. Negro Conservative Clubs were organized. A negro named Jackson
Brand, who had been violently connected with the radical element, professed
conversion and came into one of these clubs, connected with which was another
negro, Eugene Morehead. Two negroes aspiring for leadership meant trouble.
More-head claimed he caught Brand coming from the house of Hopkins late at night
and charged him with treachery. After a fisticuff a duel was arranged, and with
all due form and ceremony, accompanied by seconds and friends, but not surgeons,
the pair sought South Carolina soil. Double-barrel guns, loaded with sixteen
buckshot were used, at forty-five feet. Brand received a number of the shot in
each hip and fell to the ground grievously wounded, but urged his second to hold
him up while he exchanged shots again with Morehead. The second had too much
regard for his own hide to desire its perforation and refused. Brand died soon
after reaching Savannah. The "News" commented that "Everything was conducted
properly, but their neglect in not providing a surgeon was most criminal."
Morehead was not molested.

    These incidents illustrate the conditions under which Savannah labored
during the years that immediately followed the war, leading up to the later
"Ogeechee riots," and disturbances at the polls, and the final overthrow of the
radicals locally and in the State, and the restoration of clean government and
white supremacy. When Hayes died the property of the "Republican" was sold at
public outcry and bought in by John R. Sneed, its former proprietor and editor,
who resumed its publication. It was in this year (1868) that Capt. S. Yates Levy
was forced by the military powers to relinquish his editorship of the
"Advertiser," of which mention has been made.

    As far as can be ascertained, these were the only Savannah editors whose
duels ever ran beyond the verbal stage, acrimonious though their newspaper
disputes often were. They were fire eaters with pens for swords and threw ink
instead of drawing blood. The editorial pages of the Savannah papers, in common
with those throughout the country, in the last four decades, have fortunately
abandoned the offensive element of personal vituperation. The old-style
bludgeoning editor, like the custom of duelling, has long since gone to his
final resting place, never to return. Instead of so much rancorous airing of
personal political views, current news marks the journals that bulk so much
larger in size and prosperity to-day. It is the reporter, and not the editorial
writer, whose work builds up the subscription list of the twentieth century
newspaper.

    While connected with Savannah only through the great interest they awakened
among all classes at this time when political turbulence ran amuck in Georgia,
there are two duels in which editors well known in this city were involved that
may not inappropriately be inserted here. In both of them the responsibility of
the editor for permitting the use of his columns for personal political attacks
became the issue. In one instance the editor accepted it and filled an untimely
grave as a result. In the other the editor denied it and declined to accept a
challenge, throwing upon the writer of the offending articles the acceptance or
rejection of the demand for personal satisfaction from the man whose ruffled
sensibilities could be mollified only through the medium of the duelling
pistols. In the former case South Carolinians were the principals, in the latter
Georgians

    To all the duels fought by Savannahians in a half century hardly as much
space was given by the local papers as to the meeting in which Editor William R.
Taber, Jr., of the Charleston "Mercury" met his death. This grew out of the
Congressional race in the fall of 1856, in which Judge A. G. Magrath was a
candidate. Young Edward Rhett, Jr., attacked the Judge anonymously in the
"Mercury" Until that time the relations between the Magraths and the editors of
the "Mercury" ^are said not to have been strained. In the absence of Judge
Magrath his brother, Edward, took upon: himself the protection of the Judge's
honor and challenged not one but both of the editors of the "Mercury." Rhett
avowed himself the author of the articles and stood willing to accept a
challenge from Judge Magrath, but to no purpose. Judge Magrath hastened a
messenger to Charleston to prevent, if possible, the meeting between his brother
and the editors, but he arrived too late. Nothing shows more clearly the
disinclination to interfere in such affairs than the report of this friend to
the Judge:

    "The time, place and circumstances of the proposed duel were known
throughout the city. Magistrates knew them, the conservators of the peace knew
them, pious men and even clergymen were as well acquainted with the facts as the
parties interested."

    But not a hand was raised to prevent the duel.

    Editor Taber's attitude in accepting the challenge was that he was
championing the hard-won liberty of the press. Magrath's letter of challenge he
regarded as an assault on the freedom of newspapers as the medium for the open
consideration of the views and acts of men in public life, and especially of
candidates for high place. Magrath, on the other hand, held that while an editor
is free to publish whatsoever he will, he must take the consequences of so
doing. Taber was, in effect, called upon not only to apologize for publishing
the utterances of his correspondent and to disclaim them, but to also avow that
he did not believe them. The entire burden of the anonymous expressions was thus
thrown upon the editor, even though the author assumed responsibility for them
himself.

    The correspondence was sharp. Accepting the challenge, Taber said: "You
assume to represent the honor and manhood of your brother, an avowed candidate
for the highest office in our gift, and by your interference reduce his honor
and manhood to a vicarious existence. I do not admit that when a candidate by
his own consent he can avoid the proper, necessary responsibilities of his
position as a candidate. If a judge, he is no less a candidate. He cannot
legitimately put his character in commission and maintain his honor by proxy. If
he can resign his seat to go to congress, he can resign it, if necessary, to
vindicate his honor. He has no right to be a candidate if he ceases to be a man.
It is a refuge without honor and without character. But truth shall not be
muzzled, though he be a judge, and the liberty of the press shall be maintained,
even against the vicarious champion of his manhood and the intrusive
representative of his honor. This much for your warrant to represent your
brother and insult me."

    Efforts were made after the first and second exchange of shots to adjust the
trouble, but without avail. A form of settlement was prepared but rejected by
Taber and his second. Everything seems to have hinged on the use of the word
"retract" required of Taber as to the Rhett publications. "Mild and harmless as
it may seem," held his second, "it was too palpable that it amounted not only to
an identification of Mr. Taber with the whole responsibility for these articles,
but as a disclaimer of and apology for them. It would have been a stultification
of him as an editor and a humiliation of him as a man."

    Those were punctilious times, and because of Magrath's insistence on the
word "retract" instead of the word "regret," Taber died. The editor was
convinced that a great principle was at stake and that if he fell, he fell a
martyr to the glorious cause of the liberty of the press. On the third exchange
of shots he was killed.

    John Heart, associate editor of the "Mercury," was on hand with his second
and notified Magrath of his presence and willingness to proceed with the duel.

    "I am ready to answer your demand for satisfaction," said he, as they bore
away the body of his co-laborer on the "Mercury."

    Magrath conferred with his second and answered that he had no further
demands to make and retired from the field.

    Young Rhett was also near the field, ready to meet any demand that might be
made upon him if Judge Magrath appeared.

    Judge Magrath immediately withdrew from the congressional race. He
subsequently became the last of South Carolina's governors under the Confederacy.

    Many and bitter were the comments on this affair. The view of many was
undoubtedly expressed by the editor of the "Central Presbyterian," when he wrote:

    "A duel settles no principles, elects no truth, vindicates no innocence,
proves no man brave. Why should the 'The Code' be called a 'Code of Honor,'
which violates the laws of God and Man?"

    It was another Rhett, U. S. Senator Barnwell Rhett, who gave a high
exhibition of Christian manhood, when, being the subject of offensive remarks by
Senator Clements, of Alabama, and urged to challenge him, he replied: "My second
reason for not calling the senator from Alabama into the field is of a still
higher and more controlling nature. For twenty years I have been a member of the
Church of Christ. The Senator knows it; everybody knows it. I cannot and I will
not dishonor my religious profession. I frankly admit that I fear God more than
I fear man. True courage is best evidenced by the firm maintenance of our
principles amidst all temptations and trials."

    In the Georgia editorial duel the circumstances were different and the
result was not fatal to either of the participants. This was in October, 1851.
The Augusta "Chronicle" had contained articles reflecting upon the political
course of Editor James M. Smythe, of the "Constitutionalist and Republican," an
"Independent Whig," or Clay organ, established by Smythe in 1848, he having
previously been associate editor of the "Chronicle." Evidently there was no love
between the editors for Smythe, instead of sending a cartel to the author of the
letters, challenged Editor Jones, of the "Chronicle." Jones had a sufficiently
clear vision to see that if he became a physical target for leaden bullets in
return for the paper pellets shot by all the correspondents of the "Chronicle,"
his life was apt to be snuffed out at any moment. He declined the challenge.
Then Smythe turned to Mr. Thomas, the author of the articles which had so
exasperated him. Mr. Thomas accepted. They met at Vienna, S. C., and, the
newspaper reports say, fired three shots at each other. The editor was the only
sufferer. Bullets went through his thighs. But the wounds were not serious and
he was soon enabled to bathe his enemies in vitriol again, and to demonstrate
that in the hands of a truly valiant editor the pen is mightier than the old
smooth bore duelling pistol. This duel, like that at Charleston, brought
widespread comment. They both may have played their part in persuading Savannah
editors not to resort to the field of honor to adjust their differences but
preferentially to continue to bomb each other from the safety of their editorial
tripods. Considering their fiery invectives, the duels between Georgia
journalists seem entirely disproportionate to those among the politicians as a
class.

    It is interesting to note that the "Constitutionalist" was merged in the
"Chronicle" in 1877.

    Many years later another Charleston newspaper man, governed by religious
principles, not only refused to accept challenges but labored so zealously and
so continuously to stir the public conscience to the need for legal suppression
of duelling, backed by a sentiment that would not tolerate ignoring of the
statute, that Pope Leo XIII conferred on him the title of Knight of the Order of
St. Gregory in recognition of his meritorious labors and their final success.
This editor was Capt. F. W. Dawson, of the "News and Courier," known to so many
Savannahians as one of the noblest spirits of Southern journalism of his day,
courageous, conscientious, serving the public with high ideals. It was a strange
stroke of fate, indeed, that sent the chivalrous soul of this editorial
antagonist of the duel into eternity as a result of his defense of a woman's
honor. Capt. Dawson was slain by a man accused of wronging a young woman of the
editor's household. Under the old custom, that he had so persistently and so
successfully fought to destroy, a challenge and a duel would, in all
probability, have ensued from the wrongdoing of another, a duel from which Capt.
Dawson might have merged the victor and unscathed. But recourse to the code had
been finally suppressed through Capt. Dawson's own efforts, even had it not been
that as a devout Catholic the editor bowed to the judgment of his church and the
ban it had placed on duelling. Many will recall the reception of the news in
Savannah, on March 12, 1889, of the killing of Capt. Dawson, he being known and
admired by many in this city. The "Morning News" said of him: "He possessed in
an eminent degree the courage and honor of the Southern gentleman of the old
school, and was imbued with the hopes and ambitions of the Southern people of
today."

    When the brilliant Gonzales later lay dead in Columbia, slain by a
politician whom he had assailed in his journal, more than one editor in that
state echoed the sentiment that in destroying the duel Capt. Dawson had
temporarily produced a worse condition. Gonzales, himself, in describing the
rise of Ben Tillman, of "pitchfork" fame, declared that had not the duel been
outlawed as the result of the efforts of "an editor of foreign birth and whose
church proscribed it," Tillman would probably never have reached the United
States Senate, as he could not have continued to run amuck, but would have been
called to account for his public utterances, challenged, and either forced, as
Gonzales apparently believed, to retract and apologize, or been slain in a
meeting of honor by one of those whose characters he had attacked and whose
influence he was seeking to destroy by unlimited and ceaseless abuse. Gonzales
was doomed to fall a victim to the pistol, not on the field of honor which had
been barred from his state, but on a main street of South Carolina's capital.

    This has been a digression from Savannah duels and duellists, but these
incidents show that the spirit which once ruled here survived to a much later
period across the river, politics in Georgia subsiding forty years ago to a
lamblike tameness compared with the virulent variety that flourished until quite
recently in South Carolina.


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/gms420savannah.txt

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

File size: 45.9 Kb