Monday, April 4, 2016

Letters In the Matter of the Duel, September 4, 1765, in the village of Dumfries, Virginia - SCOTT, BAYLIS, and BULLITT


On September 2nd, John Scott wrote two letters, one to Colonel John Baylis, challenging him to the duel, and one to his brother-in-law, Cuthbert Bullitt. He asked his brother-in-law to be his “Second,” and to deliver the letter to John Baylis. He says it will do no good to try to change his mind.

Letter #1. Letter to Cuthbert Bullitt from Johnny Scott

“Dear Sir:  Enclosed I have sent you my letter to Baylis, which I have not sealed. If you have any material objection to it you must come up with my Father tonight and between us we will write another.  But I would not have it postponed any farther if it is possible to avoid it, because as I am resolved to fight, nothing shall hinder me.  I think we can’t come together too soon, therefore you must not let a trifling objection prevent your giving him the enclosed. Pray don’t talk to me any more about prudence, forbearance, and the consequences of what I have undertaken, for I am resolved to be deaf to all you can say.  And if you are so unkind as to refuse to attend me, rather than submit to such insults as Baylis has offered me, I will engage him in private and run the risk of his taking advantage of his strength.
    Your ever affectionate brother,   John Scott”



Letter #2: John Scott to Colonel John Baylis

   " Westwood, Monday September 2d, 1765

Sir:  Your scurrility to me the other day, when you so manfully drew your sword upon a naked man, I should have passed by as unworthy of my resentment, nor should I have paid at Tyler’s,
because I regard it as below the resentment of any gentleman.  But as soon as I heard that you had dared to cast aspersions on the character of my Father (whose sacred function would have protected him from any but a wretch dead to every sentiment of virtue and honor), I no longer hesitate to call you to that account which your repeated insults the best of men so loudly called for.  I shall therefore expect you next Wednesday morning at the back part of Quantico church, armed with pistols and attended by some gentleman, furnished with a pair of the same instruments. I think it necessary that we should each come accompanied by some gentleman in whose honor we can confide, not only as it may be serviceable to the survivor to produce proof that he killed his antagonist in an honorable way, but because the great disparity in our strength might lay me open to advantages which I have too much reason to think you would very readily make use of.  I therefore insist upon seconds, and I would have them be of reputation. You are at liberty to choose whom you please for your attendant, and I shall endeavor to get one to attend me to whom you can have not exception.
"Your humble servant,               John Scott"


Letter #3: Cuthbert Bullitt’s reply to John Scott

"Dear Sir:  I received yours. You request me not to dissuade you from your intentions. Did I not, from cool reflection, think they were better left alone, I would not.  The danger I shall say nothing of, tho’ much might be urged upon that head. Do you get anything by putting it in his power to take your life? Has he not an equal chance to prove fortunate? If so, the only thing you can gain is loss of life. If you kill him what great advantage do you get? You deprive a fellow creature of his life; you render his wife miserable; you ruin his innocent babes who have never injured you.  Think!  Oh think how heavy it will be on your conscience to have the curses of the widow and the orphan trending you to your grave. Sure to any man who is a Christian it will be a dreadful thought to take away the life of another deliberately and in cold blood. And what do you get by the victory? Nothing, believe me, dear Johnny. No man will think the better of you. If you kill Baylis, you must fly your country, give up your promising fortunes, and become an exile in a foreign land far from your friends and relations. What must I say to your father? What can I answer to your mother when, in the utmost distraction, she reproaches me with your death and asks her son at my hands. Dear Johnny, let me advise, let me entreat you to give over this rash enterprise. What you have yet done is unknown to every one but myself. No one will accuse you of want of courage, but all will of rashness. This one step will ever put it out of your power to pursue the vocation you are intended for. Let me know tomorrow what you intend. I shall not deliver yours until I receive an answer to this. If nothing can divert your purpose you must bring powder and bullets for the pistols you have with you. I shall only add that the consequences of the duel, that is Baylis’ or your death, will be as fail to me as to you. We shall both by the law forfeit our lives; this I do not mention by way of excuse. I shall wait your answer tomorrow impatiently.
"I am dear Johnny, your attached   “C Bullitt”


NOTE: Letters and a newspaper article from the newspaper of the day (probably the Virginia Gazette) were saved by John Scott’s family and given to Horace E. Hayden for his history of the Scott family.
See VIRGINIA GENEALOGIES by Horace E. Hayden pp 605 - 607.

3 comments:

  1. It is a fascinating story which I am familiar with, as Col. John Baylis was my 6th ggf. Apparently both Baylis and Scott (whose sister had married Col. Cuthbert Bullitt) had exchanged insults by taking out ads in the local paper, calling one another "cowards" and "a bully". In a letter from Bullitt to Scott, Bullitt tried to calm his brother in law by saying that Baylis still used the old pistols and were quite inaccurate. Turns out, they were. Baylis' first shot misfired and Bullit, a gentleman, did not fire. (Bullitt was acting as Scott's second and happened to get into an argument with Baylis and therefore, Bullitt became the other party to the duel). Baylis was first to fire at the next attempt, and once again missed. Bullitt fired and did not miss, striking Baylis near the groin. He died 5 hours later on Sep 4, 1765. One of Baylis' daughters, Elizabeth Baylis married John Grigsby (my 5th ggf) who was born in Prince Wm. and lived as an adult in adjacent Fauquier Co. Va. A cousin of John Grigsby married a Bullitt of the same Cuthbert Bullitt family line. One of his daughters married the grandson of Col. Henry Peyton who defaulted on a mortgage held by Cuthbert Bullitt for approx. 1,000 acres in Fauquier Co. Bullit then sold it to the same John Scott, his brother in law. It might be of note that Col. Baylis was also in an argument with a friend of John Scott who was a Blackburn, a close relative of Baylis' wife, Jane Blackburn of Ripon Lodge. Baylis did not duel Blackburn but not before he got a jab in basically saying that Blackburn didn't have the constitution for such manly affairs. I have read other accounts as why the argument began between Scott and Baylis and it has been said that a 7 year old slave had died possibly at the hands of John Scott's mother and it was Baylis (who was the Sheriff of Prince Wm. at the time) who investigated and wanted to press for murder charges and that it was this that eventually led to the duel. I have no documented proof of this, only what was printed in some earlier article on the duel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesse Russell, of Clarke Co VA. Great to hear from you. Sorry it's been months since you wrote. I have heard the story of the dead slave child, and have sought verification of that story. I also suggest that the young boy Johnny Scott (1747-1782) was incensed because the townspeople were mocking his father as a preacher. Perhaps both his mother and father were being called names, but only the father's story made the newspapers of the time. Rev. James Scott (1715-1782) was a Tory throughout his life. John Scott, expelled from the colony of VA for life, was sent to Scotland, and came back an ordained minister & serve as private minister to the Governor of Maryland. Rev. John Scott (1747-1782) was a Tory, and was tremendously unpopular in Maryland political circles. With the death of ??? governor, he lost his protection and was expelled from Maryland. He was permitted limited access to his seat in Virginia, but he died shortly after. His brother Gustavus (1753-1800) who is my husband's direct ancestor - 5th ggf. - was not a Tory, but his reputation with some politicos was clouded because of his father and brother. Nevertheless, he achieved status as a Maryland legislator and was named a Patriot Ancestor, among many accolades.
      That you are "in country" makes your research much more convincing. I am on the West Coast. In 1910, my husband's grandfather cut ties with his Philadelphia/New York family (left Virginia in the 19th C.). When I CUT, I mean that no one in the family knew about any of the family history until I began research in 1990. Thank you for your note. I enjoyed reading it and I will add it to my files. Pat Murray Scott

      Delete
    2. Hello Sunny - I had no idea that my information on Baylis would be online, but I am glad that it is. One of the best and most thorough accounts of duel was in letters and ads that both Baylis and Scott took out in the local paper which can be found in the book, "A Genealogy of the Glassell Family of Scotland and Virginia". In this book they give great detail leading up to the duel and then the duel itself.
      What I hadn't known until recently is what had sparked this argument between Baylis and both Scott and Blackburn. I would need to go back and find the woman's name, which was either Blackburn or Scott who had been charged with killing her enslaved man by clubbing him with a fire log. She had stated that the enslaved man was sleeping on the job and she just meant to wake him up and teach him a lesson. (A Frederick Co. Va. historical group has the entire story). Baylis, was at the time, a justice in Prince Wm. and was one of the justices to hear the case. She was found not guilty of the murder of her enslaved man but Baylis never believed her story and the friction between Baylis and both Blackburn and Scott intensified which eventually led to the duel. So what you heard about the death of the enslaved person appears to have been the truth.
      In a twist of ironic fate, Baylis owned approximately 1,500 acres in Fauquier Co. which had been formed from Prince William in 1758-59. He had to default on the loan on this land which Col.Bullitt held the note. Bullitt later sold the land to Scott's brother after James Scott returned to Va. after having fled to Scotland where he attended the Univ. of Edinburg and received a degree in theology.
      As for John Grigsby and Elizabeth Baylis, they had 3 children who married 3 siblings of the Flowerree family. John Grigsby named one of his sons, Baylis Grigsby b. abt. 1775 who married Frances Peyton, a granddaughter of Col. Henry Peyton of Va. One of John Grigsby's grandsons was Col.Charles Conway Grigsby b. 1842 in Fauquier Co. Va. He moved with his parents to MO and then returned to Virginia to attend VMI. When the war broke out he joined the CSA and rose from Lt. to Col. in blinding speed. He was the youngest man in either army to become a colonel. He was 19 years old, still about 4 months shy of his 20th birthday. He died an old man in Vicksburg, MS where he became quite wealthy and named his home "Flowerree" which is owned today by the Historical society of Vicksburg. Another grandson of John Grigsby was Col. Lewis Braxton Grigsby who fought for the Union in a KY regiment.
      I'll go back over my records and try to provide more detail on the "accidental" killing of the enslaved boy.
      Jesse Russell

      Delete