The New York Courier has the following dispatch:
“WASHINGTON, THURSDAY NIGHT.
Mr. Brooks, by Mr. Lane of Oregon, sent
today a note to Gen. Wilson, demanding that Gen. Wilson should either retract
the words “murderous, brutal, and cowardly,” used by him in characterizing Mr.
Brooks’ assault on Mr. Sumner, or indicate where he would receive a hostile message
from Mr. Brooks. Gen. Wilson, in answer refused to retract or qualify his
words, declined receiving a challenge, but said he would defend himself from personal
violence. For some hours after this correspondence had passed, a street fight
was expected, as General Wilson was well armed, and was surrounded by armed
friends.—Mr. Brooks left for Cincinnati this afternoon, and General Wilson will
go North tomorrow. General Wilson proposes to address a Republican meeting at
Newburgh on Saturday night.”
General Webb adds
the following telegraphic item:
“General Wilson’s
refusal to fight Mr. Brooks, on the ground that dueling is contrary to the laws
of God and man, is approved, but there are those who condemn him for inviting
the challenge, while entertaining such sentiments, and think he has lost ground
by the affair, and that Mr. Brooks has benefitted in the same ration. There
will be no more bullying and blustering, and the peace will not be disturbed by
the principals or the friends.”
We are not advised by whom Wilson’s refusal to fight is
approved, and it is rather unintelligible, on connexion with what follows, that
he had lost ground for refusing a challenge after having defied it. We suppose
the meaning of it to be that Wilson was unwilling to engage in a fair fight, but was not adverse to a
row, surrounded by armed friends, in which he might hope for some undue
advantage. Whatever be the fact, we are not surprised to hear that even his own
section is ashamed of him. Wherever English blood flows, and the English
language is spoken, a man who acts the bully, or indulges in personal abuse of
others, must suffer in public estimation, if, when called on for honorable
satisfaction, he refuses to accord it. It is proper it should be so. It is the
right of society to make those suffer
who outrage the recognized laws of good breeding. We may say what we will of
the absurdity and immorality of dueling, and of its ineffectiveness as a mode
of personal redress; but, as human nature is constituted, there is no alternative,
except street fights, or secret associations, or a disgraceful system of vilification
and calumny, attended by slander suits. Poisoning, or some other secret mode of
murder, was the system in earlier times, and continued to a quite late day in
Italy. The duello superseded it among all the chivalrous nations of modern
times, and wherever the “code of honor” has been established, it has
maintained, speaking generally, a high and courteous bearing between man and
man. Many individuals may have lost their lives by it; but society reaped the benefit. This was the mode of adjusting private
wrongs, which prevailed throughout our Republic in its earlier days. It then
knew no North or South—it bore sway everywhere. But in later times, a great
change has taken place. Mercantile caution, purantic hypocrisy and the spirit
of knavish attorneys at the North, have combined to ignore this mode of
adjustment, and substituted slander suits. Our intercourse with the North as
affected us some what, and, under its influence, we have enacted anti-duelling
laws; though popular opinion continues to damn a man if he does not fight, and
then doubly damns him if he does. Society,
however, still exacts its dues here, and insists that those who outrage its prerogatives
shall pay the penalty of their crimes, and from Gen. Webb’s despatch it appears
that they cannot escape altogether undamaged even at the North.
SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig,
Richmond Virginia, Monday Morning, June 2, 1856, p. 2