|
Fued between prominent Salisburians settled without bloodshed
Lots of strange things have happened in Rowan County, but perhaps one of the strangest was the event that occurred after a feud between two prominent Salisbury citizens in 1833 was called off, as told by Dr. Archibald Henderson in a March 27, 1927, newspaper article.
Back during those years, if two people had a falling out, they were within their rights to fight it out to the death, with no opposition from the law.
It all came about when a quarrel arose over the misinterpretation of a muttered remark between David F. Caldwell and Charles Fisher. Caldwell challenged Fisher to a duel to uphold his honor.
Fisher asked Caldwell for the challenge in writing. Caldwell retired into the adjoining room and prepared the following challenge, which he delivered to Fisher himself.
Fisher accepted the challenge in writing:
“Sir, the challenge which you have this moment handed to me, I accept. My friend, Burton Craige, who will deliver this, is authorized to make the necessary arrangements.”
During the course of the morning, Craige received the following note from Caldwell:
“Sir: As my friend will not be here for several days, my friend, Dr. Mitchell, is authorized, in the meantime, to make the necessary arrangements as to the weapons to be used.”
The negotiations were interrupted for one week by the refusal of Fisher to deal with Mitchell. The following Monday, Craige received this note from Caldwell:
“Sir: This will be handed you by my friend, the Hon. Mr. Carson, who is fully authorized to make the necessary arrangements in the affair of honor now pending between Mr. Fisher and myself.”
After several other notes to each other came this from Craige:
“I now proceed in behalf of my principal to exercise the right which belongs to him, as the challenged party, of naming weapons, time and place.
“The weapons which he makes choice of are sabres, usually called broadswords, the blade not exceeding 33 inches in length, of common hilt and guard; the time is Wednesday, the 21st at 12 o’clock (noon) and the place is Mason’s Ferry, S.C.”
Carson later explained the choice of weapons:
“I am inclined to believe that it was the common sense, supported by a keen sense of humor of Burton Craige, Fisher’s political protege, friend and second, which prompted the choice of weapons.
“I have been told by a member of the Craige family that on one occasion, Burton Craige was challenged to a duel. He was 6 feet 6 inches tall and his adversary 5 feet 10 inches tall. Being the challenged party, Craige had the choice of time, place and weapons. Accordingly, he chose broadswords as the weapons and a spot in a stream that was 4 feet deep at that point. As this put his adversary 2 inches below the surface of the water, the duel was never fought.”
The original misunderstanding between Caldwell and Fisher arose from the misinterpretation of a muttered remark by the eccentric Caldwell, who was in the habit of thinking aloud. It seems highly likely that Fisher was averse to fighting a duel with Caldwell merely on political grounds. Far more deprecatory and excoriating charges than those of Caldwell against Fisher were common phrases of those days of violent and unbridled language.
Craige and Fisher doubtless knew that Caldwell would never fight with broadswords, since they would reduce the duel to a farce of heroic proportions, Caldwell knowing nothing whatever of the use of the broadsword. This remainder of the correspondence, as we shall now see, fully confirms this.
Another note from Caldwell’s second said:
“I cannot consent, as the friend of Mr. Caldwell, that he should meet Mr. Fisher with sabres; for in affairs of this kind, perfect equality should be observed, or the purposes of honor are not met. Knowing, therefore, as I do, and as most of those acquainted with D. F. Caldwell must know, that he is totally unskilled in the use of the sword, I must indulge the hope that your principal will be changed so as to place my friend on equal grounds.”
To this letter, Mr. Craig replied as follows:
“Sir, I have this moment read the note handed me by you, in which you, as the friend of Mr. Caldwell, object to the use of the sword, and requesting my principal to change his weapons.
“The rules of honor do not countenance a conditional challenge; the very character of the affair implies that the challenger is always ready to fight, at any time, at any place, and with any weapons, admissible in combats of this kind, while it is universally admitted that the party called out has the right of naming time, place and weapons.
“Mr. Caldwell’s challenge is a peremptory one; he, however, requested a few days to name his friend, a privilege he had no right to ask, but which Mr. Fisher in courtesy granted him.
“You object to the use of the sword because of its inequality. Mr. Fisher, in naming swords, had only exercised a clear right, which belongs to him as the challenged party, and is not required by any rules to assign a reason for the selection. I know, however, the reason to be to place himself on an equal footing with his opponent. Swords and pistols are the only weapons recognized by the rules of honor.
“In our country, of late years, other weapons have occasionally been resorted to but not generally acknowledged. This being the case, my principal was compelled to take pistols or swords. He never has practiced the shooting of pistols, and has not perhaps in 10 years had a dueling pistol in his hands; while on the other hand, it is understood Mr. Caldwell has been practicing the use of pistols for sometimes past; therefore, with pistols my principal will not stand on an equal footing with his adversary, while with swords, they will be on as equality, as it is presumed that neither of them is much skilled in the use of that weapon.
“But taking no exception to any practice, which Mr. Caldwell may, or may not have had, with any weapons, my principal, in selecting swords, has only exercised a right, which is universally admitted to belong to him, as the challenged party; and not expecting any objection, would be started to the exercise of this undoubted right, and presuming everything would be settled by his friend, and Mr. Caldwell’s. Mr. Fisher has left Salisbury for the place of meeting, where he will be at the time designated; and where I, also, as his friend, will be unless duly informed of Mr. Caldwell’s refusal to fight.
“I shall close this note, already too long, by requesting to know Mr. Caldwell’s determination upon this point: Will he (Mr. Caldwell) fight Mr. Fisher at the time and place, and with the weapons proposed?”
To this letter from Craige, with its amusing allusion to Mr. Caldwell’s diligent practice in the use of pistols, Mr. Carson replied:
“Your note, just handed me, has been read. To you I shall not attempt to answer the arguments it contains; but will take the responsibility, as the friend of Mr. Caldwell, to say positively, that he shall not meet Mr. Fisher with the weapons proposed. This I do, without Mr. Caldwell’s knowledge or consent, for reasons which I will give to Mr. Caldwell, and should it become necessary to the public, and will abide their decision.
“Our correspondence and this affair must here end.”
On receiving this letter, Mr. Craige informed Mr. Carson that it was not satisfactory, and that he must know whether Mr. Caldwell sanctioned this refusal to fight with the weapons designated. Mr. Carson said he would consult Mr. Caldwell, and that night gave Mr. Craige the following note:
“In accordance with your verbal request to know whether Mr. Caldwell sanctioned my course in the correspondence of today by which I have terminated the correspondence and the affair between him and Mr. Fisher, I had pursued, that he did sanction my course, and fully concurs with me in its propriety. I will add that in an affair of this kind the acts of the second are the acts of the principal.”
Thus ended the famous Caldwell-Fisher affair. Although there were no shots or sabre strokes on the field of honor, there were two long and loud parting shots on the part of the two seconds, addressed to their respective principals and published in the broadsides issued by Caldwell and Fisher respectively. It was a great paper duel, both Craige and Carson ably resuming the entire controversy and putting forth able arguments in behalf of Fisher and Caldwell respectively.
Fortunately no blood was shed.
But the thing that upset the whole affair came about later. The son of the one principal, the gallant Col. Charles F. Fisher, wooed and won the daughter of the other, Ruth Elizabeth Caldwell.
|
Today's News