Let’s talk about gunfights. These are staple tropes of Western fiction and movies. In films, the bad guy must have a black hat, and the good guy needs to wear a white topper. Which, of course, was rubbish in the real world. But that is the trope.
What was the reality of gunfights? There were over 960 recorded gunfights between 1860 and 1900. There were more after 1900, and there were others before 1860. But I’m limiting my purpose to the forty years between 1860 and 1900. These are shootouts, not back shootings, long-distance killings, or out-and-out murders in which a gun was used. That doesn’t count battles in the Civil War or Indian engagements. It is two or more people engaging in gunplay with one another or one group with another.
First, let us understand the difference between a gunfight and a duel. Duels are eastern contrivances, which were used mostly in the southern states. A duel is a two-party event to settle disagreements, feuds, or insults suffered.
The most famous of the duels wasn’t in the South. The Hamilton-Burr duel was a fatal pistol duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, which took place on July 11, 1804, in Weehawken, New Jersey. Hamilton was fatally wounded, dying the next day, while Burr’s political career was severely damaged. The duel resulted from a long-standing political and personal rivalrythe two men's.
I do not rule out the possibility that a woman put the whole shebang in motion.
There are primarily three manners of duels — first, a bare-knuckle fight between the two parties. Second, crossed swords. That is a sword or saber fight. Occasionally, a knife is used rather than a sword. Third, single-shot firearms with the aptly named dueling pistols.
We will restrict our discussion to the third option to compare a gunfight to a duel. In a duel, the first thing that happened was an offended party striking the opponent across the cheek with a glove. Well, that’s used in writing and the film world. And to answer the obvious question, his hand is not in the glove when he slaps the man. If the glove strike happened, more often than not, it was a minor swish of the glove across the face. At that time, he demands satisfaction.
In the real world, the offended man’s second most often delivered a note.
One could refuse a challenge, and it did happen. Grounds for refusal, the incident in question was trifling, the offended person was not a gentleman, or the low social standing of the challenging party’s family. Should a person refuse a challenge, no matter his reason for refusal, he might be called a coward or even shunned by polite society for his “bad manners.” Good manners seemed to require you to kill the other fellow.
He could also issue an apology. However, when one issues a “challenge,” one can assume that a simple apology won’t do. “I’m sorry for having called your wife a toad-faced shrew,” wasn’t usually going stave off the duel.
The offending party, the man whose face has been slapped, is given the choice of weapons, consisting of swords or pistols. The choice of fisticuffs could be called. However, this choice was rare. I think this is because it wasn’t as polite to beat a person senseless as to stab them with a sword or shoot them with a gun.
In our example, the called-out wife-insulter chooses pistols at 10 paces, though some would choose 15 paces. I would pick 30 long steps myself. The further away, the better the odds of survival.
The offended party, that’s the husband of the “toad-faced shrew,” sets when and where. “Dawn at the Old Fork Road shall be our Field of Honor.” This location’s selection is the regular dueling place chosen for its isolation. Therefore, John Law didn’t stop them from settling their debt of honor because, by in large, dueling was illegal. It should be noted that dueling is still unlawful — unless you are using water pistols at five paces.
Now, one of the duties of the seconds is to talk sense into their friend. You know, so hey don’t get their fools' heads blown off their shoulders. Sometimes, it worked, and most times, it did not. The old way of dueling was to stand back to back, pace off the allotted steps, turn, and fire. This was accompanied by someone calling out the paces and then telling you to turn and fire. Each combatant has one shot and one shot only.
In the 19th century, this changed.
Sometime after 1800, the duel evolved. After the invention of the revolver, for a pistol duel, the two would typically start at a pre-agreed distance, which would be measured out by two seconds and marked, often with swords stuck into the ground. With revolvers now available, sometimes, the single-shot rule was abandoned.
At a given signal, let’s say the dropping of a handkerchief or the shout of “Ready, aim, fire,” our dueling dudes fire at will. Often closing the distance as they fired. This system diminished the likelihood of cheating, as neither principal had to trust the other not to turn too soon. Another method involved alternate shots being taken, beginning with the challenged firing first.
In England, a man named John Wilkes, “Who did not stand upon ceremony in these little affairs,” when asked by Lord Talbot how many times they were to fire, replied, “Just as often as your Lordship pleases. I have brought a bag of bullets and a flask of gunpowder.” His response seemed to end the affair before it began.
On the other hand, gunfighting was two or more men shooting at one another with the intent of killing the other person. Where dules were organized affairs, gunfights in the American West were rarely coordinated. One man didn’t, as a rule, stand on a street and call the other person out to do battle.
There are exceptions, such as James Butler ‘Wild Bill’ Hickok, who was in at least two gunfights of the called-out variety. I’d have to say calling out Wild Bill wasn’t the smartest way to start your day.
In one of his, called out, gunfights, he allowed the other combant to fire first. There was about 75 yards between the two men. The other man’s shot in the dirt five to six feet in front of Hickok. Wild Bill lifted his gun and took aim a bit above the man’s head. Squeeze off his shot and hit the man in the throat. After which, James Hickok retrieved his father’s pocket watch from the man’s vest pocket.
Hickok had used it as a maker, and the brigand refused to take money for it.
The most famous gunfight was “The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.” It can be debated what happened at the OK Corral (well near the Corral), who fired first, who caused it, and what the opponents’ motives were are all up for debate. You see, conflicting accounts persist even today, including Sheriff Behan’s many accounts of the event.
Behan wasn’t a participant in the fight. No, sir, he was off at a safe distance, recording his thoughts in five or six different notebooks.
With all that said, 960 is not a large number for 40 years. Most westerns, books, or movies have at least one gunfight. The gunfight, as portrayed in fiction, was rare. Shootouts had causes, real-world reasons, and they erupted in flashes, not with slow walks down the street and steelie-eyed men glowering at one another.
Someone tried to rob a bank, a stage, a store, or a train. Men attempted to rustle cattle, and the cowhands wanted to stop it from happening. Two men played cards. One thought the other cheated, tempers flared, guns were pulled, shots exchanged, and one or both died.
I can even buy a lost love as the cause of a gunfight.
The idea that two men would engage in a gunfight to find out if they could beat the other man has a ludicrous ring to it. I think I would have been okay with not knowing which of us was the fastest gun. Especially since if I was number two, I’d be a dead second best. Then again, I’m not John Wayne, and this isn’t the Chisum Trail. Oh, wait, I do live on or near the Chisum Trail.
Read my stories here at SOL, at Bookapy.com, or ZBookStore.com