The Barron/Decatur Letters, June 1819 to February by William H. White
0
n 22 March 1820, Commodore James Barron and Commodore Stephen Decatur met on the Bladensburg, Maryland, Dueling Grounds 1 to settle a personal grievance that had festered, at least in Barron's mind, for twelve years. While both men were wounded in the pistol exchange, Decatur's wound proved fatal and he died the next day. Barron recovered. What led up to this fateful meeting that took the life of one of America's foremost heroes of the Barbary Wars and the War of 1812? An exchange of letters between the two men, precipitated by James Barron, gives us some answers. Possibly out of a sense of justification, Barron had the letters published in a pamphlet within months after the duel. Thus, they remain for posterity, filled with venom and innuendo, personal slights and accusations, and might help explain the mindsets of these two men. Let us go back to June of 1807 where we find Commodore Barron aboard the US Frigate Chesapeake, bound for the Mediterranean, where he was to assume control of the squadron there. En route, USS Chesapeake was attacked by HMS Leopard seeking Royal Navy deserters. After a dreadfully lopsided engagement, Barron ordered his colors struck and surrendered his ship to the British; Captain Humphries, commander of the Royal Navy ship, refused to take Chesapeake as a prize; it would have been adjudged illegal as the United States and England were not at war. The British took four seamen from the American ship (three were returned later once it was determined that they were, in fact, native-born American citizens) and went on their way. Chesapeake limped back into Hampton Roads with three crewmembers dead and over twenty wounded, including Barron. Following a court of inquiry, the Secretary of the Navy assembled a court martial board made up of a group of US naval officers, several of whom were already well known and others who would go on to gain their fame in later years, including Stephen Decatur, John Rodgers, James Lawrence, William Bainbridge, and David Porter. At that time, Decatur requested that he be excused from this duty as he felt he was prejudiced against Barron; his request was refused based on the scarcity of captains available to serve. He also made clear his predisposition on the case to Barron's civilian attorney, to no avail. The court martial board found James Barron guilty of only one of the four charges brought against him and sentenced him to a five-year suspension from the Navy, a rather harsh punishment in the minds of many. When the War of 1812 began, just over four years later, many felt that Barron should return from Europe, where he had taken up residence for the term of his suspension, and help the cause. He did not. Following the war, he requested reinstatement to rank and position in the Navy. Decatur was, perhaps, the most vocal in his arguments against the reinstatement, and thus began a feud, which would end in bloodshed on 22 March 1820.
T
he correspondence began with a letter from James Barron dated 12 June 1819 from Hampton, Virginia:
Sir: I have been informed, in Norfolk, that you have said that you could insult me with impunity, or words to that effect. If you have said so, you will no doubt avow it, and I shall expect to hear from you. I am, sir, your obedient servant,
JAMES BARRON Five days later, Decatur replied, suggesting that Barron "should have given up the name of [his} informer," adding that the "frankness which ought to characterize {their} profession required it."
16
He then repudiated Barron's accusation with this:
Seemingly, this would end the correspondence and the m atter would drop. Not so!
I feel a thorough conviction that I never could have been guilty of so much egotism as to say that '1 could insult you" (or any other man) "with impunity."
Decatur responded on 29 June by telling Barron that he meant "no more than to disclaim the specific and particular expression to which your inquiry was directed, to wit: that I had said that I could insult you with impunity. "
Barron answered on 25 June that he could not trace the origin of the comment, save that the men who uttered the words were "not your enemies, nor actuated by any malicious motive." He concluded with:
Your declaration, if I understand it correcdy, relieves my mind from the apprehension that you had degraded my character, as I had been induced to allege.
It would seem that Decatur was not withdrawing the statement, merely the issue of making it "with impunity." He also added that the identity of the "several ge ntlemen" in Norfolk who so informed Barron was a matter of "perfect indifference to [him}, as is also your motives in making such an inquiry upon such information. "
SEA HISTORY 11 8, SPRING 2007