Dueling in the Southern United States

Duelling was common practice in the U.S. South from the seventeenth to the end of the nineteenth century. Although the duelling largely disappeared in the early nineteenth century in the North, it remained a common practice in the U.S. South (as well as the West) until the end of the century. Dueling was more common in the South where the concept of honor carried larger importance in both an ideological and pecuniary sense. The markets and governance of the South were not as institutionalized during the 19th century compared to the North. Thus, duels presented an easy way of settling disputes outside of courts. Although many duels were fought to settle disputes over limited tangible resources, many more were over intangible ones.

The act of duelling was often condemned by public figures throughout U.S. history and seen as unnecessarily violent and instigated by trivial matters. Contrary to the perception that the act of duelling occurred at the “drop of a hat,” there were real economic forces that drove people to challenge or accept duels. However, the concept of “defending one’s honor” was not quite as abstract and idealistic as often imagined – losing “honor” often had pecuniary disadvantages that made defending one’s honor a rational decision, even at risk of being physically harmed or even killed. One could make the case that duelling to protect one’s credit or honor was a response to the underdeveloped credit markets of this location and time period.

In the U.S. South, a largely agricultural society in which production circles were longer-term than those of their manufacturing-oriented northern counterparts, plantation owners were often highly leveraged and heavily dependent on personal credit to carry them through to the harvesting and sale of their goods. The assets of plantation owners were largely illiquid, their estates largely holding value in the form of real estate and slaves. Thus, preserving personal credit was highly important to the livelihoods of plantation owners.

Given that the credit markets were rather opaque until the early 20th century in the South – lenders could not readily view an applicant’s financial statements, being perceived as “honorable” was almost essential to being approved for loans. Given that transaction costs were very high during this period, perceived personal integrity or character was important to being seen as likely to honor one’s contracts and debts. Thus, the word “honor” was almost culturally synonymous with “creditworthiness.” The long-term economic penalties for having one’s reputation ruined included limited access to loanable funds and diminished political influence.

Lending institutions did not punish its debtors for participating in duels. A plantation owner could risk a devaluation of his or her assets from turning down a duel with the loss of his honor, which would hurt the lender as well. In the case that a debtor accepted a challenge in a duel and lost, the lender could expect an honorable man to honor his debts posthumously by paying back the owed amount with interest as the debtor’s estate was slowly liquidated.

Duelling in the U.S. virtually disappeared by the turn of the century with the emergence modern banking institutions and commercialized lending in the South, characterized by more transparency and lower transaction costs. The larger commercialized financial institutions that slowly took market share in the South took a faster, more impersonal approach to screening that placed less importance on personal character and increasing profits.