"One of Alexander the Great's successors, called Antigonous, noticed among his soldiers one who was conspicuous in the army for his daring courage and disregard of danger. Sending for him, he observed that the soldier looked pale and sickly, and he asked him what was the matter with him. Said he: 'Sire, I have, long since, lost my health.' The king ordered his physician to attend him, and save his life, if possible. He complied with the injunction, and restored his patient to robust and vigorous health. The king, observing that he no longer exhibited that courage and daring which previously characterized him, sent for the soldier the second time, and asked him what had caused this change in his conduct. 'Sire,' replied he, 'your physician has made me a coward. When I was sick, my life was a burthen to me, and I did not care how soon I lost it, but, in giving me health, he has given to me the enjoyment of life, and I fear to lose it.' This thing depends greatly on the temperament of a man. Some are reckless and willing, at any moment, to risk their lives. Others who did not hesitate an instant to hazard their lives against an enemy of their country, and shed the last drop of their blood in its defense, would, in no case, engage in a private encounter. "We know that dueling does not stop killing in the streets, or assassination on the highways. No, sir, this is a mistake, and nothing will stop it but a sense of certain, positive, and speedy punishment. And how are we to stop the practice of dueling? We are to furnish men who are in doubt as to a point of honor with a competent apology for avoiding a duel. That is all we want. There is not a man in the world, enjoying health, and who has friends and connections around him, that does not love life. Look at the man in the last agonies of death, and see how he clings to life. And why? Because he loves life. And yet, a false notion of honor, or, rather, a false public opinion, will force the man in fine health to hazard his life to a false notion of honor. Frederick the Great, of Prussia, was one of the ablest and bravest men who ever fought at the head of an army, and yet, what did he say to the duelist? Why, that, if a duel was fought, he would hang all concerned in it, and, if he could find out where was the place of meeting, he would go there himself, with his hangman, and hang up the survivor without a trial. Has not Great Britain lately hung several men who killed others in duels? A Colonel Campbell there killed a man in a duel, not long since, and was hung. And other instances might be mentioned. "And Kentucky is the only country where no man has ever been punished for giving, accepting, carrying a challenge, or killing his antagonist in a duel. What inroads have been made in the family of Alex Pope, my old friend, with whom I practiced law until he died, by the dueling propensities of those two young men, Henry and Fountain Pope. One was killed in Arkansas, and the other near Louisville, without any cause, if the parties had understood each other. The parties fought, at the distance of twenty yards, with shot-guns. There was "Did I not know, while in Washington, Barron and Decatur, two of the first men at that period in America, come up in mortal array within sixteen feet of each other, because one was near-sighted, and the rule was that both should take deliberate sight before the word to fire was given. They both fired and fell with their heads not ten feet apart. And before they were taken from the ground, each expecting both to die, they spoke to each other, and a reconciliation took place. They blessed each other and declared that there was nothing between them. All that was required to prevent the meeting was an explanation between them. the case also of McCarty and Mason, own cousins, who fought one of the most murderous duels on record, because McCarty voting for another man, Mason being a candidate felt aggrieved, and challenged his vote on the ground of not being twenty-one. McCarty first proposed they should sit over a keg of powder and set fire to it, but Mason declined. Next he proposed they should go to the top of the capitol and, hand in hand, jump from the parapet wall to the ground, a distance of ninety feet. This Mason also declined. Then McCarty proposed they should fight with muskets with three balls apiece, which Mason accepted, and then they went out and fought eight feet apart-about nothing. McCarty has told me that the duel was forced on him by one of Mason's seconds. "Such are the bloody scenes which illustrate this 'code of honor,' as it is styled. In the poems of an old English satirist, Churchill, is a satire against dueling, which, I remember, made a strong impression on me when I first read it, many years ago. In speaking of the duelist's honor he says: 666 His honor is like a maiden-head, Which, if in private brought to bed, And is never missed until the loss is known.' "Such is just about the character of the insults for which men fight duels. A real insult is resented at the moment, and an uncertain or imaginary one leads to the duel. In the last case the parties correspond and consult their friends and seconds, who generally are young Hotspurs, who take a great deal more delight in acting as second than principal. A great many of these seconds, no doubt, feel very much like the lawyers in a case in court; they would a great deal rather see their clients pull the hair the wrong way than get at it themselves. And, in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, an amicable arrangement of the difficulties between the parties is prevented by the seconds. "In the recent case of young Pope, I have no doubt that had my young friend over the way (Mr. Preston) been one of the seconds, he could have stopped it. The gentlemen who did act as seconds were equally respectable and worthy, but perhaps they were not so prudent and discreet in going back to the origin of the quarrel and having it arranged, as they might have done. The evil is that in these controversies, in ninety cases out of a hundred, the parties get into the hands of men who believe they will be brought into consequence by becoming seconds in a duel. "I hope the convention will not adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisville (Mr. Preston) to leave this matter to the control of the Legislature. Can there be any law proposed which does not now exist? No. Is it not death, if a man is killed, to all the persons concerned? It is; and if it is, it is the strongest kind of disqualification to hold any office in the future, I warrant. But is there not a law now in existence disfranchising from office any one who gives or accepts a challenge? There is; and what good can be attained by the passage of any further laws on the subject? If left to the Legislature, they will continue to pass special laws relieving men from the penalty, and thus nullifying the statutes. "What more, then, can you do? You can furnish to the man who desires not to fight, an apology to public opinion for refusing to give or accept a challenge. Let the Constitution contain this disqualification, and you will attain this object by putting it out of the power of the Legislature to absolve a man from the penalty. These were the sentiments I uttered thirty-eight years ago in the legislative halls of Kentucky, and I was supported in them at that time by a young man one year younger than myself, and one of the most eloquent and able men Kentucky ever knew-I mean Solomon P. Sharpe."* Debates (Ky.) Conv., 824. CHAPTER VI. THE KITCHEN KNIFE. T HE leaders of the Federalist party opposed the war of 1812. For this reason, chiefly, that party was charged with "being the friend of Englishmen" during the struggle that ensued. On the successful issue of the American arms the Federalists, as an organized party, ceased to be factors in political affairs. With the peace that ensued began that tranquil period in American history—that “era of good will"-that had its culmination under President Monroe's administration. The National Republican party, of which Jefferson was the recognized founder, was, at that period, alike the party of the government and the people. Within its ranks were questions that caused differences, but they partook more of policy than principle, more of men than of measures. For example, there was some attempt to arouse the jealousy of other States because Virginia had continuously enjoyed the Presidency, save the single term of John Adams. The question of establishing a national bank was agitated. Differences also existed on other questions. But all this was within the Republican fold. Generally, the Federalists themselves had as resolutely turned their backs, not only on their organization, but on its very name, as earnestly as within a half century later "Know-Nothings" deserted a shipwrecked party. Madison's administration had been eminently successful. The difficulties that beset the opening of his second term were clearing away early in 1815. The triumph of General Jackson over the British forces at New Orleans in January of that year flattered American pride in a degree that later generations can not conceive. The treaty of Ghent of December 14, 1814 (not known in this country till after the battle), filled the cup of public complacency to its brim. In such a "piping" time as this Mr. Hardin became a candidate for member of the Federal Congress in the Bardstown district. Having served two terms in the State Legislature with credit, and having, in his nine years of professional life, worked his way to the first rank at the bar, it was not out of the order of things for him thus to aspire. This period antedated the origin and domination of the caucus and political conven tion of later times. An aspirant for office was not able to make progress by pleading his service to the party in the past or his ability to successfully carry its banner in the future. His services to his country were taken into account, his patriotism, his zeal for the public welfare, and his ability to assist in needed legislation, but the tribunal that measured and determined his merit was not a dominant party, but the people at large. For his competitor he had the venerable General Matthew Walton, of Washington county-a most worthy man. General Walton had been an active participant in the public affairs of Kentucky from the earliest times. A Virginian by birth, he had been a soldier of the Revolution. He was a man of courage, and had especially won popular favor by his gallantry at the battle of King's mountain. He had removed to Kentucky soon after the capitulation at Yorktown. He was a member of the second Danville convention, in May, 1785, held with a view to a separation of Kentucky from Virginia. Two similar conventions were held-one in the August following and the other in 1787-and General Walton was a member of each. In the latter he represented Nelson county. He was also the representative of that county in the Virginia convention which ratified the Constitution of the United States. He was a delegate from the same county in the Danville convention of 1792, that framed the first constitution. He was also a delegate in the Virginia House of Burgesses for 1789 and 1790. He served in the Kentucky House of Representatives in 1792 as a member from Nelson, and in 1795 and 1808, from Washington county. In 1800 to 1803 he was member of the State Senate. From 1803 to 1807 he had represented his district in the lower house of Congress. In 1809 he was chosen presidential elector for James Madison. He is said to have been proprietor, at one time, of one hundred and sixty thousand acres of land in Nelson and Washington counties, and from Salt to Green river many are the titles traced through Matthew Walton. The dwelling house he built for himself was the first of any pretensions to elegance erected on the soil of Kentucky. In addition to his fame as a soldier, and his long. and varied political career, he was noted for high breeding, gentle manly deportment, and liberality. It may be set down that Mr. Hardin had a formidable competitor. None of the issues and incidents that marked the canvass have survived. It was a warm struggle, as Hardin himself long afterward remarked. His majority of three hundred closed General Walton's public career. He died on the 18th of January, 1819. |