What started as an argument over a horse race ended in the death of Charles Dickinson, the only fatality in the 103 fights/duels. Jackson literally picked a quarrel with Dickinson. He arrived at the dueling ground in a voluminous dressing gown which hid the lines of his body making him a difficult shot. Determined to kill his opponent, Jackson stated that he would allow Dickinson, the better marksman, to take the first shot. Then he would take careful aim and shoot Dickinson even "if he had shot me through the brain". Dickinson did shoot him, seriously and in the chest. Although blood dripped on his shoe, Jackson claimed he was only pinked. Jackson then calmly aimed and fired. The pistol stopped at half-cock! According to the code, the circumstances required a complete second round. Jackson did not stand on this formality; he simply aimed and fired again immediately. Dickinson was fatally wounded and, according to the rules, murdered! It was a stain not removed from Jackson's reputation until the Battle of New Orleans. The chest wound never healed properly and was considered to be contributory to his death nearly forty years later.
The second incident, in 1813, was an altercation between Jackson and the brothers Thomas Hart and Jesse Benton, but the cause was a duel in which Jackson acted as second to a man who shot Jesse Benton in the rear end. What started as a laughing matter went sour and led to a running gun battle in the lobby of a Nashville hotel. During what can only be called a brawl, several people joined the engagement, and Jackson was shot in the shoulder. He carried the bullet to his grave.
The eight year term of Jackson's presidency was considered the heyday of dueling in Washington and America. When Jonathan Cilley came to the capitol only a few years later, dueling was still very common.

The Congressman from Maine
At age 35 in 1838, the year of his death, Jonathan Cilley was a young man just hitting his stride. The grandson of a Revolutionary War general and brother of a hero of the War of 1812, Cilley was born in Epping, NH in 1802. He came to Maine to study at Bowdoin College and graduated with the famous class of 1825. Of the 38 graduates, Nathaniel Hawthorne and Longfellow are the most famous today, but the others were well known in their time as politicians, authors, doctors, lawyers, clergymen and businessmen.

Cilley was a good student, graduated near the top of his class and demonstrated a keen interest in politics. He was a popular leader with a practical mind and a natural orator. Hawthorne wrote glowing praise of his friend in a sketch that was widely circulated at the time of Cilley's death. He went on at length, "In few words, let us characterize him at the outset of life as a young man of quick and powerful intellect, endowed with sagacity and tact, yet frank and free in his mode of action, ambitious of good influence, earnest, active, and persevering, with an elasticity and cheerful strength of mind which made difficulties easy, and the struggle with them a pleasure". He had that charisma that marks a successful politician. His folksy charm made him a natural with his future constituents at all levels of society. Hawthorne hinted at "harsher and sterner traits" in an iron framework that would rise to the surface later in Cilley's life.
After graduation from Bowdoin, Cilley moved to Thomaston where he clerked in the law offices of John Ruggles, a powerful Democrat. Cilley's star rose quickly. He soon established his own law office, married Deborah Prince, the daughter of a wealthy businessman, and he even edited the local newspaper. In 1832, Cilley, by then well known in Thomaston, was a prime candidate for political office, following his old mentor, Ruggles, to Augusta. Ruggles moved on to a judgeship. The two men soon fell out, leaving Cilley to wend his was through state politics not only without the guidance of the older man but also with his animosity. They wrangled their way through state politics for the next five years.

Eventually, Ruggles moved on to the U.S. Senate but his friends kept the pressure on Cilley. At one point Cilley was accused of perjury by the Argus, sued the paper for slander and won. In 1835, he was banned from the Democratic caucuses and an attempt was made to expel him from the party. Cilley was a popular man with a great deal of support among the younger politicians. Instead of being sent packing, Cilley rallied his support and ended up as Speaker of the Maine House. Despite opposition from the Whigs and from the Ruggles faction of his own party, he made an easy step into the U.S. House of Representatives in 1836.
Although Hawthorne described Cilley as a fair man and not one to hold a grudge, it is more than apparent that he loved the sport of politics. As a young Turk, Cilley cut a swath about Washington. He had that popularity with the common man that became so important in politics during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. He was not only a Democrat and a man of the people, but also a professional and savvy politician to the core. It was evident when Cilley first entered the House of Representatives that he was not likely to give way or buckle under bullying from opposing forces. The threat of a challenge, the stigma of lacking courage, silenced many men or made them pick their arguments carefully. Not Cilley!

The Challenge
A confrontation was inevitable. It arose over a charge of influence peddling by a member of Congress. Matthew L. Davis of the New York newspaper, the Courier and Enquirer, reported the story in his column writing, "Things do not go here by merit but by pulling strings; make it my interest and I will pull the strings for you." Davis did not name the perpetrator who spoke these words. His editor, Colonel James Watson Webb, called for an immediate investigation and was supported on February 12, 1838 by Rep. Henry Wise, a Virginia Whig, on the floor of the House. Cilley jumped right in saying it was inappropriate for such an investigation to be launched based solely on nonspecific charges made in the press. Hearsay. Perhaps events would have transpired differently if Cilley did not continue his argument with an attack on Webb. Specifically Cilley said Webb had opposed the National Bank during the Jackson administration's bank crisis but later switched sides to line his pockets with loans from the same bank. Therefore, Cilley doubted Webb's reliability in this situation. These were fighting words!

Interestingly enough the unnamed Congressman turned out to be Senator John Ruggles, Cilley's old mentor and enemy. The charges, later investigated, proved to be a misinterpretation of events involving an unfiled patent. Ruggles never received money for some legal work he did involving the patent and was exonerated.
The situation festered for eight days until Webb arrived in Washington for a dinner hosted by the notable Whig Daniel Webster and attended by many high ranking Whigs including Henry Clay. Col. Webb was a well known bully who beat up rival editors on the streets. Dueling had already cost him his military career. Webb was bent on obtaining satisfaction.The dinner provided him with a venue and opportunity to press his attack. At first he could not find anyone to carry his challenge, but then William Jordan Graves, a Whig and junior representative from Kentucky, consented to carry the challenge to Cilley. Graves was the junior Congressmen to Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser but certainly no stranger to the backrooms of partisan politics. The Webb affair provided an opportunity for Whigs to embarrass the opposition. Whatever his connection or feelings on the events, Graves must have felt compelled by his superior to act as messenger boy.
The note Graves carried demanded an explanation of Cilley's comments on Webb made on the floor of the House on the 12th. Cilley refused to take the note when he was apprised of its contents. An account in the Courier gives a Whig slant to the event by saying that Cilley "threw it (the note) somewhat contemptuously into the hat of Mr. Graves". Graves became agitated and said, "If you do not receive this note from Mr. Webb, you will place me in an unpleasant predicament, and compel me to tender one from myself". After some consultation with his friends (notably Henry Clay) Graves demanded Cilley provide assurances in writing that he did not base his decision to refuse Webb's note because of any objections to Webb as a gentleman.

Cilley, of course, refused to write any such thing. He had already said on the floor of the House of Representatives that Webb was no gentleman. Any such written assertion now would mean he had capitulated to the Whigs. He couched his reply as follows: "I have determined not to receive the note of Colonel Webb, because I will not hold myself responsible to any conductor of a public press for words spoken in debate on this floor." This skirted making a statement on Webb's honor either way and cut to the quick of the problem as far as Cilley was concerned. He would not bow to an attempt by the media to influence or control what an elected official said while conducting his duties. He would not be bullied or silenced by threats.
On the morning of February 23rd, Graves sent Wise, the Whig who had called for the original investigation in the House, to Cilley's lodgings with his own challenge. Henry Clay himself had written this new challenge which Graves carefully copied over. Wise kept the original written in Clay's own hand. The challenge stated that Cilley had insulted Graves honor by implying that Graves had served the purposes of a dishonorable man. Cilley felt this new challenge was absurd but accepted rather than disgrace himself with "humiliating concessions".

Cilley was no fool, he knew the reasoning and the players behind the challenge. A "shadowy pretext", as Hawthorne described it in his biographical sketch of his college friend, in which party politics "overstepped the imaginery distinction which ... seperates manslaughter from murder". Cilley stated to Colonel Schaumbourg, who acted as his "friend" in the subsequent duel, "I see into this whole affair. Webb has come on here to challenge me because he, and perhaps others, think that, as I am from New England, I am to be bluffed, and Mr. Webb will proclaim himself a brave man, having obtained an acknowledgment on my part that he is a gentleman and a man of honor. But they have calculated without their host. Although I know that the sentiment of New England is opposed to dueling, I am sure that my people will be better pleased if I stand the test than disgrace myself by humiliating concessions. Sir, the name I bear will never permit me to cower beneath the frown of mortal man. It is an attempt to browbeat us, and because they think that (and they think that because) I am from the East I will tamely submit." It was a partisan attempt in a time in which partisanship was drawn up on regional lines to force the opponent to make an embarrassing retraction that could be used in the future to further discredit and intimidate him. In the game of politics, Cilley could not, would not, allow this to happen.

By terms of the Code, Cilley was to choose the weapons. His choice- rifles at 80 yards - because he said, "I expect the Kentuckian would prefer pistols, therefore I demand rifles that I may be on an equality." Wise claimed later to have opposed the use of rifles but was over ruled by Clay who said, " He (Webb) is a Kentuckian and can never back from a rifle." Both Graves and Wise were experienced duelists, but Whigs later claimed that Cilley was the more experienced rifleman. Cilley had never before fought a duel.

So, was Cilley as hot blooded as his various challengers, or was he a man who would not buckle under to intimidation and who was maneuvered into an untimely and barbaric death? Certainly Cilley did not have to fight. Many prominent men refused and were not thought of poorly. General Winfield Scott was once challenged by General Andrew Jackson and refused. He told Jackson to console himself with a few epithets, like coward, and wait until the next war to see if they were true. Congressman John Randolph of Virginia was challenged in 1807 by General James Wilkinson and insulted the General's honor by refusing to fight. Wilkinson was infuriated and "posted" notices around Washington declaring Randolph to be "a prevaricating, base, calumniating scoundrel, poltroon and coward". Randolph was not concerned. In the eyes of Randolph and many Americans, Wilkinson had no honor to be insulted because he was heavily implicated as an accomplice in Aaron Burr's treason trial.
If Cilley was truly cornered and could not avoid accepting a challenge, he might still have controlled the situation by his choice of weapons. Abraham Lincoln suggested cow dung as the appropriate choice of weapons between himself and another lawyer. An ex-whaler captain named S.M.Harvey was challenged by a Creole gentleman in New Orleans after Harvey blackened his eye during a card game. Harvey told the man's second that his choice of weapons was whale harpoons at twenty paces. Harvey demonstrated the use of the harpoon by splintering a tree in his backyard. The challenge was quickly dropped. Of course, choosing a weapon with a cultural advantage is the sort of thing that can backfire. Fish chum at twenty paces is one thing; peaveys on rolling logs in a surging river might not be as easy.

The Duel:
Having met at the Anacostia Bridge sometime between 1:30 and 2:30 pm on the 24th of February 1838, the two dueling parties proceeded to Bladensberg, MD. Located just across the District's border, Bladensberg achieved a certain notoriety. Dueling was outlawed in the District of Columbia but not in Maryland; Bladensberg was just a short distance to the northeast. More than fifty duels were said to have been fought there in the first half of the 19th century. Enough blood was shed to name the local stream 'Blood Run'. Naval hero Stephen Decatur and Francis Scott Key's son Daniel both lost their lives on the field at Bladensburg. The Cilley-Graves duel was to become equally infamous. Proponents of the occult claim that the grounds at Bladensberg are haunted by the ghosts of duelists.
The two duelists were attended by their seconds, General George Jones and Henry Wise. Cilley was also assisted by Rep. Jesse Bynum (NC), Senator and surgeon Alexander Duncan (OH), and dragoon Col. H. W. Shaumbourg. Graves was attended by Dr. J.M. Folz. Congressmen John C. Calhoun and Richard Menifee*(KY). were either part of Graves party or they were unofficial guests who observed the duel from a distance. The two hack drivers, the owner of the land and another unknown person were the only other observers.
Henry Clay was conspicuously absent. By some accounts, he spent the day at home just sick over the situation. By others, he and John J. Crittenden set out from Washington to stop the duel. Mrs. Graves sent out the marshal of the District of Columbia to stop the duel. Col. Webb searched Washington for the duelists all the while proclaiming he and not Graves should fight Cilley. He wanted to shoot Cilley "on the spot" if found. This would have lent a modicum of sense to the nonsensical situation as Webb was the one Cilley insulted. In the end, none of these men found the location of the duel despite that site's notoriety.
Upon arrival at the field, the seconds worked out a few points of propriety. Wise brought two rifles with him to the field. One was returned, unloaded, to the waiting carriage. The seconds marked out the snowy ground. Wise won the choice of position and chose to place his man against the tree line. This put Cilley at a disadvantage facing into the wind in the open field. Shortly after three o'clock, the two seconds oversaw the loading of the rifles, and Jones carefully instructed the principals on the terms of engagement. The principals then took up their positions with the seconds and other observers arranged along the line of fire. Because Wise won the choice of position, Jones gave the word to fire. Cilley's gun discharged into the ground either on purpose or by accident. Guns used in duels were frequently refined to have hair triggers. Graves aimed carefully but missed.
The seconds met to mediate the situation. Jones asked Wise if Graves was satisfied. The two men argued points of procedure. Wise felt that Graves honor could be restored if Cilley would provide some explanation and disclaimer as to why Cilley refused to accept Col.Webb's letter from Wise's hand. He wanted the explanation in writing but would settle for a verbal explanation first. The verbal exchange proved to be a problem. Jones claimed he clearly stated that Cilley meant no disrespect to Graves but refused Webb's letter because he chose not to be drawn into a controversy with Webb. Graves was not part of the issue. Wise couched the explanation somewhat differently. He said the explanation was that Cilley in declining "to receive the note from Mr. Graves, purporting to be from Colonel Webb, ... meant no disrespect to Mr. Graves, because he entertained for him then, as he does now, the highest respect and most kind feelings; but (he) refused to disclaim disrespect for Colonel Webb, because he does not choose to be drawn into an expression of an opinion of him". The Wise explanation makes quite different inferences.
After much conversation between all parties, Mr. Graves expressed that his honor was not restored, and a second round was required. This time the shots were reversed. Graves fired into the ground, and Cilley missed - but just barely.
The seconds again came together for a discussion that was not much different from that held after the first round. Jones said two rounds was enough to render satisfaction to Mr. Graves. Wise's explanation led more to the crux of the matter. - Col.. Webb. After all, Mr. Graves, a man of honor, would not carry the letter of a man who was not also a gentleman and man of honor. Cilley refused to hold himself accountable for words said about Webb in the House debate; plainly spoken he would not declare Webb to be an honorable man. Graves told Wise, "I must have one more shot!" Cilley said to Bynum, "They must thirst mightily for my blood."
The rifles were reloaded for a third round. As the seconds discussed the possibility of shortening the distance in subsequent rounds, the duelists fired. Graves was again spared; Cilley was hit. His femoral artery was severed, and he quickly bled to death. At Wise's inquiry, Jones replied, "My friend is dead, sir!"

* Many of the 'friends' were experienced duelists. Just before the Mexican War, the Menifee's of Kentucky became embroiled in a dueling fiasco in Vicksburg with a Col.. Alexander Keith McClung (aka the Black Knight). McClung shot his first Menifee at 60 yards with a Mississippi rifle before a large betting crowd. Six other revenge-seeking Mennifee's followed the first to the grave in separate duels. McClung ended his own life sometime later with a dueling pistol. Research has not ascertained that this is the same Mennefee family as Richard Menifee of Graves' dueling party.
Henry A. Wise also came from a dueling family. In the years just before and after the Graves -Cilley affair, Wise himself was a principal in duels with two southern Congressmen. In 1859, his son O. Jennings Wise exchanged two unsuccessful rounds with the son of Patrick Henry. In 1881, a nephew, Peyton Wise engaged in a duel with Judge L.L.Lewis that caused such animosity among his friends that two, Henry Wise's son John and another man later exchanged three rounds. The same John S. Wise later fought another duel with a John S. Crockett. It is interesting to note that all but one of these duels occurred after dueling was supposedly outlawed, and the balance took place forty years or more later!

A Martyr's Funeral
But Cilley's death is not the end of the story. Public outcry was immediate. The Washington correspondent for the New York Evening Post wrote of his visit to Cilley's Washington house in the evening after the duel as a "horrid and harrowing spectacle. Lying on the floor wrapped in a blanket smeared with his blood, lay the ghastly corpse of Jonathan Cilley". The reporter further editorialized by calling Cilley's death "a cold blooded and deliberate murder" saying that the Mainer "has fallen a victim to a false and bloody code in a wretched quarrel". The Post was also quick to point a finger at Col. Webb, the editor of the rival New York Courier and Enquirer, calling him "a contemptible person". This was just the beginning, nationally, of what became a furor of debate and condemnation about this duel and about dueling in general.
In Maine, The Argus headline read "Murder Most Foul". The article was quick to point out that the event was clearly based on a policy "that those who can't be intimidated must be silenced". The Argus article also highlighted a geographically sectarian attitude that was pervasive in the North. "A National Government which will not protect Northern members of Congress in the fearless discharge of their duty is not worth preserving. . . The North, depend on it, will not submit to have her representatives shot down like dogs, by the trained assassins of any section of the country."
Democrats were quick to put forth the theory of conspiracy by the Whigs to rid themselves of an up and coming, resourceful and intelligent opponent. According to Colonel Shaumbourg who served Cilley as a friend at the duel, Cilley himself believed that the circumstances were not based on wounded honor at all, but at the very least were calculated to disgrace him into making "humiliating concessions". Shaumbourg quoted Cilley as saying, "It is an attempt to browbeat us, and because they think that (and they think that because) I am from the East I will tamely submit." Embarrassment turned out to be the least of Cilley's problems.
Northerners were not the only ones to cry foul. Opinion, of course, split sharply along party lines. Interestingly, even former President Andrew Jackson, the dean of duelists and a westerner, spoke out against this particular duel. He wrote to his successor President Martin Van Buren, "I cannot write on the murderous death of poor Chilley (sic). If Congress does not do something to wash out the stain of the murdered blood of Chilley from its Walls, it will raise a flame in the public (erasure) mind against it not easily to be quelled. Chilley was sacrificed.". Clearly the Democratic Party had lost a player.
The Whigs, on the other hand, were more subtle. Whig spokesmen pointed out that many Democrats knew about the intended duel and did not move to prevent it. They claimed that Cilley's friends had great confidence in their man and expected him to win. He had, after all, put eleven rifle shots into a target the size of a man's hand only the day before the duel. The great American journalist, Horace Greeley was at the time of the duel producing a publication for the New York Whig party. He condemned dueling as abhorrent but pointed out that both players suffered the after effects. Granted, one was dead, but some sympathy should be awarded to Graves who must live "to execrate through years of anguish and remorse the hour when he was impelled to imbue his hands in the blood of a fellow being."
As can be expected, religious leaders condemned dueling as sinful but found Cilley as culpable as Graves and all the others involved. Reverend Maltby of Bangor preached from his pulpit, "Shame! Shame! The Congress of the United States . . . are honoring with a public burial, a man who died in the act of murder, setting at naught the laws of God and man". With a similar sentiment, William Fahey spoke out more calmly at the Thomaston meetinghouse, "It was a fatal, an unjustifiable error."
The day after the duel, Jonathan Cilley's death was announced on the floor of the House and the Senate by members of the Maine delegation. Neither mentioned the cause of death. Congress adjourned. The Washington funeral was attended by President Van Buren, his vice president, foreign ministers and Congressmen as well as a throng of ordinary people. Notably, members of the Supreme Court refused to attend. Cilley's body was placed in the vault at the Congressional Cemetery until returned home to Maine in April. In Rockport, Cilley's pallbearers went right into those cold April waters to take up the coffin from the ship's tender and bring it ashore. Cilley was laid to rest on April 19th in Elm Grove Cemetery at Thomaston. A collection was taken up among Cilley's friends and supporters to raise a suitable monument. In 1841, for a sum of $500, a 17' tall granite monument topped by marble urn was placed over the grave.
Soon after the Washington funeral, the Maine delegation called for an investigation of the whole affair. A committee was appointed. On April 21st, the seven man committee returned its opinion. The four man majority (three from the North) "viewed the breach of the rights and privileges of the House on the part of Mr. Graves, to have been an offense of this high character against the vital principle of deliberative assembly and of representative government". They called for Graves expulsion and the censure of Wise and Jones. They left Webb to the "chastisement of public opinion". The Whigs were up in arms; this was clearly an attempt by the committee to try, convict and punish the men. Ex-president and then Representative John Quincy Adams called the report a greater violation of the privileges of the House than the actual events of the duel. The debate became 'warm'.
Both Wise and Graves addressed the House pointing out the inappropriateness of the proceeding that would allow them to be judged and condemned by "four political adversaries without a chance to speak". Graves made an affecting speech claiming never to have been involved in a duel in any capacity before. He maintained his innocence of any knowledge of a wider purpose or conspiracy. He was contrite but blamed public opinion and an honor system that trapped him in the circumstances of the event. Wise was less self deprecating and called the committee despotic in its assumption of judicial powers. Adams denounced Wise not Graves as the truly guilty party calling him "a man who came to the House with his hands and face dripping with the blood of murder". Interestingly enough, Henry Clay dodged any serious accusation or connection. Clay was known by many to be the master mind of the conspiracy or at least the provocator of events. The Great Compromiser was known to pull a few strings in the background of many events. In the end, the full committee report failed to gain acceptance. Dueling was prohibited in the District. Wise was censured; Graves was censured but not expelled.
The following year, 1839, Congress passed the anti-dueling act. The original bill introduced by Prentiss of Vermont called for a ten year sentence for giving or accepting a challenge and a death sentence for any duelist that killed an opponent. Congress passed the bill but reduced the time to five years. A number of states followed suit with similar legislation. None of the laws seemed to have any particular inhibiting effect. Duelists became more secretive, and dueling flourished right up to the Civil War when everyone soon had their fill of blood. Dueling was not uncommon even after the war and up through the turn of the century.

What became of the principal players? Cilley left three children. His namesake Jonathan Prince Cilley became a brigadier general during the Civil War. He was the first man to enlist in the 1st Maine Cavalry and was reputedly as ardent an opponent as his father. Graves served out his term of office, returned to Kentucky and died ten years after the duel. Wise continued in politics, served as minister to Brazil under Tyler, Governor of Virginia just before the Civil War, and a general in the Confederate army. Interestingly, near the end of the Civil War, General Wise was bested on the battlefield by General Cilley. Jones, a veteran of the Black Hawk War, served in numerous capacities and elected positions both in a national and state capacity for the territories (and later states) of Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. During the Civil War he was arrested by Secretary of State Seward for treason and released by Lincoln sixty four days later. The cause of the charges: his deep friendship with Jefferson Davis and their continued correspondence. Interestingly enough, Webb was the only person ever convicted under New York's anti dueling law. In 1842 he was convicted of fighting a duel with Thomas Marshall, sentenced to two years and pardoned after a few days. So much for censure and public opinion!

A lot of years ago as a student at the University of Southern Maine, I was an eager student in Prof. Draper Hunt's course, Civil War and Reconstruction. I was very interested in the Civil War and expected to spend a pleasurable semester studying battles and interesting people. What we actually did was spend fourteen weeks studying that long, downward spiral from the Declaration of Independence to the firing on Fort Sumter, all of which turned out to be full of interesting events and people. In the end, there was only time for one lecture on the war itself and one more on Reconstruction. I did not feel slighted by this failure to get to the main event. The course was a thoroughly exhaustive study of American history strictly confined by how the events led to and/or effected the Civil War. It was fascinating. In the end, we knew exactly the details, however small or mundane, that led to the inevitability of that war. We knew the reference and allusion. The history of the battles and campaigns is readily available. A student can spend a life time in pursuit. What Prof. Hunt gave us was that thorough grounding and understanding of history as a whole piece or continuum made from linked events. The Cilley-Graves duel was just such an event, a moment in time that highlighted the basic and very deep differences between north and south.

Sources: Cochran, Hamilton. Noted American Duels and hostile encounters. New Kork: Chilton Books, 1963.
Eaton, Cyrus. History of Thomaston, Rockland and South Thomaston, Maine, from their first explorartion, A.D. 1605 with family genealogies.. Hallowell, ME: Masters, Smith & Co., Publishers, 1865.
Hatch, Louis. Maine: A history. Somersworth, NH: New Hampshire Publishing Co., 1973.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. Jonathan Cilley. 1838. < http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/n >.
Lemke, William. The wild, wild East. Camden,ME: Yankee Books, 1990.
PBS. The History of Dueling in America. < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/dueling.html >.
Seitz, Don C. Famous American Duels. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1966.
Stall, Buddy. "A dueling loophole: Harpoons at 20 paces." < http://www.ClarionHerald.org >.
Taylor, Troy. Haunted Maryland: The Bladensburg Dueling Grounds: Bladensburg, Maryland. 1998. < http://www.prairieghosts.com/bladensburg.html >.
Thomaston Historical Society. Hon. Jonathan Cilley. 1997. < http://www.thomastonhistoricalsociety.com/cilley.htm >.
Various biographies. Biographical Directory of the US Congress. < http://bioguide.congress.gov/>.

c2001 Pat Higgins