The past time of duels to settle arguments involving prideful matters might seem like a tradition only practiced in the Wild West, but history tells a different story of "Affairs of Honor" that occurred right here in Columbus along the Chattahoochee River. The practice of Code Duello, resolving conflicts with a duel, was made illegal in the United States in the early 1800s, but the legislature was disregarded for its most prolific period came after it became illegal; some historic duels taking place right across the river in Fort Mitchell, Alabama.

By Jack Schley

Pride and Politics: like birds of a feather. These two characteristics were likely discovered in the same cave by early humanity, and like humanity, their proper calibration can create an incredible force. This calibration distinguishes pride from honor and politics from principles, the former of these being the reckless use of the latter.

Political opinion has always been a subject of emotional investment. It evolves from individual life experience and philosophies making a political opinion innately personal. Varying personalities will either tolerate politics or lock it away because it is a reflection of one’s inner self. Throughout time, those of challenged political positions have been willing to defend their position out of a sense of pride or personal honor; however, seldom is the life of the opinion holder on the front line of that defense, at least, not anymore.

George W. Crawford (1798-1871) Governor of Georgia between 1843-1847. Portrait by Daniel Huntington.

The Code Duello was first canonized almost three hundred years ago. That first document, and its subsequent editions, memorialized the rules of conduct by which individuals had long resolved their differences by means of a duel. This once highly orchestrated, ritualistic and obeyed process of conflict resolution was often termed as an “Affair of Honor” because it was a wager of one’s life in favor of one’s principles.

Dr. Stephen M. Ingersoll, local physician who attended the Crawford- Burnside duel at Fort Mitchell in 1828. Portrait in the collection of the Columbus Museum.

Based on the historical record of duels that actually occurred, the process almost exclusively involved two men, typically of upper social or political status, using pistols or swords, and bloodshed. As empires met on the battlefield to resolve conflict, gentlemen resorted to the dueling ground. Once one man challenged another to a duel, the code was in play and had to be closely followed for the results to be respected. A challenge usually originated after an insult of the challenger’s personal honor by the challenged party. A majority of disputes were quickly resolved because a challenge was not made recklessly but as a last resort when all other methods of mediation failed. A challenge represented the personal conviction to defend one’s position even at the cost of one’s own life.

A duel was also a means of handling one’s personal matters in a private manner. A trial in open court would put personal conflicts on public display while a duel was considered, ironically, more respectable as a private event. For early Americans who were unwilling to allow the courts to interfere in their personal problems, a duel was the ultimate method of resolving matters of personal respect. This method of conflict resolution seems much too antiquated for recent memory, however, duels occurred in the United States and in Europe up until the First World War, and they even occurred right here on the Chattahoochee River.

Dueling was outlawed, both legally and socially, even in its most prolific era of the early 1800s. Nonetheless, the process and its results were respected, and a criminal trial of the participants almost never took place. There was a time in the early decades of the State of Georgia that it was believed that not a single man in public life had not been personally involved in a duel during his career. It was understood that the successful defense of one’s honor through a duel deserved the bestowing of further honors on the victor. This usually occurred through election or appointment to positions of public office. As it turned out, the defiance of the anti-dueling legislation was almost required to achieve a position in the legislature. The public opposition to dueling was taken into consideration prior to the event as the dueling ground was typically designated in a region outside the jurisdiction of the government, either on “lawless” frontier or Native American territory.

When Columbus was founded in 1828, the city was situated on the edge of the American frontier. In the first three years of the city’s existence, at least two duels of statewide significance occurred across the Chattahoochee River from Columbus. The local dueling ground was located at Fort Mitchell, Alabama which was a frontier trading post on the fringe of the United States. Stationed there was Colonel John Crowell, the United States’ Agent to the Creek Indians. In the winter of 1828, two adversaries arrived at Fort Mitchell, and one remains there today.

The Augusta Chronicle and Advertiser newspaper was the primary means of news and opinion around Augusta, Georgia in the 1820s. This was a time of deep political division in the state. An article appeared in the Chronicle in the winter of 1827 that was highly critical of a local gentleman, Peter Crawford, for his political positions. The criticism went further to suggest Crawford’s son George, who was acting as the Attorney General for the State of Georgia at that time, was a coward. The article was published anonymously. Attorney General George W. Crawford demanded the name of the author from the publisher, who refused to disclose the name reasoning that it was a woman who submitted the article. Soon after, Thomas E. Burnside, a young lawyer quickly rising in distinction, contacted George Crawford and admitted to having written the article. When words would not reconcile the offense, the Attorney General challenged Burnside to a duel.

After immediate acceptance of the challenge, the two men selected their agents and their physicians to accompany them to the dueling ground. From Augusta, the party traveled together by stage coach across the state to the west bank of the Chattahoochee River. No doubt the agents, or seconds, were discussing the possibility of peace along the way. During the trip, Thomas Burnside penned a letter to his family:

Dear Wife & Mother,

Tomorrow I fight. I do it on principle. Whatever may be my fate, I believe I am right. On this ground I have acted and will act. I believe I shall succeed, but if I do not I am prepared for the consequences. Kiss the children and tell them that if I fall my last thought was of them.

Yours most affectionately, Thomas E. Burnside

Upon arrival at Fort Mitchell, a local man, Dr. Stephen M. Ingersoll, replaced Burnside’s second at the dueling ground. As the field was laid out and the rules were acknowledged, a crowd of the earliest settlers to Columbus and local Native Americans gathered to watch. In the cold morning hours of January 5, 1828 George Crawford and Thomas Burnside, each man formally dressed, took their pistols and paced a distance of twenty steps between them before turning to face one another. The pistols were single shot, short barreled dueling pistols; not the most accurate firearms. With pistols raised and generally aimed, the command was given followed by two cracks of exploding gunpowder. Through the smoke, it was seen that neither bullet met its mark. The agents step in to discuss reconciliation. Crawford announced he would accept peace if Burnside offered an apology and retracted his offensive statements. Burnside refused. As the agents retreated, the pistols were reloaded and a second volley of bullets was discharged, again hitting the ground around each man, tossing dirt onto their polished shoes. Holding firm in their convictions, the guns were loaded for a third time and Crawford aimed true. Burnside was struck through the heart and died in the arms of his second who caught his collapsing body. As George Crawford departed from the field, Thomas Burnside was taken to the family burial ground of Col. John Crowell, where he remains buried today in Fort Mitchell, Alabama.

The notion of a proper duel conferring honor on the victor appears true in the case of George W. Crawford. He and Burnside both were young men at the time. Crawford went on to become a two term governor of Georgia, a member of Congress and the Secretary of War under U.S. President Zachary Taylor reportedly fulfilling each position with great ability. The sense of guilt from the greatest affair of his youth, however, weighed on him for the entirety of his subsequent years. Of particular concern in the heart of George Crawford was the remainder of his vanquished foe’s family. Burnside’s wife and three young children were left on their own. It is believed they received anonymous financial contributions for many years from George Crawford as he attempted to relieve his guilt.

Public outcry against dueling grew louder over the years. The account in the Columbus newspaper following the death of General Woolfolk conveyed the feeling of senseless loss: In recording this melancholy occurrence humanity shudders at the reflection that the talents, worth and chivalry of our country should be subject to such a barbarous custom.

Gone are the days of “honorable” sword and guns fights even if the problems inducing such conflicts remain present. Now, we sling technology to brandish our unsolicited opinions and find it difficult to accept that someone could think differently than we do. The question remains as valid now as it was two centuries ago, when the smoke clears and the dueling field is left empty, is there really a victor when so much enduring pain was created in the process?

AFFAIRS OF HONOR: THE CODE DUELLO