Starts here. That tradition that military tradition, and its usually important. So one thing i do, when i do military history, as i theres a modern phrase, im not a fan of the phrase, because it gets misconstrued. It is too impersonal, it makes you forget that there are real men real women, who are wearing these boots, who are off doing things, to be able to keep us safe. Right. We need to remember that. So every time we fight about it, we have the boots, here to remind us of those people. And like i said its been a long time, 250 years since we fought this war with these guys, with george with a continental army. We need to honor their sacrifice. We need a new tier. You all voted for independence, and so we cant yell god save us anymore. But in 1775 will yield hustle. The 18th century way. We yelled hip hazza. Company dismissed. Hello everybody good evening, welcome to tonights presentation. Also special bus tonight, they would like to acknowledge that this is simpson circle, that is a group comport composed of members so lets acknowledge them. And introducing tonight speaker, doctor john freeman, id like to mention at the outset, that one of her most commendable qualifications is she received her ph. D. From the university. That is right, uva, in any case not long after receiving that degree, she was recognized as one of the nations top historians. She subsequently, has achieved widespread recognition as a scholar of the revolutionary, and national periods of American History she is the author of numerous subjects, the journal of policy history and other journals she is written opted pieces for the New York Times has appeared in numerous documentaries on pbs and npr and bbc we have seen or just the last week on the History Channel on the series and with george washington. She has written several books including the study of Alexander Hamilton, also affairs of honor, national politics, one of the best book award, for the society of historians for early american. The base of tonight venture is field of blood published in 2018. With regard to that book, they wrote that with insightful analysis and vivid detail, she explores the human relationships, before the civil war, and find a culture of astonishing violence, and fistfights, jewels and mass brawls, her innovative account detects steps towards this union, and changes how we think of political history. Another prominent historian wrote, she describes many of situations of congressional violence, bullying, fighting in the house of congress, threats of jewels, with painstaking research, she penetrates the conspiracy of silence, by sources reluctant to the truth. Such an important story should not have waited so long to be told. We are honored that she will stare that share that story with us as we welcome doctor joanne freeman. Thank you very much, it is my great pleasure to be with you this evening to talk as was just suggested about something of a juicy topic and that is American History. It will not surprise you to learn as for somebody who was studying Alexander Hamilton for many decades, i have had a good reason to study doing. Over years i have watched reenactments of dueling in one case standing close enough to the action to get spluttered by hamiltons blood really being up close and personal with the subject another case, i had a chance to shoot a black powdered doing play still. Thanks to the policeman who is overseeing the practice, i was wearing your shields and goggles at the time, which took away from the historical accuracy of the moment, but still it was an amazing opportunity to get some small sense of the physical sensation of firing a dueling pistol. But getting a handson sense of a dual is one thing understanding doing is another because when you get right down to it doing doesnt make sense one person insulting other person and as a result they travel to a field at the crack of dawn and fire pistols at each other does that solve anything seemingly now. Is there a risk of life and limb, definitely yes. So what is the logic of dueling and what drove americans to become duellists. Or put it another way giving doings lack of logic why did hundreds and hundreds of american men reason their way onto a dueling ground and that is what i want to explore with you this evening and im going to do that in two parts. First i will briefly look at how american dueling really works and the logic behind it and i note that i am talking about american doing here it, is different than america than european doing, but in one key way, that i will talk about later. And im going to focus on specific duellists, and look at how they put doing into practice and why. No one of the first things that i really had to grapple with discussing dueling, is the concept of honor in early america any gentlemen you assumed his honor with his most valuable possession. To be dishonourable you lose your manhood or your status. To be a shame to do to see your family friends. Honor was more important for public politician who base their careers on public opinion. Elections went to the men with the best reputation, the man who the public most respected so basically to get voted into office to get your friends into office or to exercise any political power or influence you need to have the right sort of reputation so for an early american politician honor was not just some kind of vague sense of self worth if represented his ability to prove himself a deserving political leader so it was practical in some ways and in a sense were gonna be coming back to that. Among men who were so touchy about the reputations rules of behavior were very important and that makes sense if you think about it where insults can really have such grave consequences or the wrong word might be to the dueling ground they have to be clearly defined rules and standards so the accidental insults and violence can be avoided. The rules of honor the code of honor sit a clear standards of conduct certain words that youre supposed to avoid certain actions you are supposed to avoid, and one line was crossed an honor was offended the code of honored offered a regular regulated way to settle the dispute. For example there were a number of what i call for myself alarm bell words, words that you could never use in relation to another gentleman because it was almost like tearing that person to challenge you to a dual, these words included some that were logical liar and coward, they seem to be alarm bell words and to have lost losing rascal and scoundrel and probably not going to shoot someone over the today but there are serious back then, am i perfect my favorite. I guess its insulting to someone,. Everyone knew insulting a man with one of those words was like just like challenging him to a dual. It was a deer that remanded demand a response. And to ignore that there would be to dishonor yourself. I want to show you an example of one of those actually to those words inaction so this takes place in 1797 and Alexander Hamilton and james mineral local guy james monroe became involved in a controversy. Hamilton believed that monroe had leaked some damaging information to the press. He was outraged. So he decided he would go to monroes house to demand an explanation and he wrote a note to monroe that said i heard you have done xyz im coming to your home for an explanation i am bringing a friend or another words a second. A doing assistant and kasich top ends up leading to something more serious if you are monroe and you hads a note this is somebody is coming to your house with a friend, that means you are in dueling territory. Now youre in the realm or something bad might happen so monroe went and got a friend for himself and lucky for us, monroes friend recorded the entire conversation which took place between hamilton and monroe. Now the first thing you can tell from the conversation is that they really really did not like each other things dont start out too well because the can tell right off the cuff they hate each other hamilton was else also a logical thinker who clearly wanted to rehearse the entire history of the controversy like a lawyer would monroe kept interrupting incomplete frustration saying i know already ive lived through this can you get going and hamilton would begin again at the beginning of his account so things got worse as the conversation went on it didnt take long for both men ultimately to lose their patience with hamilton clearly getting redder and redder admiral getting ice here in i. C. E. Here until hamilton finally just bluntly accused monroe of leaking the information when monroe denied it hamilton said and his word choice is key here hamilton said quote this as your representation is totally false he is not using the l word and hes not say you are a liar but hes basically saying youre a liar he has to be very careful with his words. Even though he did not use the buzzword, his accusation was serious enough to have a big impact, and what happened at that moment is fascinating because as soon as hamilton said that, this is a reputation is so false it was clear the line had been crossed, as soon as the words left his mouth they both jump to their feet now the two minute assumed they were going to be involved in an affair of honor, so they pushed it one step further he said do you say i represent falsely you are a scoundrel thank you for the sound effects thats exactly what someone wouldve said hamilton responded as any man of honor whatever smollett saying i will meet you like a gentleman meeting i ready to duel monroe replied im ready to get your pistols at which point the two mens friends, separated them and calm them down and basically convince them to act, as if some of what happened hadnt happened so they could negotiate. As i just suggested this incident unfolded much more quickly than thought. The two men lost their temper, and thats not how a man of honor was posed to behave. They followed predictable ritualized steps in a more conventional dispute a person who felt insulted would have written a form letter to the oath that the other and would have five statements first would say im told you insulted me in this way. And it would suggest what the insult was then it would be quoted very precisely the words quoted to me are, this is what you said 30 letter would ask is it true or false have you done this was a vow it or deny it forth it would ask do you have an explanation for this and fit it would demand an Immediate Response typically by saying Something Like i demand in responses man of honor saw if you get that that is a dual to be form letter whoever got at the other had been offended and the writer was ready to fight. You can see how that would give the recipient a chance to explain himself or deny or apologize and sometimes that happened. But from this point on as you receive that kind of whether you are engaged in a fair hotter which any word or action could be fragile and this is typically the point where each man would appoint a second to represent him somebody that was trying to appease them without emily insulting defender and it could take days or weeks or months as in this case as hamilton in row did for months they exchanged letters and each letter basically said ready to fight when you are and the other one say well im ready to fight nothing happens in the end this goes on for months and the enable said all i showed him hes a coward kind of difficult it accomplish something certainly didnt accomplish anything easy for us to see now the negotiating process was extremely important and ritualized because it enabled those involved to really display their honor their superior character by being calm and passion knit and haughty in the face of death. Its really we come to a point where now its counterintuitive the point of a dual was not kill your appointment your pony it its if youre swimming if to are going to kill each other or to shoot each other it was an idea to tell each. Other but that was not the point of dual the point was to show that you are willing to die for your honor so when you went to the dueling ground by standing there you are proving your willingness to risk your life people did not have to die to redeem their reputation they dont have to get to the dueling ground they didnt even have to get to the dueling ground to redeem their reputation dependent on negotiations. Obviously, in that kind of situation, debts were relatively rare deaths were relatively rare in duels. I remember finding a newspaper poking fun at a recent duel. It said Something Like, he suffered a wound in that fashionable area, the shin. [laughter] there are a lot of shin wounds. The point of a dualistic prove you are willing to die for your honor duel is to prove you are willing to die for your honor. The opponents often fell victim to such outrage that he had to leave the state. In. Many ways, into a list who killed his opponent was a failed dualist, because rather than redeeming his reputation, he risked damaging it. Once you understand political dueling in this way, when you see that all the letters and negotiations are really a which alleged part of an affair of honor that might lead to a duel, you discovered there were many affairs of honor in america, more than people assume. For example, Alexander Hamilton was involved in at least 10 affairs of honor. At least 10 times, he got into some kind of dispute with someone. They had a ritualized negotiation. In some cases came near fighting, but he did not end up going to the drooling ground. He even negotiated himself out of a fight with berenbergaa ron burr before. 10 is a lot of times to be involved in an affair of honor. Tells you something about hamilton. In new york city alone, there were at least 17 other Political Affairs of honor. In other words, the burrhamilton duel was not a grand exception, but rather part of a larger trend. When you look at these other disputes and duels, you do see patterns. First, you noticed that a lot of these occurred shortly after an election. I actually remember discovering this with a calendar with elections on it and pinning the duels and going, this is an interesting pattern. Second, when you look at the details, you discover that many of them were predictably provoked. A common ploy is that someone would call another someone a selfinterested politician and there is one obvious response to that, you are a liar. You got yourself a duel. In most cases, and this is the striking point, the loser of the election, or one of his friends, would find a way to provoke a winner or one of the winnersfriends into a duel. What is happening here, these are duels that are not resulting from a slip of the tong, they are deliberately provoked and strategically timed. In other words, many early american political duels were kind of like counter elections. Someone who was dishonored by a lost election, a democratic contest, tried to redeem his reputation with an aristocratic contest of honor. , a due a duel. American duels, sometimes they would be summarized in newspapers, they would say Something Like mr. X met mr. Y on a field of honor and with men behaved honorably. The subject would be, both men behaved honorably and they are fit to be leaders and you should vote for them in a selection. That is why these details are being published. And europeans were stunned at this custom, because it seemed like americans were advertising their duels for votes, which in a way, they were. This is a really distinctly american twist on the european practice of dueling. As i just suggested, these are not impulsive or irrational duels, not guided by uncontrolled suicidal impulses or murderous rage. Early american political duels, at least for some time, or deliberate attempts to redeem an electoral loss and prove oneself eligible for future leadership. The burrhamilton duel fits perfectly into that pattern. It took place in 1804. That year, burr lost his election for governor of new york with hamilton campaigning against him. Not long after losing, burr felt compelled to redeem his name and reputation from that loss. There is actually a pamphlet written by one of his supporters at the time that says, if mr. Berg did not redeem his reputation, if mr. Burr does not redeem his repetition, why should his followers follow him . He must do something. So or pop did. After losing the new york elections, he was looking for a way to redo his reputation. Low and behold, someone handed him a newspaper clipping that contained news of a dinner party were hamilton had insulted burr. Burr used the clipping to initiate an affair of honor with hamilton, who had been attacking burr for 15 years at that point. Because of some sloppy insulting exchanges between the two men during those long negotiations, along with 15 years worth of insults, hamilton couldnt really apologize. In the end, with men felt insulted during the negotiations and obviously, they ended up doing. I dont think either one of them wanted to kill the other. I know people think burr was an evil guy who wanted to kill hamilton. When you look at the letters before the duel, it doesnt seem that way as well. As i suggested earlier, this does not mean that burr won the duell. In some ways, he lost it. He fled town as did a flurry of his supporters, his newspaper editor, and the man who rode them across the river to the dueling ground. Now new york is upset. He has killed somebody. His enemies united against him to basically condemning as a murderer and press condemn him as a murderer and press murder charges. He was vulnerable and for some time, he hid in South Carolina, where people were less upset about hamiltons death and more comfortable with dueling. After several months, he returned to his job as Vice President of the United States, because he was Vice President when he killed hamilton. He was finishing up his term and not coming back for a second term. Given that deaths occasionally happen in dueling, he just went back to his job once the coast was clear. Over the years, in reading the letters of men who were in the room, congressmen and senators who were in the room when burr came back to me it is interesting, because a lot of them say things like, it looked like it wore on him. He looked as though he was weighted down. They could see basically, it is not all fun and roses when you are involved in a duel and you are being thrown out of town. People could see the impact of what happened. You can see how some american duelists, particularly political ones, use duels as a form of politics in the first decade or two of the new american republic. That was a big part of my first book affairs of Honor National politics in the new republic here. This leads to the question, did this political use of dueling change over time, and if it did, how . That is the topic of my recent book mentioned earlier, the field of blood violence in congress and the road to the civil war the book explores violence in congress in the decade leading up to the civil war. Most of the violence i found actually was not or even do all negotiations, most of the violence was not duels or even duel negotiations. Most of the violence was gunfights, fistfights, mass brawls. In the course of my research, i found 70 physically violent incidents in the house and senate between the 1830s to the civil war. Including the most famous incident of all, the infamous caning of abolitionist senator Charles Sumner by represented is rustenburgs best representative preston brooks. Took me many years to write this book because i had to uncover the violence, almost 100 of the time when i would say to people i am writing a book on violence in the congress, they would not necessarily know the name, but they would all basically say, there is that guy. They all knew about the sumner caning. Some of this violent scum of the 75 found was a product of the fact that the u. S. Was violent in these decades. Congress was representative. But some of the violence was a matter of strategy. Dueling was part of that strategy. Because by the 1830s, dueling was increasingly seen as a southern custom, something that southerners boasted about as being a son of their culture. Something that northerners demeaned as being barbaric. And in fact, by the 1830s and 1840s, north and south had two really different fighting cultures. Southern culture obviously, the slaverybased culture, favorite violence and in particular, mantoman combat. Both things were vital in a slavebased culture. Northerners were more prone to rioting when it came to violence. North and south prone to rioting. One wasnt necessarily better than the other when it came to violence, but dueling became southern. In congress, it was different. In congress, southerners knew that they were willing to duel and that their northern colleagues were probably not willing to duel, particularly by this point, because by this point, congressmen from the north assumed that their constituents back home thought it was barbaric and southern and would not want their representative to take part in it. Southerners used that to their advantage during congressional debate. They threatened and intimidated northern opponents, hinting at duels, knowing full well the northerners were likely to back down when confronted or sometimes not to even stand up for confrontation. Silencing themselves rather than being risk being humiliated on the floor of congress. I want to show you an example of this in action. In 1838, one congressmen killed another in a duel, the only time when congressmen killed another. What lunch the duel was a clash between democrats and whigs on the house floor. A southern whig who tried to intimidate a northern democrat defendants. The southerner who was using intimidation to get his way was a virginian. Really interesting character. He ended up being the most frequent fighter in my book, which somehow frequentflier and frequent fighter were going backandforth in my head as i was writing the book. It was my most frequent fighter. He fought several duels, he was the second of several duels. A second and an educated man who went on to become governor of virginia, the man who signed john browns death warrant. But he was also constantly rolling up his shoes to throw a punch. So in 18 rolling up his sleeves to throw a punch. Punch. In 1838, he strides into the house, with a newspaper above his head and announces, i have your proof that the democrats are corrupt. A maine democrat who was in his first year in congress immediately stood up in protest and insisted, that is not true, democrats are not corrupt. At this, wise slowly and dramatically turned around to face him and with a sneer on his face said are you thank you your excellent with sound effects. Thats exactly what he was doing and he knew it was moving into dual territory and he eventually backed down, but in the process of backpedalling their ended up being a duel between two congressman the important part of this story is why did he taught him knowing full well that he would not want to fight the dual so why score an easy point against the democrats. And then during the dueling negotiations he discussed the fact that he did not want to do all that his constituents disapproved of it but he didnt feel like he could back down because if doing so he would taller himself and all that he represented. In my book i refer to this as the northern congressmans dilemma it was a difficult spot to be, and it heads towards a debate on the floor. Runners step down from committees, when they were confronted with it. Of course that process havent immigration and threatening and sensing people was a handy thing to have in play in the issue of slavery when it came up there was an issue where southerners had a lot to say and northerners were put in this difficult situation again and again. So after this boarhound do it was still a form of politics that said a lot about the politicians character and southerners were really using that to their full advantage but now in the 18 thirties and beyond it communicated messages about politicians characters in a more immediate and powerful way than ever before because of great advances in Technology Steam powered Printing Presses the telegraph railroads all of this came at the same time and together its spread news what came to Congress Faster than ever before further than ever before. So southern bullying had a more powerful impact National Impact it has been an interesting time in american interesting time to come out with violence between politicians, it took me so long to write it i could not know that this moment would be the right moment when my book came out. But one of the things i found striking when i was finishing up the book theres a chapter in the book in the telegraph, new form of technology, information is running quickly, congressman they do not control the spin they are learning all kinds of things they dont know if its true or spot false conspiracy starts to spread because of the confusion confusion. It is so easy to spread them. If you think about it, the telegraph did what social media does today, which is, politics is basically a conversation between politicians and the public, these forms of technology that scramble that conversation, it makes perfect sense that they potentially scramble the working of democracy as well. The telegraph and social media was not a comparison i thought it would make but it is a striking one. Because of the telegraph and other things that were spreading news much more quickly than ever before and much further than ever before of what was going on in congress, he word throughout the negotiations, what are new england are going to think if i duel or if i dont duel . And wise knew that his constituents would be part of him for dangling a duel to defend what he represented. He even said so. Henry wise is not only my most frequentfighter, but he always said what he wanted to say. Someone would do something, threaten someone, and wise would stand up and said, this is like the last five times that it happened. And i would be a happy historian because i had five other times. He is that guy. So someone in Congress Says to wise, you should ashamed of yourself you should be a sham of yourself. We should react. Wise response, do it. Go ahead. I will be back here in no time because my constituents put me here to fight on their behalf. They want me to behave this way. And in many ways, he was right. This is a period when people cycled in and out of congress, sometimes serving one term, maybe wise was reelected at least six times, which was unusual. His constituents are prone to what he was doing. You can see how dueling culture was one of many ways in which southerners exercised a great deal of control over the National Government in this period. There was a reason why people spoke in general terms about a slave power. There was one. In congress, southerners had a cultural advantage because of dueling culture, and the political advantage of extra representation because of the 3 5 compromise. I am sort of leaning towards the latter part of my comments here. What i want to do at this point is talk about a remarkable document that is going to help us look at how things changed, because they dont continue percolating along in congress identically for all these decades, and the change is important. And at the very end, i want to answer a question i get asked all the time when i talk about this topic. But first, the document, because it is an extra dinner document. It shows how the dynamics of dueling as i just described it in congress, percolated along for a while until the mid1850s, when a new party came to congress, a northern party. An antislavery party. The Republican Party. Unlike former northerners, republicans running for congress, in their Promotional Campaign material, insisted that they would fight the slave power. In congress, that had the a real meaning to it. Some republicans in the 1850s were fighting men, unlike northerners who came before. They came to congress armed, they stood up to bullying, and they said so often. So when you read in the time periods, you see northerners rise to the feet when being bullied and they will say things like, you cant say that about me to read i am a different kind of northerner. I am a different kind of person. I will not take this. You better be careful. So clearly, the arrival of the Republican Party and these different kind of northerners changed the dynamics of bullying in congress but it also confronted americans with a difficult decision. What should they do when confronted with duels or challenges or insults aimed at provoking a duel . It is wanting to stand up to southerners, but fighting a duel . When it came to their constituents, it probably crossed a line. The document i found was addressing this specific problem. It was a formal statement signed by three republican congressmen, simon cameron, Benjamin Franklin wade and zachariah chandler. It tells a story of a decision about dueling that they made in 1858. As the document explains, there was a long history of southerners insulting northerners. At a certain period of time when the insults became particularly offensive, these three men had a conversation and made a group decision. They describe it as they could not stand the heat deletion of being assaulted in the longer. They couldnt bear the fact that southern billy bullying was intimidating northerners into silence. As they put it into the document, it was an enand herbal outrage that made them frantic with shame. Un enendurable outrage that made them frantic with shame. His statements, willing to fight the most of the coffin. So we should not be doing this, but we will. In the statements, they said, we knew that this would ostracize us at home, we knew this was risking our lives in some ways, but for the sake of all they represented, they decided they needed to fight. What is striking about that statement is that it exists. It shows the northerners attesting to what the ruling meant and the situation they were in and the decision they made. As a historian, the part that struck me was why they made the statement. It is signed by all three men. It explains at the end of the document, they had put this down on paper to explain to posterity what it once took to be in favor of liberty decimating their words to be in favor of liberty and to express such sentiments in the highest places of official life in the United States. They basically say in their words, we wanted those who come after us and study us to understand what it meant to oppose slavery in congress. When i found that statement, essentially, they were talking to me and anyone else who was studying them. They basically were saying, look at what this felt like. Look how difficult this was. You wont see it unless we point to appear. Have a document, joanne freeman. It is really handy and you can read a book. Amazingly, a powerful document. For these three duelists in the 1850s, dueling still had power. And although they did not end up fighting duels, their willingness to do all served as proof of their character much in the same way it had served for burr and hamilton. The simple fact they were willing to duel tamed some of their southern colleagues down. They were slightly less willing to bully northerners after the three men made their declarations. But even that was not really enough to make a difference in the years between 1855 and 1860 were the most violent years in the history of congress, and of course, we all know what came next. I want to close by answering an obvious question, which i am asked all the time, which is, when does this change and how . What happens after the civil war . This certainly does not go on. Part of the answer as to when does it change and how, has to do with the fact that after the civil war, the dynamics of congress shifted. Now, northerners had power. For example, when one southerner during a debate about Southern States the readmitted to the union, attempted to be violent during debates, in northerners stood up and basically said, you see that . You all remember that . From 1857, 1850 8, 18 59 . You want to let that back in here . That is a powerful statement to make. It really shows you northerners flaunting a kind of power that they did not have before. In this sense, the northern victory in the civil war changed the meaning of dueling in congress. With the north in control, refusing to duel became a way to display a politicians character. Before i close and open things up to questions in a moment, i want to throw something out there in case folks are interested. This is a biographical series of lectures. I spoke in a general way about duelists, one thing i didnt talk about because he was not a dualist, is the main character at the heart of my book, who basically enabled me to write this story because of how he changed from that period at the beginning of the book to that parent at the end. His name is Benjamin Brown french. I thank him all the time because i really could not have told his story without him. I would be happy to talk about that as well. I dont know if it is a great life, but it is a significant life. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you joanne, this is a little out of the ordinary that we do these things, usually we save it to the very end. But i want you to see, that this will be our topic on tuesday. This coming tuesday, and because it was rescheduled, the original scheduled exchange it was cosby february 13th, battery schedule, so bear in mind, that we will have a lecture next tuesday night, on john quincy adams, and the title of the book is the problem with democracy. I hope you will be here for that. All right, now are you ready for questions right. Questions. If you will raise your hand, and stand if you will when you have a question. Well take as many as we can. How many duels actually stopped when the duellists were on the field with their guns, how many quit or decided to negotiate there, and second question is when you are a dual list, and you required to shoot somebody, or shoot into them kill them, or just shoot around them. The first question is how many went to the dueling ground and then negotiated their way out, occasionally that happened, sometimes the way the dual would work is you would Exchange Fire once and then they would talk to each other and say is your honor satisfied this person was offended that you feel satisfied now. If the answer was yes they would shake hands and go away occasionally they managed to talk about something on the field that they hadnt done before that is not that common, but the second half of your question is particularly interesting one its like what were they trying to do when they were shooting, so if the point of dual as i suggested earlier is to prove that you are willing to die for your honor, if your opponent shoots the gun in the air, he is depriving you of that. There is a reason why there is a lot of shin wounds, theyre not kind of trying to kill each other but the shooting in that direction in your direction. So i have to say the sharp shooter, i have to say year the dueling is not exactly the most accurate weapon. So what they would do is aim in the direction of the other person. There are a lot of leg or wounds. There are some cases where people were killed, so burr had shot, and his instinct is to run hamilton, and he had them, sometimes they said we dont need doctors lets just get this over with. So long the lines of what i suggested, i dont think he thought that there is going to be bloodshed but there was. In your research i wonder if you came across a provision in the kentucky state constitution which was still in effect in the 19 seventies when i went into the legislator that you had to swear that you never fought a dual. Thats interesting and kentucky state constitution, they said if you are going into the legislator legislature i guess you had to say that you never fought a dual, state officials okay, so thats interesting because in the period, that i am speaking about from burr and hamilton all the way through, doing was illegal. The people doing the dueling, with a lawmakers right, they were elite and they felt, they could violate those laws. There are people who were arrested for dueling, but they werent members of congress or leaked folk. Whats interesting about these questions is that swearing not but you didnt dual, one of the way the anti dueling folk, try to push their agenda, is that sort of thing. By basically saying two constituents, do not vote for duelists, or to legislatures, or to put something in there which makes people swear theyre not going to duel. That was a slow way to stop the problem, but the very much recognized along the lines of what i was talking about, were talking about men representing constituents and doing what they feel they need to do to represent them, as those people step forward and say you do this and you are out, that is going to have influence. So state by state, there were different people doing a version of that precise thing, and there were different versions of doing that were illegal statebystate, and there is no National Anti dueling law. Question here. Really enjoyed your talk tonight, i guess after watching the debates last night, i wouldve figured the time went by the desert of nevada would be very full this morning. When you mainly talked about politicians, and the ruling class for lack of a better word, with a locker with the local butcher and blacksmith solve a problem this way in the south. And did wise ever get involved . The ladies a ripple at the pistols . I will answer the second question first so did women ever get involved not with pistols, but some of them would learn in advance that there was a dual, and would try and intervene. As a matter of fact one of hamiltons mere duels, i dont know if its his wife but somebody finds out, and hamilton says, i have to im working this out right. And his opponent says something along the lines of, i should think you would have control of your wife. So that we can go ahead and do this. So women sometimes did intervene, they certainly had power, personal power and cultural power, but i cannot say that i know a lot of tools that were cast aside that way. But this relates to your other question, which is what about nonelite folk. So there were average people who were doing. They tended to be arrested, right i remember finding a letter, from the late 17 90s, and it said Something Like the jails are full of duellists. Those are not the guys i write about. Yes there were a lot of people dueling, but what is fascinating to me is that also everybody understood, the rules and implications of doing an honor. And the strongest example of that to me, is something that took place in the early 19th century in boston. In which one man insulted another man, in the newspaper. And they ended up, one man killing the other men on the street. Their ends up being a trial, and everyone who is on the street, testifies. They testified to what they saw and what they were thinking. There were barrel makers, barber every level of society. And in one way or another what theyll say is, well i saw that newspaper thing. Where one was going to attack the other. So i came personally to the street on purpose because i knew that somebody something was going to happen here. Because it has to happen i sought in the newspaper. What the trial makes clear is that everybody understood that culture and how it worked, and how it should happened. That was fascinating to me. That is the thing that is difficult difficult to find but the testimony in this trial really proved it. As he said thank you, with a reference to the issue were ben wait and is two buddies make a big statement, they must have scared the big jesus out of the southerners because, a couple years later and lincoln was elected, in six weeks the southerners say thats it, did they really make a statement that affected the whole Republican Party. Thats an interesting question, you write that those three men, they came to congress with a gun and put it on the desk. Here you go, im not like those northerners in the past. It did not, or it shifted the dynamics, it did not necessarily take away power from the southerners. I would not say that suddenly changed the southerners and how they were behaving, particularly given that the issue of slavery was we reaching a peak at this moment. But it complicate things, its a great example in 1858 there is a northern fighting man in congress, and he is standing amidst the southerners and he objects to something and the fellow from South Carolina heels out go object in your own part of the house do not object to us. And the northerner, who did the objecting, says Something Like one, im not going to listen to any slave driver with a wig telling me what to do. Im going to do what i want to do. Well this is how the fellow from South Carolina he was not happy, he drives over there and gets ready to slug the guy, and the guy hit some firsts and flattens him. Now what happens in this moment, shows you that things have changed but they havent. Southerners who see one of their own flattened, they get to stream across the house, but dozens at a time. Republican northerners, who see southerners running to the point of come back, begin jumping over desks and chairs to get the spot to help their fellow, in the end there is a huge brawl, of 30 guys, punching each other, throwing spoons, like a real role, that ends when one congressman grabs someones hair to throw a punch, and the hair comes off because its a toupee. What i love about that, its slapstick but its eternal. Goes all way back then. Whats interesting about that is, on one hand that is a real striking moment, in which north and south are battling in the space in front of the speakers chair. And there is a reporter, that says that looks like a battle. On the one hand the dynamics are really different, but the southerners arent scared. They are just unsettled. And trying to figure out what to do. To maintain a grip of what they had before. So what is interesting along the lines of what you are suggesting is, think about what this long tradition of north nurse who will not fight, think of what that did to southerners and what they thought they were up against when the worst sordid. Theres a lot of statements by southerners, giving speeches in the south and say things like you seen these guys in congress this is nothing. We can do this we can do this quickly, these guys dont know how to fight. By the end, the working things were different. Okay question here john, high out of curiosity, did the dueling culture have any impact on the whole stereotypical wild west dueling. Interesting question, the relations between dueling and the wild west. Well certainly theres a similarity of idea, and message is really striking right you think of a southern shoot out two guys facing each other and you know a signal and they both grab a gun and shoot so it feels very similar to a dual but what is striking at some point earlier my project i was looking to see how dueling and deaths and duels progress across the country. And then what happens to the nations west. What i found was just before statehood there would be more gunfights more duels thered be more violence. So it is coming from the same ideas, the reason why is because people knew that stated was coming, and people were going to claim power, and so there was this shuffle of a moment, where people were like oh yeah im better than you, know im the new, and sooner or later theres going to be a government and i think the idea of it, and the culture of is similar, but i do not necessarily think that people drew that immediate connection and said this is a western dual. It was just very similar in the logic of it. That you are proving your honor and your skill, but in shoot outs, i think more people are dying then in dueling. Which is more about the display. You said that, doing was illegal. What exactly was illegal, the fact that a group of men were basically assembling on a certain spot, the fact that one man had a gun, the fact that two men had guns, which they were entitled to bear arms, you said that they were not trying to kill each other, and if there was no killing, what was illegal . Good question, so it deferred indifferent states. Sometimes it was sending a receiving a challenge that was legal, sometimes i think if there was a second example that was just in my mind a second ago, sometimes it had to do with meaning meaning for the purpose of going two dueling ground, there were different tweaks that were assigned that if you did those things then you are reliable for a lot for dueling, but a document that i found at the new york historic society, about the hamilton burr dual so he ended up being tried for the dual, but what they were trying to prove is that a challenge had been sent and both of those things would be legally problematic. But you get all these people to testify, the doctor who was on the ground testifies, and the doctor makes a very clear to anyone who knows hamilton is this is the document that led to the lyric so the doctor testifies and he says what did you see, and he said i had my back to the dueling grounded in see anything. I was looking out at the water, i heard two shots but i have no idea what happened. They carried the guns in a sack, so during the trial, when people are asked, did you see weapons, the answer is no i didnt see any weapons, so in a way they are cooperating with each other to enable themselves to be engaged in this and to get around the fact that specific things in specific states are illegal, this is all the kinds of things that make this fascinating. And i will explain the document so the document actually leads to the leader in the hamilton song, its kind of striking, it is in my book its my first book, i talk about the rules of dueling, and when i went to see the play, i heard that line, theres a line in the song but the rules of dueling that says the doctor turns his back so you can have deniability, and i was at the show with a historian friend and i said, that is my document. Thats my document. And i later discovered, that yeah actually, they had read my book, and it had inspired parts of that song. So whats fascinating about that is those are things that are arent common and the way that these guys were trying to get around the law, so they could engage in this behavior that was important to them but illegal in all of the small ways. Question back here. Thank you, to go back to the question of how women interacted with dueling culture, im going back to a biography where they talk about elijah hamilton how she was ousted, was there a way for a woman to respond to an attack on her honor . Really interesting question, was there a way for women to respond to attacks on their honor. Not in the sense that they can get pistols and go to a dueling ground, they were not part of that culture, really interesting example of that has, to do with john adams and warren who is a historian, who has a public presence in the late 18 century. She does some things that make john adams feel dishonor, but it is clear that he wants to make his honor feel better, and ms. Warren says she writes to a male friends and says what do i do. This is not my realm how do i deal with this. And the male friend has to come in and deal with it. So in one hand women are not part of that culture but, if they will if they hurl an insult, one way or another or witness to it, they have a huge impact. So if there was an insult in the street, that may be lots of people didnt see, maybe one matter, but if a woman was there, thats it. Then youve really been humiliated. So women had a big influence, and sometimes they did find out in advance, and do what they could do to ideally make this not happen. But there wasnt an exact female equivalent of dueling. I want ten in article, in the late 18 century magazine of sorts, and it was basically arguing, men have this handy thing called a dual, to settle their disputes they say such a cans theyre done, but women do not have anything like that. We dont get to shake hands and be done with any of our fights. But it was an interesting article when it was kind of along these lines the lines of your question. Thank you during your research did you come into contact with the career of andrew jackson, if memory serves was a prolific due list of caustic character. Indeed. I was focused on congress in that sense but i wasnt really focused on jackson, but the fact that he was a prolific duellist, and he advertised that about himself on some ways, but that was held against him but you could buy northerners, and hes bad because he was, duellist by other people it made and kind of a leader, but he represents an interesting kind of moment when, ideas about leadership in america are kind of shifting. So hes doing is still kind of a pro and con what i say for him its more of a pro because impresses people. He called it kind of makes him a leader in a more graphic way than maybe others, hes the main character who is at the center of my book, his name is Benjamin Brown french, he knows jackson in his diary, he spends a lot of time saying, well hes fought a lot of duels hes quite a guy, hes really impressive. Jackson as a duellist is really scary, some of his jewels were not explicitly political, sometimes it had to do with one lawyer attacking another, i went to the smithsonian room where they have weapons, a very sorts, and i want to see what all these weapons lies writing about look like. They had a table full of dueling pistols sets, animal sets are beautiful, and carved with kind of ivory things in most them are for show and people dont use them really, and if the use and they use them once. Andrew jacksons dueling pistols were like death weapons. There was nothing for show they were just they stood out from what i saw on the table, as being something that really was there for use rather than opposed to just a display item. He was a different kind of politician, and his rise really changed the nature of politics in a lot of ways. Here is a question, thanks for absolutely enlightening us with the presentation cool to have the contest of your presentation, track kind of goes to whats next, it has been said that the strategist figures out how to win the war and he figures out the piece after the war so lincoln was assassinated johnson takes over, its a threat for the northerners, after johnson came to the u. S. At checking to grant at one point in time, did he say were not gonna take that anymore, but now you have a warrior, for the executive Branch Branch through force of personality, was he able to dig into that more than the presence of the republican congress. But not only having a grand strategist there but a warrior as well. Interesting question, i didnt go far enough to really focus on grant as president , but above and beyond what im talking about doing culture, all the way back to our first president , there is a really strong tradition of military men as president s, and that kind of military Service Really matters. So jefferson, when he runs for president that is held against him. He was never a military man, he was governor of virginia, he fred he fled from the british hes bad hes a coward. All this comes up in these contests, and its always an issue because it supposedly says something about character, and about being able to defend the nation, and that in a way, thats a long thread in american leadership. Particularly in what people are looking for in president s. So jackson was part of that scene, and same tradition but not john quincy adams. I saw a campaign, when they were going against each other for president , and is it Something Like vote for the man who can fight, not for the man who can write. So that shows you jacksons persona. So it matters. So it matters as a short answer to your question. Thank you so much for your presentation, you did mention that there were differences between the american nature of dueling, and european, but you can get into too much of the differences. But when i was a young man, long ago, i was in europe and i sort of had a brush with a fraternity, that was part of their tradition, had to do with doing. And this car in the face, and operation of the second man to protect them. Could you or did you get into that excuse me and could you just give us a little feedback on that. Sure, i did not write about it but in the process of looking at america, i was looking at doing an culture in other places, to be able to compare, you are absolutely right, when i talk about in my top is different than the u. S. Forces here is americans democratic duels and that was one big difference but also in not every nation but in some european nations dueling went on to serve as a social culture long after a period in the United States this was you can have something that shows you are certain kind of men, but in a way it gets back to what i was saying before, the dueling isnt about killing, that kind of dueling is also more about making a statement showing who you are. In 1908, i believe there was an international and he dueling conference in berlin, 1908 this culture goes on, but it goes on in a different form. I think in europe then it doesnt United States. That states they were never using swords or fencing, the duels guns were very democratic. They just focused on guns. In the eyes states. So the whole culture of it is a bit different in europe what. Was her any attempt by congress to impeach bernie killed hamilton. Impeachment i dont expect that to come up. So that is interesting so burr kills hamilton, hes gone for a while, and he comes back to the senate again, and some federalists, how will tony and federalists, want to do something that he is there. They are horrified that the pack that hes being presided over by the sky, who just killed one of their supreme leaders, they want to do something, so they begin to talk about, not in congress, but they begin to talking new jersey, new york about pushing, in one where another to really grab at, the laws sort of individual loss of what is an is not illegal, to take that out on burr. To get him in legal trouble for what he did. What is interesting in congress, is i cannot remember how many, i want to say like 15 or 20 republican, congressman sign a statement in response to that it basically says, we never punish people for doing why you taking this out under it is not fair really striking, so again i know ive said before the logic of this is so fascinating and so powerful and sort of counter intuitive and lawmakers member of congress, and theyre saying we know its illegal we dont punish people for this where you punishing burr, its a striking example of the kind of culture im talking about. I was wondering, if you are in your research you came across the other remember if it came like an actual do, but i think there is a challenge between abraham lincoln, and one of his contempt for two or contemporaries in illinois shields i think,. It is not something i have written about but there was something of an honor dispute between lincoln and shields, its often written about on one hand its kind of a joke it wasnt serious, people talk about the fact that lincoln got to pick the weapon, and show so he chose swords that are long because his arms are longer. So that is one way of talking about it, but there is a book, that there is a fellow writing it, when i had a fellowship, i think its called honors call, but we talked about this incident, we act actually ended up feeling there was some seriousness to it, it wasnt just a joke, they do not end up doing, but when you look at it, they were taking it seriously and thinking about what they were doing. And as was suggested you dont have to go to a dueling ground to make a point. You have to show yourself to be that kind of person to be willing to do something, during the negotiations. And if you have a good second, they can kind of stop things that way before they get to the dueling ground. That was a good example, i never heard of that. All right i think we are out of time, thanks to you, lets give our thanks to john. Thank you. Thank you joanne