You think political discourse is rancorous today? Ad hominems [more precisely, ad homines] are not exclusive to modern politicians’ spokespersons and the comments sections of today’s blogs; and while we frequently see today a degrading conversation turn to cries of “racist!” or “Nazi!” or “Socialist!” [but do I repeat myself?], at least we don’t see open challenges to shoot each other in broad daylight.
Perhaps “The Duel” was the original manifestation of Godwin’s Law. Whoever made the challenge first automatically lost the argument since they had no other verbal recourse. But given the fact that dueling was legal and an accepted form of settlement, we may reasonably assume the Right to Bear Arms — as it pertained to personal firearms — was never intended, as some people assert, simply to ensure a well-armed militia, but reasonably well-armed individuals.
That aside, the following exchange is interesting to me. It doesn’t deal directly with Virginia History, except the entire conversation was recorded in The Norfolk and Portsmouth Chronicle on March 19, 1791. It is correspondence between two of our North Carolinian brethren: Col. Michael Payne, a Revolutionary War hero; and Alexander Millen, a bricklayer and amateur architect.
During the 1791 reelection campaign of Hugh Williamson (a NC delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and a vehement defender of a strong federal system), dissension among the ranks presented, and tempers began to flare. Williamson won by 896 votes over the Democratic-Republican and anti-Washington-administration challenger, Charles Johnson.
It all started the morning after the election. Apparently, Mr. Millen had taken offense to something Col. Payne had said in the course of public debate over whom to elect to the House of Representatives, and responded in letter to his fellow Edentonian:
Saturday Morning, 29th, Jan 1791
Sir,
Your ungentleman [sic] like treatment to me last evening induces me to call upon you for an acknowledgement, in as public a manner as the insult was given, as only such conduct will prevent more disagreeable proceeding; I shall expect your answer by to-morrow 10 o’clock.
I am, Sir, your’s, &c.
[signed] ALEXr. Millen
Col. Payne responded the following morning, brushing the demand for public apology aside.
Sunday Morning, 30th, Jan. 1791
Sir,
I was not more surprised at your presuming to interfere in a dispute in which you were no ways concerned, than by the reception of your extraordinary note; the behavior of others to me is the rule of mine to them, and your’s appears so much out of the common course that I cannot think you serious, and find it difficult to give you a serious answer, you may therefore save yourself and me the trouble of attempting any further correspondence on this subject, as I am determined this shall close it.
I am, Sir, your’s, &c.
MICH: PAYNE
Boom. Such a dismissal provoked Mr. Millen to further wrath, and he responded hastily with an ultimatum:
Sunday Evening, 30th, Jan 1791
Sir,
As I perceive by your note of this morning that you have resolved not to make the public concessions which I required of you, for your insult to me on Friday evening, I am therefore necessitated in order to obtain the satisfaction I am entitled to — to challenge you to meet to-morrow afternoon at four o’clock, with a brace of pistols or such weapons as you incline to use — our seconds may fix on the place.
I am, Sir, your’s, &c.
[Signed] ALEXr. MILLEN
Col. Payne, surely able to handle a simple duel, nonetheless refused to feed the trolls; and sure to his word, Mr. Millen published in the State Gazette of North Carolina on Feb. 4th, 1791, the following proclamation:
EDENTON, Feb. 1, 1791
COL. Michael Payne, of the county of Chowan, having insulted me in a very rude and ungentlemanly manner in this town on Friday the 28th ult. [of last month] Being the day of election for a Representative to Congress for the district of Albemarle, and having refused to give me satisfaction consistent with the character of a gentleman and an officer; I do therefore take this public opportunity of announcing the said Col. Michael Payne “To be a Coward.”
ALEXr. MILLEN.
Ooo-ho-ho-hooo!!! He straight up attacked the “character of a gentleman and an officer!” And by Millen’s word, this hero of the Revolution was now a coward.
Apparently, Mr. Millen was not done. He sent to The Norfolk and Portsmouth Chronicle another letter besmirching the character of Col. Payne. I could not locate the Feb. 19th, 1791 edition of the paper to see exactly what Mr. Millen had written, but it was enough for the Colonel to respond.
Messrs. Prentis & Baxter EDENTON, March 4, 1791 [published March 19, 1791]
Gentlemen,
Having observed in your paper of the 19th ultimo, a most scurrilous libel, signed Alexander Millen, I now take the liberty to tell you, that I should suppose, before you inserted such a piece, you ought at least to have made yourself acquainted with the character of the Author, and the merits of the cause, as this has not been the case, I expect you will at any rate, be candid enough to lay before the Public, a true statement of that transaction; for this purpose I enclose you all the correspondence that has ever passed between Mr. Millen and myself on the subject, which I wish you to insert, and I leave it to an impartial public to judge, whether the character of a Gentleman and an Officer, to condescend so far as to meet in the field, the so of a Refugee Tailor whose highest degree of eminence in this life, is only that of a Clerk to Mr. Josiah Collins. For my own part, I must declare, that I should as soon have thought of obeying the summons of the Hod-carrier of Journeyman Bricklayer.
I am, Gentlemen, Your most obedient [servant],: MICH: PAYNE
You see, it wasn’t that dueling was beneath the good Colonel. It was that he had received the request from <gasp> a lowly “Refugee Tailor,” a lowly Clerk, and a lowly bricklayer that made the duel beneath him. This ad hominem was meant to strike at the merit and character of his opponent.
Leaving aside the intellectual history of the 19th century, which actually carried with it the remnants of a casted and aristocratic society that focused on a hierarchy of employment, it’s pretty clear that the political discourse of our founding is not that much different than today’s. But while their insults were MUCH more creative back then, we very rarely openly challenge another to a duel — perhaps only because it is now illegal.
But before you chastise Col. Payne’s denigration of Mr. Millen’s character on the basis of his known physical occupation rather than his argument, consider how often we inveigh others simply on the basis of their known political orientation. (Similarly, how often do we confirm an argument, simply because it came from a party similar to our own?)
