乐播传媒

In April 1804, a newspaper published a scandalous letter alleging that Alexander Hamilton had publicly called Aaron Burr 鈥渁 dangerous man,鈥� even 鈥渄espicable.鈥�

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鈥檚 political career moribund.

Even before the musical Hamilton 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. 

Now we have an idea why: pistol duels served a purpose in the antebellum South.

That’s a theory, plus startling facts, , 鈥淟ethality and Deterrence in Affairs of Honor: The Case of the Antebellum South,鈥� in the journal Rationality and Society. 

Shea鈥檚 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.聽

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 鈥�26 of Montreal as a research assistant. 鈥淪he scoured old newspapers to create a database on 18th century duels,鈥� says Shea.

So let鈥檚 get to the questions. First, why did duels remain popular in the U.S. South even as they faded in the North?

It鈥檚 easy to look back and call the duels barbaric and/or just plain stupid. But here, hindsight isn鈥檛 20-20. Dueling had persisted for thousands of thousands of years in different societies. 鈥淵ou 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,鈥� Shea said.

The antebellum South 鈥渄id not have well-developed legal institutions,鈥� explains Shea, 鈥渟o you need something to settle public disputes鈥� related to slander, libel, or other public transgressions. 鈥淒uels were a way to mitigate bad behavior, albeit violently.鈥�

In fact, says Shea, 鈥渢he 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 鈥� even if it’s a low risk 鈥� 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.鈥�

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.

That鈥檚 because participants mostly used antiquated and inaccurate weapons. 鈥淒ueling pistols were fancy but really ceremonial,鈥� 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.

 

This is where game theory comes into play. The pistols鈥� inaccuracy helped make the 鈥済ame鈥� of dueling worth engaging in. 鈥淚f 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,鈥� explains Shea. 鈥淚f these weapons are so bad that they’re essentially random, then it levels the playing field鈥� making a duel a reasonable option to solve a dispute.

On the other hand, the authors note that there had to be some threat to life and limb for duels to serve their social purpose. 鈥淭he deterrent effect of dueling depended on the probability of death being neither too high nor too low,鈥� the authors write. 鈥淲ere dueling too safe, the institution鈥檚 public acceptance 鈥� and thus its usefulness 鈥� may have diminished.鈥�

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.

who, more often than not, were teetering on the cusp of a brawl.鈥� In 1826, Randolph called Clay a 鈥渂lackleg,鈥� a card cheat. A duel was arranged for April 8, 1826, on the Virginia side of the . Here鈥檚 a play-by-play of the five shots.

• Shot 1, by Randolph: A misfire even before the duel even starts. 
• Shots 2 and 3: Clay and Randolph both miss.
• Shot 4 and 5: Clay鈥檚 shot puts a hole through Randolph鈥檚 coat. Then, Randolph points his pistol skyward and fires, ending the duel. The disputants shake hands, and Randolph quips to Clay, 鈥淵ou owe me a coat.鈥�

Shea and his coauthors came up with the idea of looking into antebellum pistol duels聽years ago when they were all on the faculty at the University of Kentucky.聽

Chatting on the way to lunch one day, Shea remarked his wife, who is a lawyer, had to pledge that she had never engaged in a pistol duel in order to be admitted to the Kentucky bar. 鈥淲ell of course, this was a huge problem because my wife has pistol duels all the time,鈥� Shea said with a laugh. 鈥淲e were all Northerners, so it struck us as absolutely bizarre.鈥�

Like so many other scholarly investigations, their research began with a simple question, 鈥淲hat’s up with this?鈥� As they dug deeper, 鈥渨e realized there was relatively little on duels and what was out there was pretty poor. And so we decided that there was actually a paper here. And so it was half fun, but then it got serious.鈥�

Shea鈥檚 field is macroeconomics, and his recent papers include 鈥淗ousing, Endogenous Growth, and Household Leverage鈥� in Macroeconomic Dynamics, which looks at the interplay between household borrowing, access to credit, and economic growth.

So a paper about 19th-century pistol duels might seem off the mark (so to speak), in terms of Shea鈥檚 overall scholarship, but it鈥檚 an example of how academics from different disciplines (coauthor Ahn is an empirical micro economist, and Sandford has game-theory expertise) can do collaborative research. 

It鈥檚 also a reasonable example of what economics is all about.

鈥淔undamentally, economics is a study of human behavior using certain tools. You can be tempted to say, 鈥榃ell, that was stupid. Why are people doing that?鈥� Yes, maybe individuals do stupid things. Yes, maybe societies do stupid things too. But economics tells us that there鈥檚 usually some rationale.鈥�