The Duel Between Francis B. Cutting and John C. Breckinridge Annie Powers

Volume 1 Article 5

2010 “An Altercation Full of Meaning”: The Duel between Francis B. Cutting and John C. Breckinridge Annie Powers

Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/gcjcwe Part of the United States History Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item.

Powers, Annie (2010) "“An Altercation Full of Meaning”: The Duel between Francis B. Cutting and John C. Breckinridge," The Gettysburg College Journal of the Civil War Era: Vol. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/gcjcwe/vol1/iss1/5

This open access article is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “An Altercation Full of Meaning”: The Duel between Francis B. Cutting and John C. Breckinridge

Abstract “A Duel!” In late March of 1854, the northern press burst with the news. A duel had allegedly taken place between two members of the House of Representatives—Francis B. Cutting of New York and John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky. Confusion and anticipation reigned, and a flurry of rumors circulated. Had Breckinridge been shot in the neck? Was he killed or wounded? Did Cutting emerge victorious? Or was the entire affair a mere hoax? The situation became so dramatic that it even appeared in a theatrical advertisement, beckoning people to see a play that promised to be just as exciting as the alleged duel. By early April, it had become clear that despite the conflict between Cutting and Breckinridge, an actual duel had been averted. Although their misunderstanding had been amicably settled, the affair ts ill left am ny questions unanswered. Why did these two Congressmen feel compelled to resort to arms? And how did Cutting, a northerner, nearly become embroiled in a duel—a violent ritual typically understood by historians today as an archaic institution that was confined to the Old South? These questions can be partially answered by examining the Cutting- Breckinridge affair within the context of nineteenth century dueling culture generally and the increased sectional tensions that emerged during the Kansas-Nebraska debate specifically. However, the near-duel was given meaning and political staying power only through interpretation and manipulation by the northern anti- slavery press, which used the conflict to indict dueling as a product of violent southern slaveholding culture.

The uttC ing-Breckinridge affair asw part of the larger sociopolitical phenomenon of dueling that has been discussed by historians of early and nineteenth century America. In her critical study Affairs of Honor, Joanne B. Freeman explains that duels in early America stemmed from a commitment to “sacrifice one’s life for one’s honor,” or a sense of self-worth tied up with manliness and, in some cases, ability as a political leader. [excerpt]

Keywords Civil War, Francis B. Cutting, John C. Breckinridge, Cutting-Breckinridge affair, dueling

This article is available in The Gettysburg College Journal of the Civil War Era: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/gcjcwe/vol1/iss1/5 32 33 000The Gettysburg College Journal of the Civil War Era Breckinridge? Historians like Michael C. be decided in the territories of Utah and “An Altercation Full of Meaning”: C. Adams have objected to the traditional New Mexico by local choice. Douglas saw belief that dueling was an exclusively popular sovereignty as a “great contribution The Duel between Francis B. Cutting southern political ritual, arguing that “the to freedom” and a way to end conflict over and John C. Breckinridge disparity in the amount of violence between the slavery question. Instead, however, it North and South was grossly exaggerated” prompted fresh and vehement sectional Annie Powers and most apparently southern traits could debate, with most southerners in favor of, be applied to nineteenth century America and northerners split over, the bill. at large. Mark E. Neely, Jr., also contends Southerners perceived that popular “A Duel!!” In late March of 1854, the northern anti-slavery press, which used the that political dueling was not confined sovereignty would give them a greater northern press burst with the news. A duel conflict to indict dueling as a product of to the South. Both Adams and Neely 1 opportunity to spread slavery compared had allegedly taken place between two violent southern slaveholding culture. use the Cutting-Breckinridge conflict members of the House of Representatives— to earlier compromises. Northerners were The Cutting-Breckinridge affair was part to demonstrate that dueling as political Francis B. Cutting of New York and John largely divided over the Kansas-Nebraska of the larger sociopolitical phenomenon violence transcended sectional boundaries.2 C. Breckinridge of Kentucky. Confusion measure. A vocal group was opposed to it of dueling that has been discussed by and anticipation reigned, and a flurry Yet the confrontation between Cutting and for reasons of economics or morality, but historians of early and nineteenth century of rumors circulated. Had Breckinridge Breckinridge cannot be fully explained by others supported the popular sovereignty America. In her critical study Affairs of been shot in the neck? Was he killed or the existence of a national dueling culture; doctrine on the basis of idealized white Honor, Joanne B. Freeman explains that wounded? Did Cutting emerge victorious? it also occurred within the context of democracy or as a method of ending duels in early America stemmed from a Or was the entire affair a mere hoax? The the heated and increasingly sectionalized debate over slavery. These arguments and commitment to “sacrifice one’s life for one’s situation became so dramatic that it even debates over the Kansas-Nebraska Act deliberations over the Kansas-Nebraska honor,” or a sense of self-worth tied up with appeared in a theatrical advertisement, of 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska bill was bill led to several amendments while it manliness and, in some cases, ability as a beckoning people to see a play that presented to the Senate in January 1854 remained in the Senate. The so-called political leader. promised to be just as exciting as the alleged after significant modification by Illinois Badger Proviso, introduced by Senator duel. By early April, it had become clear Historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown Senator Stephen A. Douglas and with George E. Badger of North Carolina, that despite the conflict between Cutting similarly singles out this pre-modern the support of President Franklin Pierce. dictated that no law could be revived that and Breckinridge, an actual duel had been cultural ideology of honor as the reason The act proposed to organize the Kansas had either excluded or protected slavery averted. Although their misunderstanding why political duels occurred during the and Nebraska territories by applying in the territories, referring particularly had been amicably settled, the affair still nineteenth century. However, he contends the doctrine of “popular sovereignty,” to old French and Spanish legal codes. left many questions unanswered. Why did that dueling in this period was almost which allowed the residents of these Furthermore, the Clayton amendment, these two Congressmen feel compelled to exclusively a southern institution and regions to determine the status of slavery presented by Senator John M. Clayton of resort to arms? And how did Cutting, a links it with the prevalence of aggression there themselves. Douglas championed Delaware, restricted popular sovereignty northerner, nearly become embroiled in a in southern society. Likewise, in Jack K. popular sovereignty and justified its use by forbidding immigrants from voting duel—a violent ritual typically understood Williams’ Dueling in the Old South and by explaining that the 1820 Missouri in territorial elections. In the early hours by historians today as an archaic institution Steven M. Stowe’s Intimacy and Power in Compromise’s prohibition of slavery north of March 4, 1854, the bill passed in the that was confined to the Old South? These the Old South, dueling is analyzed as “a of the 36º 30’ line had been “subsumed” Senate, 37 to 14. Among northerners, questions can be partially answered by facet of life [that existed] only in the Old by the provisions in the Compromise of however, the margin of victory was much examining the Cutting-Breckinridge affair South.” John Hope Franklin attributes 1850 dictating that the slavery issue would narrower: 14 to 12.3 within the context of nineteenth century this use of duels to a southern tradition of dueling culture generally and the increased militancy and violence, which was rooted 2. Joanne B. Freeman, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 167-171; Bertram Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South (New York: Oxford sectional tensions that emerged during in the planters’ need to maintain absolute University Press, 1982), xv-xvi, 350; Jack K. Williams, Dueling the Old South, Vignettes of Social History (College the Kansas-Nebraska debate specifically. authority over their slaves. If this was the Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1984), 7 (quote); Steven M. Stowe, Intimacy and Power in the Old South: Ritual in the Lives of the Planters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), 5-7; John Hope Franklin, The However, the near-duel was given meaning case, however, how could a duel have nearly Militant South, 1800-1861 (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1956), viii, 44; Michael C. C. and political staying power only through occurred in which a northerner, Francis B. Adams, Our Masters the Rebels: A Speculation on Union Military Failure in the East, 1861-1865 (Cambridge: Harvard interpretation and manipulation by the Cutting, challenged a southerner, John C. University Press, 1978), 43-46; Mark E. Neely, Jr., “The Kansas-Nebraska Act in American Political Culture: The Road to Bladensburg and the Appeal of the Independent Democrats,” in The Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854, eds. John R. Wunder and Joann M. Ross (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008), 14-23. 3. Nicole Etcheson, Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 1. “A Duel!!” The Ripley Bee, April 1, 1854; “Excitement at Washington,” The Daily Scioto Gazette, March 30, 1854; 9-27; S. 22, “A Bill to Organize the Territory of Nebraska,” December 14, 1853; “Washington Affairs,” The Boston Daily “The Duel Yesterday,” New York Daily Times, March 30, 1854. Atlas, March 27, 1854; Senate Journal, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, March 3, 1854. 32 33 000The Gettysburg College Journal of the Civil War Era Breckinridge? Historians like Michael C. be decided in the territories of Utah and “An Altercation Full of Meaning”: C. Adams have objected to the traditional New Mexico by local choice. Douglas saw belief that dueling was an exclusively popular sovereignty as a “great contribution The Duel between Francis B. Cutting southern political ritual, arguing that “the to freedom” and a way to end conflict over and John C. Breckinridge disparity in the amount of violence between the slavery question. Instead, however, it North and South was grossly exaggerated” prompted fresh and vehement sectional Annie Powers and most apparently southern traits could debate, with most southerners in favor of, be applied to nineteenth century America and northerners split over, the bill. at large. Mark E. Neely, Jr., also contends Southerners perceived that popular “A Duel!!” In late March of 1854, the northern anti-slavery press, which used the that political dueling was not confined sovereignty would give them a greater northern press burst with the news. A duel conflict to indict dueling as a product of to the South. Both Adams and Neely 1 opportunity to spread slavery compared had allegedly taken place between two violent southern slaveholding culture. use the Cutting-Breckinridge conflict members of the House of Representatives— to earlier compromises. Northerners were The Cutting-Breckinridge affair was part to demonstrate that dueling as political Francis B. Cutting of New York and John largely divided over the Kansas-Nebraska of the larger sociopolitical phenomenon violence transcended sectional boundaries.2 C. Breckinridge of Kentucky. Confusion measure. A vocal group was opposed to it of dueling that has been discussed by and anticipation reigned, and a flurry Yet the confrontation between Cutting and for reasons of economics or morality, but historians of early and nineteenth century of rumors circulated. Had Breckinridge Breckinridge cannot be fully explained by others supported the popular sovereignty America. In her critical study Affairs of been shot in the neck? Was he killed or the existence of a national dueling culture; doctrine on the basis of idealized white Honor, Joanne B. Freeman explains that wounded? Did Cutting emerge victorious? it also occurred within the context of democracy or as a method of ending duels in early America stemmed from a Or was the entire affair a mere hoax? The the heated and increasingly sectionalized debate over slavery. These arguments and commitment to “sacrifice one’s life for one’s situation became so dramatic that it even debates over the Kansas-Nebraska Act deliberations over the Kansas-Nebraska honor,” or a sense of self-worth tied up with appeared in a theatrical advertisement, of 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska bill was bill led to several amendments while it manliness and, in some cases, ability as a beckoning people to see a play that presented to the Senate in January 1854 remained in the Senate. The so-called political leader. promised to be just as exciting as the alleged after significant modification by Illinois Badger Proviso, introduced by Senator duel. By early April, it had become clear Historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown Senator Stephen A. Douglas and with George E. Badger of North Carolina, that despite the conflict between Cutting similarly singles out this pre-modern the support of President Franklin Pierce. dictated that no law could be revived that and Breckinridge, an actual duel had been cultural ideology of honor as the reason The act proposed to organize the Kansas had either excluded or protected slavery averted. Although their misunderstanding why political duels occurred during the and Nebraska territories by applying in the territories, referring particularly had been amicably settled, the affair still nineteenth century. However, he contends the doctrine of “popular sovereignty,” to old French and Spanish legal codes. left many questions unanswered. Why did that dueling in this period was almost which allowed the residents of these Furthermore, the Clayton amendment, these two Congressmen feel compelled to exclusively a southern institution and regions to determine the status of slavery presented by Senator John M. Clayton of resort to arms? And how did Cutting, a links it with the prevalence of aggression there themselves. Douglas championed Delaware, restricted popular sovereignty northerner, nearly become embroiled in a in southern society. Likewise, in Jack K. popular sovereignty and justified its use by forbidding immigrants from voting duel—a violent ritual typically understood Williams’ Dueling in the Old South and by explaining that the 1820 Missouri in territorial elections. In the early hours by historians today as an archaic institution Steven M. Stowe’s Intimacy and Power in Compromise’s prohibition of slavery north of March 4, 1854, the bill passed in the that was confined to the Old South? These the Old South, dueling is analyzed as “a of the 36º 30’ line had been “subsumed” Senate, 37 to 14. Among northerners, questions can be partially answered by facet of life [that existed] only in the Old by the provisions in the Compromise of however, the margin of victory was much examining the Cutting-Breckinridge affair South.” John Hope Franklin attributes 1850 dictating that the slavery issue would narrower: 14 to 12.3 within the context of nineteenth century this use of duels to a southern tradition of dueling culture generally and the increased militancy and violence, which was rooted 2. Joanne B. Freeman, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 167-171; Bertram Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South (New York: Oxford sectional tensions that emerged during in the planters’ need to maintain absolute University Press, 1982), xv-xvi, 350; Jack K. Williams, Dueling the Old South, Vignettes of Social History (College the Kansas-Nebraska debate specifically. authority over their slaves. If this was the Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1984), 7 (quote); Steven M. Stowe, Intimacy and Power in the Old South: Ritual in the Lives of the Planters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), 5-7; John Hope Franklin, The However, the near-duel was given meaning case, however, how could a duel have nearly Militant South, 1800-1861 (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1956), viii, 44; Michael C. C. and political staying power only through occurred in which a northerner, Francis B. Adams, Our Masters the Rebels: A Speculation on Union Military Failure in the East, 1861-1865 (Cambridge: Harvard interpretation and manipulation by the Cutting, challenged a southerner, John C. University Press, 1978), 43-46; Mark E. Neely, Jr., “The Kansas-Nebraska Act in American Political Culture: The Road to Bladensburg and the Appeal of the Independent Democrats,” in The Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854, eds. John R. Wunder and Joann M. Ross (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008), 14-23. 3. Nicole Etcheson, Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 1. “A Duel!!” The Ripley Bee, April 1, 1854; “Excitement at Washington,” The Daily Scioto Gazette, March 30, 1854; 9-27; S. 22, “A Bill to Organize the Territory of Nebraska,” December 14, 1853; “Washington Affairs,” The Boston Daily “The Duel Yesterday,” New York Daily Times, March 30, 1854. Atlas, March 27, 1854; Senate Journal, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, March 3, 1854. 34 35

Although he supported the Kansas- of destroying the bill’s prospects or ending the movement of the measure to the Cutting’s “motion astonished everyone. Nebraska bill at large, New York discussion; rather, he believed wholly in Committee of the Whole as “encouraging” The southern members [of Congress] Congressman Francis B. Cutting the measure and the principles of state and and the enemies of the bill as “exultant.” denounce it as traitorous.” North Carolina’s objected to both the Badger and Clayton territorial self-determination written into Some papers counseled readers to continue Weekly Raleigh Register was more combative, amendments. Cutting was a “Hard” or it. However, Cutting continued, both the what Cutting had begun and thus destroy explaining that Cutting and the fifty- “Hard-shell” Democrat, and as he explained Clayton and Badger amendments violated the bill. The New York Tribune four allegedly “national” Democrats who in two speeches on January 17 and January the doctrine of popular sovereignty—the remarked that voted to “kill the bill” should be “kick[ed] 20, this meant that he wholly supported former by withholding suffrage from The monster has received a staggering out of the party—‘they have become the doctrine of popular sovereignty and residents of the territory who had declared blow, which can and must be followed up abolitionized’—they are ‘a miserable each state’s right to regulate its own affairs. their intention to become citizens and with energy till the last breath is beaten out faction!’” and utterly “denationalized.” Furthermore, Cutting condemned the the latter by endorsing Congressional of his carcass . . . . Let no muscle be relaxed Therefore, despite Cutting’s apparent Pierce administration for what the Hards interference with slavery via the relocation till the last demagogue is convinced that to attempt to openly discuss the bill in the attempt to break compacts for the benefit believed was reliance on a coalition of of early Spanish and French law. With of slavery, and turn over to bondage an whole House and amend it to more fully disparate and sometimes contradictory these provisions in the Kansas-Nebraska empire long consecrated to freedom, fit the doctrine of popular sovereignty, he interests, including a small group of “Free bill, Cutting maintained that he could not is very far off. was portrayed throughout the nation as Soilers” who supported the unqualified fully endorse it—and doubted whether the destroying the Kansas-Nebraska measure. By contrast, those northern Democrats who exclusion of slavery from the West that House would pass it. Furthermore, Cutting Public reaction tracked, for the most part, understood Cutting’s apparent intentions rallied around the President for little but asserted that the entirety of the House must along clearly delineated sectional lines.5 in favor of the bill commended his behavior patronage and other benefits. Despite his “fully discuss” the bill in order to give it by passing resolutions in his support. Southern Congressman John C. frustration with Pierce, Cutting joined legitimacy as law, because it deals “with a For example, the Young Men’s National Breckinridge’s virulent and insulting the president and other “Administration subject which enlists the sympathies and Democratic Club stated that his speech response to Cutting—and the ensuing Democrats” like John C. Breckinridge in feelings of men so deeply.” Finally, Cutting “reflects a brilliant halo . . . and entitles debate between the two that nearly led support of the Kansas-Nebraska measure. reminded Richardson and the House him to the gratitude of the North” and the to a duel—fits within this context of Cutting’s support of popular sovereignty at large that, by a two-thirds vote, the Democratic Republican General Committee sectionalized response to what was perceived motivated his proposal to refer the Kansas- measures preceding the Kansas-Nebraska “applaud[ed] the chivalric conduct of Mr. to be Cutting’s supposed attack on the Nebraska bill to the Committee of the Act in the Committee of the Whole could Cutting.” Even northern newspapers less Kansas-Nebraska measure. Breckinridge, Whole—meaning that the entirety of the be temporarily laid aside. After Cutting jubilant about Cutting’s action similarly a representative from Kentucky, was a House acted as if in committee and could refused to withdraw his motion, the reported that the bill would likely not pro-slavery, pro-Kansas-Nebraska, and thus fully discuss and amend the measure. House twice voted to move the bill to the survive its transfer to the Committee of pro-administration southern Democrat. On This was Cutting’s alternative to allowing Committee of the Whole, 110 to 95.4 the Whole; the New York Courier and March 23, prior to a lengthy speech in favor the bill to be relegated to the much smaller Despite his clear explanation of his choice Enquirer remarked that the reference was of the Kansas-Nebraska bill delineating his and less representative Committee on to refer the Kansas-Nebraska bill to the “very unfavorable” to the prospects of faith in states’ rights, Breckinridge made a Territories. Douglas’ principal ally in the Committee of the Whole, most press the bill and the New York Weekly Herald series of remarks sharply criticizing Cutting House, Congressman William Alexander coverage portrayed Cutting’s maneuver as likened it to “crucifixion.” The southern for moving to transfer the measure to the Richardson from Illinois, condemned intentionally damaging if not irreparably press agreed with northern newspapers Committee of the Whole. Breckinridge Cutting’s maneuver. According to killing the measure. Newspapers that the referral of the Kansas-Nebraska accused Cutting of destroying the bill Richardson, movement of the bill would representing interests opposed to the bill bill to the Committee of the Whole had by moving it to the end of the House “kill it by indirection” due to the apparently rejoiced. In describing Cutting’s speech, killed it; however, the largely Democratic, calendar and thus smothering it beneath “a large number of items in the Committee The Daily Cleveland Herald explained that pro-slavery southerners disparaged Cutting mountain [of other bills] that is piled upon of the Whole that would be ahead of the “the monster is not killed dead, but he gasps in particular and northern Democrats in it.” Furthermore, Breckinridge explained Kansas-Nebraska measure for consideration. for breath.” William Lloyd Garrison’s anti- general for doing so. The Daily Morning that Cutting’s decision could have been Cutting replied that he had no intention slavery newspaper, The Liberator, described News from Savannah, Georgia reported that based on little more than “pretexts” that

5. “How It Was Done,” The Daily Cleveland Herald, March 24, 1854; “The Nebraska Bill in the House,” The Liberator, 4. Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, January 17, 1854, 192-195; Congressional March 24, 1854; New York Tribune, March 22, 1854; The Weekly Herald and Courier and Enquirer quoted in the Globe, House of Representatives, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, January 20, 1854, 84-87; House Journal, 33rd Congress, Boston Daily Atlas, March 23, 1854; “Democratic War on the Administration,” The Boston Daily Atlas, April 3, 1854; 1st Session, March 21, 1854; Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, March 21, “The Administration and the Nebraska Bill,” The Boston Daily Atlas, April 10, 1854; Daily Morning News, March 28, 1854, 701-703; “Congress – Yesterday,” Daily National Intelligencer, March 22, 1854. 1854; “More ‘Nationality,’” The Weekly Raleigh Register, March 29, 1854. 34 35

appeared to support of the bill, because missed the point of his March 23 speech; he would not answer Breckinridge’s remark, to determine the terms of the duel. Cutting the Kansas-Nebraska measure would have Breckinridge had not meant to insinuate because “it was not here that I will desecrate was unacquainted with the Western rifle, ultimately been discussed in the Committee that Cutting had intentionally killed the my lips by undertaking to retort on it in the and instead chose “ordinary duelling of the Whole after it had been modified bill, but rather that this was the impact of manner which it deserves.” 7 pistols.” Confused, Hawkins explained to in the Committee on Territories. To the New Yorker’s actions. Furthermore, Monroe that Breckinridge thought that he Later that day, Cutting sent Breckinridge Breckinridge, the support given to him by Congressman William H. English of had been challenged and thus maintained a note through James Maurice requesting the measure’s opponents in Congress and Indiana, a pro-Nebraska Democrat, his rights as such. Monroe replied that Breckinridge retract his claim that throughout the North made it clear that indicated that there were fifty bills in front somewhat disingenuously that Cutting’s what Cutting had said was false or else Cutting had damaged the bill. Southern of the Kansas-Nebraska measure in the original note, asking for “the explanation “make the explanation due from one Congressman had an appreciated alliance Committee of the Whole. For his part, due from one gentleman to another,” gentleman to another.” This would have with Cutting heretofore, Breckinridge Breckinridge contended that it was hardly could not be construed as a challenge to a clearly implied a duel. Breckinridge refused stated, but the New Yorker’s behavior overstatement that there were an immense duel—it was nothing more than a demand to do so unless Cutting withdrew his of late had been that of an enemy. amount of other measures that the House for verbal clarification. On March 30, after insinuation that the Kentucky Congressman Breckinridge concluded that Cutting was a would have to consider before reaching hearing about the confusion and reading had been “skulking.” Cutting sent a reply traitor to the Kansas-Nebraska measure and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Breckinridge Cutting’s March 28 letter that Hawkins on March 28 professing that he had not its supporters; moving to refer the bill to concluded by reiterating that he could had previously rejected, Breckinridge intended any personal insult during their the Committee of the Whole “was the act not conceive of a reason that Cutting withdrew his statements that commenced debate the previous day, but Breckinridge’s of a man who throws his arm in apparently would refer the bill to the Committee of the overtures to a duel and expressed his representative, Kentuckian Colonel friendly embrace around another, saying, the Whole unless he intended to destroy regret for the misunderstanding. Cutting Hawkins, declined to receive the letter ‘How is it with thee, brother?’ and at the it, because it would be discussed by the reciprocated the apology, and the matter because he believed he could not do so same time covertly stabs him to the heart.”6 entire House after it moved through was settled. On March 31, Preston rose due to Cutting’s potential challenge to a the Committee on Territories. Cutting in the House to explain that the conflict Cutting responded to these remarks on duel. Thus Breckinridge never received escalated the pitch of the debate by between Cutting and Breckinridge had March 27. Cutting explained that he had the message. As a result, he sent a note remarking that Breckinridge was “the been resolved amicably, “in a manner made it clear that while he supported the to Cutting that he intended to “embrace last person from whom I expected” such which is mutually satisfactory, and which doctrine of popular sovereignty behind the the alternative” that he believed the New disrespect, because the New York Hards is conceived alike honorable to both of bill, he believed it required an amendment York Congressman had offered: a duel. had contributed fifteen hundred dollars the gentlemen who were engaged in the both to fulfill this principle and to Over the course of the next several days, to Breckinridge’s Senate campaign when debate.”8 successfully pass through the House. He communication fell to their “seconds”: he was in danger of defeat. Cutting accused Breckinridge of exaggerating the Hawkins and Kentucky Congressman What were the implications of this affair insisted, furthermore, that Breckinridge number of bills before the Kansas-Nebraska William Preston for Breckinridge and the in the context of the era that produced was doing little more than arguing over measure in the Committee of the Whole. New York Colonel Monroe and Illinois it—that of the Kansas-Nebraska conflict the number of measures in the Committee Cutting maintained that if Breckinridge Senator James Shields for Cutting. specifically and nineteenth century America of the Whole, thus “skulking” behind truly believed that moving it there would generally? As Mark Neely suggested, one the Kansas-Nebraska bill’s position at the Hawkins and Monroe were the defeat it, he would not have taken the time near-duel instigated by a northerner does end of the House calendar. Breckinridge, correspondents primarily responsible for or the energy to defend it in his March 23 not necessarily imply that violence was part appalled, asked Cutting to withdraw his determining the precise arrangements of the speech. Finally, Cutting questioned why of a larger American political culture—and last statement. Cutting refused, stating duel. On March 29, Hawkins submitted Breckinridge would set out to insult and even if it can be conceded that dueling was that it was “in answer to the most violent the terms of the duel to Monroe, including attack a supporter, rather than an opponent, not confined to the southern states, then and the most personal attack that has the suggestion that the weapon would be of the bill. Cutting suggested that why, with evidence of conflicts such as the been witnessed” upon the floor of the the ordinary, or “Western,” rifle. Monroe Breckinridge’s speech was “unbecoming one between Cutting and Breckinridge, House. Breckinridge countered that “if the responded that Cutting considered himself of a Congressman,” a personal attack have they been construed as a distinctly gentleman [Cutting] says I skulk, he says the challenged party and thus had the right that was both “inflammatory in style, what is false, and he knows it”— in effect and exaggerated in facts.” Breckinridge accusing Cutting of intentionally lying on responded by claiming that Cutting had the floor of the House. Cutting replied that 7. Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, March 27, 1854, 759-764; Etcheson, 173. 8. Lorenzo Sabine, Notes on Duels and Duelling (Boston: Crosby & Nichols, 1859), 137; Ben C. Truman, The Field of Honor: Being a Complete and Comprehensive History of Duelling in All Countries (New York: Fords, Howard, & Hubert, 1884), 438; “The Cutting and Breckinridge Difficulty – The Correspondence Between the Parties,”New York Daily Times, April 7, 6. Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, March 23, 1854, 439-443. 1854; Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, March 31, 1854, 825. 36 37

southern phenomenon? The reaction of like practice of sending a challenge,” presence of a dueling culture in the North have reason to suppose fetter their hands in the press to the Cutting and Breckinridge blaming northern society for creating a while maintaining that it was representative the matter of fighting, they are pretty apt to duel, particularly in the North, provides political culture tolerant of duels by electing of the evils of southern culture and play the bully. answers to both these problems. After a men of “violence and blood” to positions extremely harmful to northern interests. This perceived southern tendency for flurry of rumors that were printed with little of power. This editorial maligned northern In this way, the coverage of the Cutting- violence was made explicit in an April 7 discrimination, northern newspapers, and culture for accepting dueling, arguing that Breckinridge duel by the northern anti- editorial that assailed Breckinridge for primarily those opposed to the spread of it was a tradition not endemic to—and that slavery press proved the existence of a more being “more anxious to commit homicide slavery, began to editorialize heavily. Many should not exist in—the northern states. national dueling culture while explicitly than to vindicate his character.” Thus the used coverage of the Cutting-Breckinridge Wisconsin’s Milwaukee Daily Sentinel was condemning it as a backward Daily Times not only blamed Breckinridge’s conflict as a way to indict dueling as a less implicit in its sectional indictments and southern institution.10 irrational violence on his southern roots, backward institution belonging to the associations of violence with the South. In censuring dueling as a southern but also implied that southerners in violent, slave-holding South—and by An editorial printed on April 19 explained institution in general, northern anti-slavery general used force to impose their own arguing that dueling as it existed through that as a southerner raised in a society that newspapers specifically faulted Breckinridge opinions on northerners. The Canadian the nation should not have a place in explicitly condoned duels, Breckinridge for the conflict because he was a product African-American newspaper the Provincial the North, the press proved that it held took advantage of Cutting by forcing him of violent southern society. Writers for Freeman explained that Cutting moved one. Furthermore, this group of northern “into a position in which he must submit the northern press that supported the to refer the Kansas-Nebraska bill to the newspapers overwhelmingly blamed to a most humiliating attack upon his Kansas-Nebraska Act or were not staunchly Committee of the Whole “greatly to the Breckinridge—and southern culture by character and motives, or fight.” Cutting anti-slavery, such as the New York Weekly chagrin and irritation of Breckinridge proxy—for the duel, overlooking Cutting’s could not be condemned for his choice Herald, similarly blamed the near-duel on and other slavemongers, who determined culpability as the challenger. Thus these to fight, because “public sentiment at the Breckinridge. However, these newspapers therefor to settle a personal quarrel upon anti-slavery northern newspapers, in the North is but half [against] the barbarous did not perceive Breckinridge’s behavior Cutting” in the form of a duel. Using increasingly sectionalized political climate practices of dueling.” This proved a partial as an expression of the evils of southern Breckinridge as a case study, the newspaper of the Kansas-Nebraska debate, used acceptance of dueling in the North and society at large. The Weekly Herald merely blamed the brutality inherent in slavery for the disagreement between Cutting and thus a national political culture at least expressed its disappointment that the the contretemps and exonerated Cutting Breckinridge to assert that dueling was a somewhat tolerant of dueling. Moreover, Kentucky Congressman had anomalously entirely. Frederick Douglass made the southern problem, representative of the this editorial condemned the practice of lowered his otherwise upstanding character relationship between slavery and violent allegedly violent character of southern dueling by suggesting that southerners by insulting Cutting and thereby almost dueling culture clear in his newspaper, slaveholding society. In this way, the forced their violence on northerners and causing the duel. However, the New York stating that in his behavior during the northern anti-slavery press was able to thereby manipulated northern society’s Daily Times, or what historian Mark March 27 debate, Breckinridge “showed construe the Cutting-Breckinridge conflict half-aversion to the practice. The New Neely calls the Herald’s “anti-slavery Whig himself to be possessed of all the claims as an argument against the spread of slavery York Evangelist furthered this by offering competitor,” indicted Breckinridge in more of a genuine lord of the lash” as opposed and the Kansas-Nebraska Act.9 a virulent criticism of what the New York sectional terms. Emphasizing Breckinridge’s to Cutting, who “bore himself like a Times had described as “the bloody code” Immediately after word broke about quick “loss of temper” and readiness to MAN.” Here, Douglass entirely reversed of dueling, calling it “a barbarous and a potentially violent conflict between “charge Mr. Cutting with treachery” during responsibility for the duel by applauding murderous business” in all cases, whether the northerner Francis Cutting and the their debate despite Cutting’s relatively Cutting’s honor and manliness, while involving men North or South. However, southerner John C. Breckinridge, the anti- inoffensive remarks, the column asserted maligning Breckinridge as a representative the Evangelist urged northerners to slavery northern press in particular began that this was of the violent culture of the slavocracy. By repudiate the national toleration of duels to criticize dueling as a southern social vilifying Breckinridge as the instigator of as they were “immensely behind the times Characteristic of the class of gentlemen to phenomenon that should not be present in the duel, northern anti-slavery newspapers at the North” and belonged to the “land which Mr. Breckinridge belongs. Quick to the North. In so doing, these newspapers were able to use the Cutting-Breckinridge of slavery”—and concluded by criticizing take offence, they are far from being slow proved the existence of a national dueling conflict as an example of the violence-prone southerners for using duels to violently to give it. In dealing with Northern men culture and then rejected it as the product slaveholding culture.11 “browbeat Northern Representatives” into especially, whose principles or laws they of southern violence. The New York submission to southern interests. Thus the Independent criticized Cutting for lowering Evangelist attested to and then rejected the 10. “Congress,” The Independent . . . Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, himself to the un-Christian and “assassin- Literature, and the Arts 6 Issue 280 (April 13, 1854): 116; Milwaukee Daily Sentinel, April 19, 1854; “Latest Intelligence,” New York Daily Times, March 29, 1854; “The Affair of Honor,” New York Evangelist, 25 Issue 15 (April 13, 1854): 58. 11. The Weekly Herald, April 1, 1854; Neely, 23; “Display of Chivalry,” New York Daily Times, March 29, 1854; “An Affair 9. Neely, “The Kansas-Nebraska Act in American Political Culture,” 16. of Honor,” Provincial Freeman, April 15, 1854; Frederick Douglass’ Paper, March 31, 1854. 38 39

This indictment of southern society, to defy the mandates of the Slavocracy” by the arguments those northern newspapers Sun as examples of anti-slavery agitation, stemming from criticism of duels in opposing the Kansas-Nebraska bill. In this made. The Mississippian and State Gazette associating these more conservative papers general and Breckinridge in particular, way, the Tribune unambiguously portrayed suggested that northern coverage had with Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune, ultimately manifested itself in the northern the Cutting-Breckinridge duel as an been excessive, explaining that “much which was explicitly opposed to slavery. By anti-slavery press as an argument against example of the southerners’ plan to suppress more has been said about this affair by the portraying the northern press—or at least the extension of slavery and the Kansas- their opponents through unabashed press than its importance or good taste that of New York—as almost monolithically Nebraska Act. The Independent, after violence in order to pass the Kansas- either, admitted of.” North Carolina’s opposed to slavery, the Daily Morning News printing a transcript of the Cutting- Nebraska Act and thus extend slavery. Daily Register expressed similar sentiments, fed into the sectionalism many southern Breckinridge debate in Congress, offered The Daily Cleveland Herald was more explaining that an actual duel would have newspapers criticized the anti-slavery press a brief editorial explaining that the “policy specific, contending that Breckinridge exacerbated the excitement of northern for fueling. Taken together, southern of the slaveholders for keeping Northern and his second, Colonel Hawkins journalists “to an alarming extent.” This newspapers explained that opposition to Congress-men in due subjection, is first Evidently meant that Mr. Cutting should fall, response suggests that the northern anti- dueling in the anti-slavery northern press to flatter them with tantalizing hopes; and we are not too charitable to believe that slavery press may well have extrapolated was a way to condemn the Kansas-Nebraska failing in that, to purchase them with the death of that man was one of the from the duel to prove a political point that Act and the extension of slavery; and these offices or money; failing in that, to bully means to be used in forcing the passage outstretched the relevance of the conflict. southern complaints and portrayals of the them down; and failing in that, to shoot of the iniquitous Nebraska measure. It is The Richmond Examiner took this a step northern press proved the political staying perhaps consistent that that “code,” which them down.” The Independent censured finds its advocates on slave soil, should further, condemning “the demagogue press power and salience of the anti-dueling and Cutting for falling prey to “the overseers’ be called in to back up a measure which of Northern Abolitionism” for “railing anti-slavery arguments advanced by these last resort” of dueling, but was much was invented for the express purpose of out against southern ‘bullyism.’ Already anti-slavery newspapers.13 more critical of southerners by portraying extending slave territory. are the passions of the populace invoked The Cutting-Breckinridge conflict was them as intentionally oppressing northern against southern hauteur and violence.” The Cleveland Herald focused on the a product of its era, a part of nineteenth Congressmen through corruption or This extract from the Richmond Examiner southern custom of dueling as not simply century dueling culture and a result of violence. The column concluded that indicates that southerners understood that part of a plot to force the Kansas-Nebraska the increasingly sectionalized political “nothing can stop it [southern subjection of the northern opponents of slavery had bill through Congress, but also as thinly tensions that arose from debate over northerners] but the absolute overthrow of harnessed the Cutting-Breckinridge conflict veiled murder that was used to spread the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Yet it was the the political power of slavery,” suggesting in order to condemn the alleged prevalence slavery. Significantly, this expansion appropriation of the near-duel by the that northern political influence would of southern violence. The Daily Morning of slavery would ultimately lead to the northern anti-slavery press that proved increasingly diminish under the thumb News ffrom Savannah went furthest in augmentation of southern power—and more important than what had actually of a spreading slave power that used the its censure of the northern anti-slavery the perpetuation of the South’s violent occurred. Although Cutting, a northerner, violence of dueling as a means of asserting press, accusing “Greel[e]y, and his co- political oppression of the North. The offered the challenge, these newspapers its dominance. The New York Tribune laborers in the cause of abolitionism” of violent southern ritual of dueling was thus cast a national culture accepting of dueling continued this line of argumentation, “exhausting the English language in the portrayed by the northern anti-slavery as a product of southern slaveholding explaining that the Cutting-Breckinridge search of epithets with which to denounce press as a means by which slaveholders like society and blamed Breckinridge for the conflict “teaches to the northern Members its [the Kansas-Nebraska Act’s] friends; and Breckinridge could extend their “peculiar conflict as representative of the violence [of Congress] who rejoice in the title of their tools, instigated by their intemperate institution” and, accordingly, political of that southern culture. By portraying ‘Democratic’ is substantially this: Support language, are burning the effigies of Senator power—in this case, by passing the Kansas- dueling as a function of the violence- the Nebraska bill or submit to be bullied or Douglas.” This editorial connected the anti- Nebraska Act.12 prone southern slaveholding society, the shot.” Furthermore, the Tribune indicted slavery tenor of the Cutting-Breckinridge northern anti-slavery press was able to Breckinridge as the “sole author” of the When southern writers commented on conflict as a method of formulating an advance an argument against the spread duel and explained that it was part of “a the Cutting-Breckinridge conflict, they argument against the Kansas-Nebraska Act of slavery and the passage of the Kansas- well considered plan” to coerce “through did not address it specifically—instead, specifically and the extension of slavery Nebraska Act. The argument held enough intimidation and violence . . . every they criticized anti-slavery coverage of the generally. Interestingly, however, the paper political salience to be noted and deplored independent northern Democrat who dares near-duel, proving the political salience of cited the New York Weekly Herald and the by southern writers at the time. If the

12. “Congress,” The Independent . . . Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, 13. “The Cutting and Breckinridge Affair,” Mississippian and State Gazette, April 14, 1854; The Daily Register, April 8, Literature, and the Arts 6 Issue 278 (March 30, 1854): 104; “Cutting and Breckinridge,” New York Tribune, March 29, 1854; Richmond Examiner as quoted in “Messrs. Cutting and Breckinridge,” New York Daily Times, April 6, 1854; 1854; “Breckinridge and Cutting Duel,” The Daily Cleveland Herald, April 8, 1854. “The New York Press and the Sectionalism at Washington,” Daily Morning News, April 5, 1854. 40 41

Cutting-Breckinridge conflict can be understood as a microcosm of the reaction of the anti-slavery northern press to duels in general, then their arguments have held enough weight to persist to the present. Northern anti-slavery newspapers used the Cutting-Breckinridge affair to formulate a case against the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the extension of slavery at large by asserting unequivocally that dueling was representative of the violence apparently inherent to southern society. Thus the modern perception of nineteenth century dueling as a uniquely southern problem due to the endemic aggression of that region is an echo of these early anti- slavery arguments and a testament to the significance of contemporary political interpretation in determining historical perception.