USA > Missouri > Missouri the center state, 1821-1915 > Part 14
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53
Rector-Barton.
Nepotism led to one fatal duel. In the summer of 1823, there appeared in the Republican a letter signed "Philo." It criticized severely the official acts of Wil- liam C. Rector, surveyor general of the land district which included Missouri. One of the chief charges was that Rector had given out lucrative surveying contracts to his relatives and personal friends. In those days such action on the part of an officeholder was considered highly dishonorable. The charge of nepotism was made against Rector when he was a candidate for reappointment, and also when his nomination came up for confirmation. Senator Barton was opposing Rector. The surveyor general was in Washington looking after his political interests when the "Philo" letter was printed. The Republican commented editorially :
"We have inserted the communication signed 'Philo' on the principle that men in office are bound to answer to the people for the manner in which they discharge their public duties ; and that if charges are made against them from a respectable and responsible source, and are couched in decorous terms, the press would defeat the object of its institution if it refused to permit them to come before the public. By this course the innocent cannot be injured. If the charges are untrne, he who utters them is disgraced; if they are true, the people are interested in knowing it, while the party implicated has nothing to complain of in the development."
There were nine brothers and four sisters in the Rector family. They came west from Virginia and settled first in Kaskaskia, early establishing a wide reputation for physical courage. Several of the brothers served in the war of 1812 and re- ceived commissions. The family moved to Missouri. It was the practice of the Rectors to make the affair of one the business of all.
Thomas C. Rector, brother of the surveyor general, came to the Republican office and demanded the name of "Philo." He was informed that the letter had been received from United States Attorney Joshua Barton, brother of the Senator. He immediately challenged. The result was announced by the Republican :
"On Monday, 30th ult., a meeting took place between Joshua Barton, Esq., District Attorney of the United States, and Thomas C. Rector, in consequence of a communication signed 'Philo,' which appeared in last week's paper. The parties met at 6 P. M., on the island opposite this place. They both fired at the word, when Mr. Barton fell mortally wounded. Mr. Rector escaped unhurt. Mr. Barton expired on the ground. In him Missouri has lost one of her ablest and worthiest citizens."
Surveyor General Rector returned to St. Louis the day after the duel. He published a card asking a suspension of public opinion, saying he would answer the charges against him. At the same time he notified the editors of the Republican
LUKE E. LAWLESS One of the early judges
J. B. C. LUCAS President Jefferson's commissioner to Louisiana Territory
87
DUELING IN MISSOURI
that he would hold them personally responsible for any further publications re- flecting upon him. The response to this came in the form of a letter signed by Edward Bates which appeared in the Republican of the 16th of July: "I lose no time in giving my public pledge to substantiate every material statement in the piece signed 'Philo.' I very unwillingly obtrude my name upon the public as a newspaper writer, but the long intimacy and more than brotherly connection be- tween Mr. Barton and me have identified us in the public mind, and caused the people to look to me as the inheritor of his principles and feelings for a vindica- tion of his name and character. In this just expectation they shall not be disap- pointed."
Senator Barton also published a card. He said: "I now assert before the public that every material allegation in the article signed 'Philo' is true, and that I can prove it in any mode of investigation calculated to admit the truth in evidence and the production of testimony."
He gave a list of twelve relatives and personal connections of the surveyor gen- eral who had been appointed deputy surveyors. He stated that in 1822 of 254 townships surveyed the contracts for 195 had been given to connections of the Rector family. He concluded : "If General Rector should take offense at what I have written, the courts are open to him, and if I have wronged him the laws will afford him a vindictive remedy. If he will venture to take this course, I will justify these statements and prove the facts upon him before a jury."
The Code Condemned.
Public sentiment in St. Louis grew strong against dueling. In 1823 the Missouri Republican voiced this sentiment when it said : "Two more persons have been killed in duels near St. Louis. Their names are Messrs. Waddle and Crow. It must be a vicious state of society in which the pistol is the umpire in every controversy."
Rev. Timothy Flint, who came out to Missouri in 1816 and held a pastorate, wrote back to his brother, Rev. James Flint of Salem, Massachusetts, that the prac- tice of dueling was confined to a small class. "In the towns of the upper country on the Mississippi, and especially in St. Louis, there is one species of barbarism that is but too common. I mean the horrid practice of dueling. Be it remembered this is the barbarism only of that small class that denominate themselves 'the gen- tlemen.' It cannot be matter of astonishment that these are common here when we recollect that the fierce and adventurous spirits are naturally attracted to these regions, and that it is a common proverb of the people that when we cross the Mississippi, 'We travel beyond the Sabbath.' It would lead me to such personali- ties as I mean to avoid were I to give you details, and my views of the fatal duels, of which there were so many while I was here. I can only say that I lost in this dreadful way two individuals with whom I had personal intercourse and from whom I had received many kindnesses. All that fell were men in office, of standing and character. I am not here going to start a dissertation upon the trite subject of dueling, the most horrible and savage relic of a barbarous age."
Illinois put a stop to dueling between citizens of that State at an early day, but did not seriously interfere with Missourians. In 1819, Alonzo G. Stuart and Wil- liam Bennett fought at Belleville. The seconds conspired to prevent bloodshed and loaded the rifles without bullets. As his weapon was handed to Bennett he slipped
88
MISSOURI, THE CENTER STATE
in a bullet. Stuart was mortally wounded. Bennett was tried for murder and convicted. Appeals to Governor Bond for clemency were without avail. Bennett was hung. Some Illinois historians have claimed that that was the last duel fought within the State by its citizens and that the execution of Bennett made the prac- tice unpopular. But Illinois did not consider that its jurisdiction extended to Bloody Island.
Thomas H. Benton was concerned in the affair at Belleville. He defended the two seconds. Public sentiment was so strongly aroused that indictments were re- turned against the seconds, who were Jacob Short and Nathan Fike. The duel took place in February, at a time when there was a large gathering in Belleville. from the surrounding country. It was arranged apparently to test Bennett. The testimony went to show an understanding on the part of all but Bennett that the duel was a sham. The place selected was a lot just north of the main street of the town. The weapons were rifles and the loading was by the seconds. The prin- cipals were stationed forty yards apart. Stuart did not fire. After he fell his rifle was picked up by one of the seconds and discharged.
Stuart was a man of some prominence in St. Clair County. Benton secured the acquittal of Short and Fike. The trial brought out testimony to the effect that Ben- nett had put a bullet in his gun after receiving it from the second. Bennett had been arrested and was in jail.
When the sheriff went to bring him to court for trial he could not be found. In some manner he had escaped from the jail and reached the Missouri side of the river. Two years later he was caught, tried, convicted and executed. Judge John R. Reynolds, before whom the three men were tried, in an account of the affair, wrote that it "was considered the result of a wild, drunken frolic, and it never did assume the character of a regular and honorable duel."
The Rev. Timothy Flint in one of his letters to a brother in Massachusetts gave a different version of the Belleville duel. His account was written not long after the tragedy : "A young gentleman, a respectable attorney, had just commenced business. He had been bullied by a man who was indeed an officer in rank, but a dubious character. The young gentleman had been cautioned against being drawn into the contest, and had been assured, that, according to the orthodox canons of honor, the character of the man did not justify fighting him. But an idea was entertained that he had not sufficient nerve to stand a challenge. It was agreed by his friends that the next time the man insulted him, he should send him a chal- lenge and that the seconds should load both rifles-for they were to fight with rifles-with blank cartridges. The opposite party was not to be in the secret and the joke was to watch his eye and see if it did not blench. The challenge was sent and the seconds on both sides made a solemn contract with each other that both guns should be loaded with blank cartridges. The young attorney went out to watch the eye of his antagonist and to enjoy the joke. The parties met, dis- charged and the attorney fell with two rifle bullets through his heart. The wretch who was second for his antagonist had violated his stipulation and had loaded the rifle with two bullets. An amiable young woman was left a widow with one orphan babe."
89
DUELING IN MISSOURI
Legislation Against the Practice.
The Missouri legislature of 1822 considered a bill making death from a duel murder and prohibiting from office holding all who engaged in it. The preamble to this law declared : "Experience has evidenced that the existing remedy for the sup- pression of the barbarous custom is inadequate to the purpose and the progress and consequences of the evil have become so destructive as to require an effort of the general assembly to arrest a vice, the result of ignorance and barbarism, justified neither by the precepts of morality nor by the dictates of reason." Three fatal duels within a year prompted this strong expression by the law-making body of the new State of Missouri.
Missouri endeavored in various ways to put a stop to dueling. Sentiment had grown strong upon the evil. But as often in reforms, sentiment overreached it- self. The opposition to the code found conditions so favorable to remedial legis- lation that the legislature of 1824-5 passed a very drastic bill. Imprisonment was not deemed sufficient penalty. The bill provided that those who engaged in dueling should be whipped. Governor Frederick Bates declined to approve the measure. He said to the legislature : "I am happy on this occasion to record my utter detesta- tion and abhorrence of dueling. My duty to my neighbors and to myself would compel me, as well in my private as in my public capacity, to discountenance and put down, if possible, so barbarous and so impious a practice." But he could not see the way clear to sign a bill which made the lash the punishment for fighting a duel. The state senate mustered the necessary two-thirds vote to pass the bill over the governor, but the house failed to do so.
Leonard-Berry.
In 1819 a slender Vermont youth walked from St. Charles to Old Franklin, near Boonville. He carried all he possessed in a bundle at the end of a stick. One of these possessions was a license to practice law. While the young New Eng- ander was gaining a professional foothold in Missouri he had a difficulty with Major Taylor Berry, who struck him with a whip. The impression in the com- munity was that the Yankee would not fight a duel. Abiel Leonard wrote at once to Berry: "Sir, I demand a personal interview with you. My friend, Mr. Boggs, will make the necessary arrangements."
The challenge was sent on the 26th of June, 1824. Berry accepted. He named Major A. L. Langham as his friend. In accepting, he wrote : "My business, which embraces many duties to others, will require my personal attention until after the Ist of September next, after which time any further delay will be asked from you only."
The principals and their seconds traveled down the Missouri to St. Louis and thence to New Madrid. The time set for the duel was the first of September. Berry was mortally wounded. Under the law of Missouri Leonard was dis- franchised and disbarred. Long petitions for the removal of his disabilities were signed and sent to the legislature. At the next session Leonard was restored to all of his rights. Ten years later he was elected to the legislature. Subsequently he became a justice of the supreme court of Missouri.
Possibly Benton did not enjoy duelling. Certainly he took intense interest in these "affairs of honor." Into his "Thirty Years' View of the History of the Workings of the American Government" he wrote a defense, or, perhaps,
90
MISSOURI, THE CENTER STATE
better, an apology for the code. Following the death of Congressman Cilley at the hand of Graves of Kentucky, Congress made the penalty for dueling in the District of Columbia death to all of the survivors when one of the principals was killed and five years in the penitentiary for sending or accepting a chal- lenge. This legislation was the text of Benton's comment :
"Certainly it is deplorable to see a young man, the hope of his father and mother-a ripe man, the head of a family-an eminent man necessary to his country-struck down in a duel, and should be prevented if possible. Still this deplorable practice is not so bad as the bowie knife and the revolver, and their pretext of self-defense-thirsting for blood. In the duel there is at least consent on both sides, with a preliminary opportunity for settlement, with a chance for the law to arrest them, and room for the interposition of friends as the affair goes on. There is usually equality of terms; and it would not be called an affair of honor if honor was not to prevail all round; and if the satisfying a point of honor, and not vengeance, was not the end attained. Finally, in the regular duel, the principals are in the hands of the seconds (for no man can be made a second without his consent) ; and as both these are required by the dueling code (for the sake of fairness and humanity) to be free from ill will or grudge toward the adversary principal, they are expected to terminate the affair as soon as the point of honor is satisfied, and the less the injury so much the better."
Senator Linn on the Code.
Benton's colleague, Doctor Linn, was not without experience in the code. As a surgeon he was present when Biddle and Pettis inflicted fatal wounds upon each other. As Senator he took part in the debate upon the legislation suggested by the death of Cilley. What he said was especially interesting because he cited Missouri illustrations to sustain his arguments. Senator Linn urged that too dras- tic legislation would defeat the purpose. What community could be found, he asked, that would pronounce a man either a murderer or a felon, who might have chanced to kill another in fair and equal combat? No man, he was persuaded, who came to act on his responsibility as a juror, would be prepared to render such a verdict. Many of the States had passed severe penal enactments in relation to the matter, and yet where was the State where such laws had been carried into effect? Other legislatures had sought milder remedies, such as punishing dueling by dis- franchising their citizens, rendering them forever after incapable of holding offices of profit or trust, honor, or emolument. Such laws, he maintained, had a more wholesome action than those unjust and cruel enactments, because the one was generally carried into effect while the other was little better than a dead letter. To illustrate the effect of public opinion on the subject, Senator Linn instanced a case in his own State, where the people were as much averse to fighting as those of any other in the Union (though he was aware that a contrary opinion pre- vailed among many in relation to Missouri),-where a small man, for a supposed offense, was cruelly lashed by a large one, the result of which was a challenge on the part of the small one to fight, in which duel the large man was shot twice, the last wound mortal.
The survivor was found guilty under the laws of Missouri, when a petition was gotten up, signed almost unanimously by the people, and presented to the legislature, which body remitted the penalties almost by acclamation And so, Mr. Linn said, it would be in all like cases-either the legislature or the executive would step in to counteract the law. If such a bill could be intro- duced as would strike at the root of the evil, it would cheerfully have his support.
91
DUELING IN MISSOURI
He was aware that dueling was not defensible on principles of Christianity. All the legislatures of the Union have concurred in denouncing the practice of dueling as evil in itself, and yet have we not seen them come in to stay the law? From what little he had seen it appeared to him that fighting was like marrying-the more barriers that were erected against it, the surer were they to come together.
Farther along in the debate, Senator Linn held up Missouri experience for the enlightenment of the United States Senate. He said they had now a law in his State which was more effectual for the prevention of dueling than any other law that had ever been passed. In cases of assault, all abusive words and de- famatory language went to the jury in mitigation of the offense.
Mr. Benton-As a justification ?
Mr. Linn-Yes, sir, as a justification : and if that abusive member, the tongue, was permitted to have too free a license, the same license was permitted to the individual to redress his grievance. He thought if the same law applied to the Senate of the United States, there would be a little more decorum than he had witnessed. This law, of which he had spoken, had had a better effect in the pre- vention of dueling than any other that had ever been passed, and 'he thought it would be better for the peace and harmony of society if such a law was more generally prevalent throughout the United States. The reference in Senator Linn's remarks to a Missouri case was undoubtedly to the Leonard-Berry fatality.
Benton the Adviser of Pettis.
Manuscript collections of the Missouri Historical Society give Benton a much closer relationship to the Pettis-Biddle duel than is attributed in printed accounts of the tragedy. Thomas Biddle was an officer of high standing in the United States army. He was a brother of Commodore Biddle of the navy and of Nicholas Biddle, president of the United States Bank. He had distinguished himself by gallantry in the war of 1812, and especially at the battle of Lundy's Lane. Making St. Louis his home, Thomas Biddle married a daughter of John Mullanphy. His wealth and social position made him one of the most conspicuous personalities in St. Louis. Spencer Pettis was a member of Congress, the only Representative from Missouri. He had just been elected for a second term. He was of Virginia birth, a young man of fine family and very popular.
The congressional election was on the second of August. In his speeches dur- ing the campaign, Pettis attacked the United States Bank. He was a follower of Benton. But he not only assailed the bank on principle, he reflected on the management in such a manner as to arouse the indignation of Major Biddle. The latter replied in one of the St. Louis papers, calling Pettis "a dish of skimmed milk." Pettis published his answer. Early one morning Biddle went to the hotel where Pettis was stopping. He found the Congressman in bed, pulled off the cover and used a whip. There could be but one outcome for such an insult.
The condition of short-sightedness entered into the Pettis-Biddle duel. One account of the circumstances leading to the duel is that Pettis, anticipating a hostile meeting, went before Judge Peter Ferguson and made a sworn statement about the attack upon him in the hotel. He proceeded from Ferguson's office to the printer to have the statement put in type. Ferguson, made aware of what had taken place, issued a writ against Biddle to keep the peace. Biddle met Pettis and told him that if challenged he would accept. This was after the election, between
92
MISSOURI, THE CENTER STATE
three and four weeks. Pettis challenged at once. Biddle being the challenged principal, made the terms. He set the next day for the duel and made the distance five feet, because of short-sightedness. The meeting took place at three o'clock in the afternoon. Old inhabitants, eighty years after the occurrence, pointed out a spot on the Illinois side, almost exactly opposite the Pettis-Biddle meeting.
Benton's intimate relationship with the Pettis-Biddle duel is told in these per- sonal recollections of Edward Dobyns, preserved by the Missouri Historical Society :
"Upon the attack on one of the parties at the City Hotel in July, 1831, Mrs. Benton having heard a difficulty or noise about daybreak suggested to Mr. Benton the probable cause. He at once arose and went over and found her suspicions were true. Mr. Benton spent about five minutes in which a masterly stroke of policy was exhibited, rarely ever seen in connection with an event of such magnitude. All political historians will remember that the party attacked was a candidate for re-election to a seat in Congress from Missouri, and that the occurrence took place just before the day of election. In that five minutes' interview Mr. Benton said: 'Let there be no definite action taken until this election is over. And then, sir, I leave you to vindicate your honor in such a manner as you may deem most consistent with the principles that govern gentlemen.'
"This suggestion was yielded to with much reluctance on the part of the attacked, and all who are acquainted with the history of that day, remember the political result. It was my privilege to have enjoyed the personal acquaintance of all of the parties in the tragical affair, and I honored them all, enjoying their friendship. During the days just preceding the fatal meeting I often met Mr. Benton at his residence, having been requested by him to call every day as he did not often go out amongst the people.
"Upon one occasion when I called, Dr. Lewis F. Linn, the surgeon of one of the parties, was just coming out of the parlor. It was the day before the fatal duel. Mr. Benton said, with evident deep feeling and seriousness, 'There will be no child's play in the meet- ing.' I suppose Doctor Linn had informed him that the distance was only five feet apart. There was not much said. A deep seriousness seemed to pervade the mind of Mr. Benton.
"After the fatal meeting, August 27, 1831, the parties crossed back to the St. Louis side of the river. The immense collection of people that had assembled on the river bank went down to meet them. As the yawl approached the shore Mr. Pettis was leaning on the breast of his surgeon, Doctor Linn, who supported him in his arms. Captain Martin Thomas, his second, was holding a vial from which the wounded man was inhaling to keep up life. It was my privilege to have been the first to meet the party, as they neared the shore, and know of my own knowledge what occurred, and am, therefore prepared to correct the error of a distinguished writer who has said that when Mr. Pettis was brought back from the dueling ground, Judge Peck was among the first to meet him and offer sympathy; that Mr. Pettis said to him, 'Did I vindicate my honor?' 'Yes,' said the judge, 'you have vindicated your honor like a man-a man of bravery, sir.' This is an error. Judge Peck was not present at the landing of the party. When the skiff neared the shore, Mr. Pettis, in his reclining position. in the arms of his surgeon, looked up and caught the eye of Mr. Benton and said, 'Colonel Benton, have I acted the poltroon ?' To which Colonel Benton replied, 'No sir, you have shown yourself to be the bravest of the brave.' These were the words of Mr. Benton, not of Judge Peck.
"Judge Peck came to the room of the dying statesman the night after the fatal meeting and stayed by his bedside until his death, and exhibited great sympathy and showed pro- found interest for him. Just before his death Mr. Pettis gave a deep moan. The judge, seeing that death was rapidly approaching, said: 'Mr. Pettis, you have proved yourself to be a great man; now, die like a man.' Mr. Pettis said: 'Yes, sir,' and in a few moments passed away. Considering that Mr. Pettis was a political opponent of the party to which Judge Peck belonged, I have often thought and said that Judge Peck deserved great praise for his sympathy and interest shown to Mr. Pettis.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.