Dueling in the United States South

Dueling was a common practice in the U.S. South from the seventeenth to the end of the nineteenth century. Although the dueling largely disappeared in the early nineteenth century in the North, it remained a common practice in the South (as well as the West) until the end of the century, where the concept of honor carried larger importance in both an ideological and pecuniary sense. The markets and governance of the South were not as institutionalized during the nineteenth century compared to the North. Thus, duels presented a quick and clean way of settling disputes outside of the courts. Although many duels were fought to settle disputes over tangible items such as land, unpaid debts, money, or women, more were over intangible ones.

Background

The act of duelling was often condemned by public figures throughout U.S. history and seen as unnecessarily violent and instigated by trivial matters. For example, to pinch someone's nose was an insult grave enough to challenge to a duel for it symbolized the unmasking of a liar. Contrary to the perception that the act of duelling occurred at the “drop of a hat,” there were real economic forces that drove one to challenge another or accept a duel. However, the concept of “defending one’s honor” was not quite as abstract and idealistic as often imagined – losing “honor” often had pecuniary disadvantages that made defending one’s honor a somewhat rational decision, even at risk of being physically harmed or even killed. Dueling to protect one’s credit or honor was partly a response to the underdeveloped credit markets of this region and time period.

Personal credit in the South

In the U.S. South, a largely agricultural society (largely plantations) in which production circles were longer-term than those of their manufacturing-oriented northern counterparts, plantation owners were often highly leveraged and heavily dependent on personal credit to carry them through to the harvesting and sale of their goods. The assets of plantation owners were largely illiquid, their estates largely holding value in the form of real estate and slaves. Thus, preserving personal credit was highly important to the livelihoods of plantation owners.

Given that the credit markets were rather opaque until the early 20th century in the South – lenders could not readily view an applicant’s financial statements, being perceived as “honorable” was almost essential to being approved for loans. Given that transaction costs were very high during this period, perceived personal integrity or character was important to being seen as likely to honor one’s contracts and debts. Thus, the word “honor” was almost culturally synonymous with “creditworthiness.” The long-term economic penalties for having one’s reputation ruined included limited access to loanable funds and diminished political influence.

Lending institutions did not punish its debtors for participating in duels. A plantation owner could risk a devaluation of his or her assets from turning down a duel with the loss of his honor, which would hurt the lender as well. In the case that a debtor accepted a challenge in a duel and lost, the lender could expect an honorable man to honor his debts posthumously by paying back the owed amount with interest as the debtor’s estate was slowly liquidated.

Rise of modern financial institutions

Dueling in the U.S. virtually disappeared by the start of the twentieth century with the rise of modern banking institutions and commercialized lending in the South, which were characterized by greater transparency and lower transaction costs. The larger, commercialized financial institutions that slowly took market share in the South took a quicker, more impersonal approach to screening that placed less importance on personal character.

Culture of honor

The Southern culture of honor is often tied to the relative persistence of dueling in the South, a cultural phenomenon in which special caution is taken to not offend others and misconduct is not taken lightly (dealt with swift and firm retribution). A high premium is placed on toughness in this culture of honor, because one is expected to defend one's resources and deter predators. It has been shown by social psychologists that this region-specific cultural phenomenon still persists.

In a relatively recent study on Southern attitudes toward violence (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996)., it was shown that employers in the South were more likely to be sympathetic than employers in the North towards a fictional applicant who explained in a letter with his job application that he had been charged with manslaughter for responding to an insult, accepting a challenge to a fight, and accidentally killing his challenger.

References

• Bodenhorn, Howard. "A History of Banking in Antebellum America: Financial Markets and Economics Development in an Era of Nation Building."(2000). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Greenberg, Kenneth S. "The Nose, the Lie, and the Duel in the Antebellum South." The American Historical Review 95.1 (1990): 57-74. JSTOR. Web. 24 Feb. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2162954>.
• Howison, Robert R. "Duelling in Virginia." (1924). William and Mary College Quarterly 4:217-244.
• Kilbourne, Richard, Jr. "Debt, Investment, Slaves: Credit Relations in East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, 1825-1885." (1995). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
• Kingston, Christopher G., and Robert E. Wright. "The Deadliest of Games: The Institution of Dueling." (2009). Print.
• Nisbett, R.E., & Cohen, D. "Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South." (1996). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

frog