{"id":162073,"date":"2024-04-12T13:49:06","date_gmt":"2024-04-12T17:49:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bates.edu\/news\/?p=162073"},"modified":"2024-04-15T16:15:17","modified_gmt":"2024-04-15T20:15:17","slug":"those-infamous-1800s-pistol-duels-they-actually-served-a-purpose-bates-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bates.edu\/news\/2024\/04\/12\/those-infamous-1800s-pistol-duels-they-actually-served-a-purpose-bates-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Those infamous 1800s pistol duels? They actually served a purpose"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In April 1804, a newspaper published a scandalous letter alleging that Alexander Hamilton had publicly called Aaron Burr \u201ca dangerous man,\u201d even \u201cdespicable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That letter, published 220 years ago today, April 12, set into motion events that ended with the infamous pistol duel of July 1804, leaving Hamilton dead and Burr\u2019s political career moribund.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even before the musical Hamilton<\/em> came onto the scene, the Burr-Hamilton duel left most people figuring that pistol duels were both deadly and irrational. Still, even as they faded away in the North, pistol duels continued to be common in the U.S. South in the decades before the Civil War. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
An illustration of the infamous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr on July 11, 1804. It’s a fanciful depiction: combatants did not stand so close together. (From a painting by J. Mund, via Wikimedia Commons)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Now we have an idea why: pistol duels served a purpose in the antebellum South.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That’s a theory, plus startling facts, put forth in a scholarly paper co-authored by Bates Professor of Economics Paul Shea<\/a>, \u201cLethality and Deterrence in Affairs of Honor: The Case of the Antebellum South,\u201d in the journal Rationality and Society<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shea\u2019s coauthors are Tom Ahn, an assistant professor of economics in the Department of Defense Management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., and Jeremy Sandford, a former staff economist with the Federal Trade Commission and now with Compass Lexicon Inc.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To develop their theory, the authors use game theory, an understanding of 19th-century firearms, and a deep dive into historical newspaper accounts. The team also employed Emma Patard \u201926 of Montreal as a research assistant. \u201cShe scoured old newspapers to create a database on 18th century duels,\u201d says Shea.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Associate
Professor of Economics Paul Shea. (Mike Bradley\/Bates College)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

So let\u2019s get to the questions. First, why did duels remain popular in the U.S. South even as they faded in the North?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s easy to look back and call the duels barbaric and\/or just plain stupid. But here, hindsight isn\u2019t 20-20. Dueling had persisted for thousands of thousands of years in different societies. \u201cYou can find this all over the world. So it might not be something you would want in society, but there was probably a reason for it,\u201d Shea said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The antebellum South \u201cdid not have well-developed legal institutions,\u201d explains Shea, \u201cso you need something<\/em> to settle public disputes\u201d related to slander, libel, or other public transgressions. \u201cDuels were a way to mitigate bad behavior, albeit violently.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, says Shea, \u201cthe institution of dueling actually seemed to work reasonably well to deter reputational damage. If you say something horrible about me, the fact that I am willing to risk my life \u2014 even if it’s a low risk \u2014 was seen as a kind of cleansing of reputation. In the absence of a court system that functioned the way we think of a court system, it did a reasonable job of deterring bad behavior in the antebellum South.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next question: Why was the practice of facing off with pistols at a relatively short distance not particularly fatal? Indeed, the risk of death from a duel was low, only about 7 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s because participants mostly used antiquated and inaccurate weapons. \u201cDueling pistols were fancy but really ceremonial,\u201d said Shea. The pistols, though exquisitely made, were smooth bore, not rifled, which meant that bullets were prone to tumbling in flight, reducing their accuracy. They were short-barreled, thus harder to aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A pair of American dueling pistols, circa 1815\u201320. Such pistols were very inaccurate, but that served the purpose of ensuring that duels weren’t too dangerous \u2014 but just dangerous enough. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is where game theory comes into play. The pistols\u2019 inaccuracy helped make the \u201cgame\u201d of dueling worth engaging in. \u201cIf the premise is that dueling is a quasi-legal institution to remedy a conflict, it would be a problem if the outcome is based on who’s a better shot,\u201d explains Shea. \u201cIf these weapons are so bad that they’re essentially random, then it levels the playing field\u201d making a duel a reasonable option to solve a dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, the authors note that there had to be some<\/em> threat to life and limb for duels to serve their social purpose. \u201cThe deterrent effect of dueling depended on the probability of death being neither too high nor too low,\u201d the authors write. \u201cWere dueling too safe, the institution\u2019s public acceptance \u2014 and thus its usefulness \u2014 may have diminished.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As an example of a non-fatal pistol duel that served its purpose, one can look at the duel between Secretary of State William Clay and U.S. Sen. John Randolph. The duel seems inept and nearly comical, yet it put an end to a dispute between the two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to one account, \u201cClay and Randolph were frenemies<\/a> who, more often than not, were teetering on the cusp of a brawl.\u201d In 1826, Randolph called Clay a \u201cblackleg,\u201d a card cheat. A duel was arranged for April 8, 1826, on the Virginia side of the Potomac River<\/a>. Here\u2019s a play-by-play of the five shots.<\/p>\n\n\n\n