September 1795 found Meriwether Lewis, a young ensign (a rank later abolished by the army and called “second lieutenant” instead) stationed at Greenville, Ohio (about seventy-five miles north of Cincinnati, Ohio) with the US Army or “Legion of the United States,” commanded by Gen. Anthony Wayne. Victorious over the consolidated Indian tribes of the Ohio River Valley, who fought to retain their lands in the face of intense pressure from American settlers, the legion won a great victory at Fallen Timbers in 1794 and forced native chiefs to sign a peace treaty ceding their lands in 1795. With the warfare over and the treaty signed, the legion settled into the boring routine of camp life. Soldiers groused and cursed as they went about their daily routines of fatigue duties and drill, and officers, especially junior officers like Lewis, had a difficult time keeping the men in line while fighting their own ennui. Friction was commonplace among enlisted men, between officers and enlisted men, and within the ranks of the officers themselves.

But despite this dull period in the life of the legion, and the frictions it caused, it was still somewhat surprising when a young officer, Lt. Joseph Elliot, charged Ensign Lewis with being intoxicated and for challenging Elliott to a duel. Challenging a superior officer to a duel fell under the charge of “conduct unbecoming an officer,” which led to Lewis's court-martial trial in November of that year.

Lewis's indictment came from an officer who was highly respected. Lt. Elliot's credentials alone seemed to spell disaster for Lewis. In August 1795, Gen. Wayne commended Elliot for providing a great firework display, probably before the signing of the Greenville Treaty

Head Quarters, GreenVille, 9th August 1795 The Uniform industry, and Professional Knowledge of Lieutenant Elliott, of the Corps of Artillery & Engineers, have not escaped the Notice and Grateful Approbation of the Commander in Chief. The ingenious formation, Judicious Arrangement, and Brilliant display of the fire Works, on the Evening of the 7th Instant, cannot fail of making an indeliable impression upon the Minds of the Savages, not only of the Day, but also of the Principles and Conditions upon which the UNITED STATES of America gave Peace to all the Hostile Tribes of Indians, North West of the Ohio—and adopted them as Children.1

A year earlier, Elliot had charged an enlisted man—a Sgt. Chase—with disobeying orders. This charge landed the sergeant before a court-martial; the verdict stripped Chase of his rank and demoted him to a private sentinel.²

Then, in late September 1795, Elliot charged Ensign Lewis with intoxication and issuing a challenge to a duel.³

Head Quarters, GreenVille 16th November 1795

At the General Court Martial whereof Maj. Shaylor is President, begun on the 6th, and continued by Adjournment untill the 12th Instant, inclusive—Ensign Merriweather Lewis, of the 4th Sub Legion, was tried upon the following Charges exhibited against him by Lieut. Elliott, Viz't—

1st Charge—A direct, open and contemptious Violation of the first and Second Articles of Seventh Section of the Rules and Articles of War—

Specification. 1st. In presuming on or about the 24th of September last to use provokeing Speeches and Gestures to Lt. Elliott in his own House

Specification. 2d. In presuming on the same Day to send Lieut. Elliott a Challenge, to fight a Duel—

2d Charge—Conduct unbecoming an Officer & a Gentleman to Lieut. Elliott on the 24th September.—

Specification. In abruptly, and in an Ungentleman like manner, when intoxicated, entering his (Lieut. Elliotts) House on the 24th September last, and without provocation insulting him, and Disturbing the Peace and Harmony of a Company, of Officers whom he had invited there

Which being stated to him, he Pleads that he is not Guilty thereof—.⁴

It was probably a mixture of honor, intelligence, and mortification that caused Lewis to vigorously deny the charges, but it was the fact that he was ready to defend himself and refute the charges that showed tenacity.

The proceedings of Lewis's military court case file had never been located and were presumed to be lost.⁵ What has existed for scholars to examine is a summary document from the National Archives, which briefly describes the specifications and charges of Lewis's misconduct.⁶ Furthermore, in the absence of more expansive data, historians have unkindly and critically speculated about Lewis's actions, which have become for them the precursor or template of his alleged moody and intemperate behavior.7

Fortunately, after years of intense research, the original court-martial case has been found among the Anthony Wayne Papers at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.⁸ The court-martial transcript is about forty handwritten pages and contains a tremendous amount of new material regarding the young Lewis. One can only imagine the stress of this event on the young officer, who was arrested and put in confinement—the court record does not state where he was confined, but undoubtedly, as an officer, this arrest embarrassed and shamed him.⁹ The Meriwether Lewis who later led a successful transcontinental exploration and administered a territory a third the size of the modern continental United States emerges in his ability to surmount obstacles—he took advantage of the time to prepare his defense, preserve his honor, and save his career.

Beginning his military career as a volunteer in the Virginia militia, Lewis was so impressed with the “mountains of beef and oceans of whiskey,” that he continued serving in the military.¹⁰ But when the twenty-one-year-old joined the Legion of the United States as an ensign on May 1, 1795, due to what he called a “Quixotic disposition,” his mother already knew that he would forego his duties to oversee the family's Charlottesville farm. Joining the legion in peacetime was supposed to be easy, but there was inner turmoil among the ranks of officers, a hatred and contempt possessed by Gen. James Wilkinson toward his commanding officer, Gen. Anthony Wayne, and the fort was rampant with illness at various times of the year.¹¹

Since William Clark was also serving, as a lieutenant in the Legion of the United States at this period, there has been a lot of speculation by historians about how his presence might have affected the outcome of the trial and whether he and Lewis had yet become friends. Descriptions of fort life at Greenville are numerous and have been compiled from journals, diaries, military orderly books, and court-martial papers. While some diary entries contain information about William Clark, and Clark kept his own diaries, none mention Meriwether Lewis. One of the more puzzling questions in Lewis and Clark literature concerns when the two men first met. Clark accepted a position as quartermaster in the Fourth Sub-Legion in August 1794, right before the decisive Battle of Fallen Timbers, and Lewis joined the regular army, in the Second Sub-Legion, on May 1, 1795.¹²

The summary document of the court-martial at the National Archives states that on November 16, 1795, Ensign Lewis was an officer of the Fourth Sub-Legion. Historian Stephen Ambrose suggested in Undaunted Courage that the sub-legion transfer (from Second to Fourth) occurred because Lewis “quite obviously could not continue to serve in the same outfit as Lieutenant Elliot,” and thus, Gen. Wayne transferred Lewis to Clark's Chosen Rifle Company to avoid friction between the two men between the time Elliot brought the accusations and the date of the trial.13 That made perfect sense as a speculation, but records show that on September 24 Elliot was an officer in the Third Sub-Legion.¹⁴ The answer instead lies somewhere between May 1 and September 9, 1795, when Lewis transferred to another battalion. The court-martial transcript dated November 6, 1795, shows that Ensign Lewis was already in the Fourth Sub-Legion by that date.¹⁵ Lewis and Clark had to have met prior to September 9, because on that day, Clark received orders for a secret assignment that would keep him occupied and away from Greenville until the very eve of the court-martial.¹⁶ On September 10, Clark and seventeen men departed Fort Greenville on a reconnaissance mission to meet with Spanish officials and demand an end to intrusions on American soil. Clark reported back to Greenville on November 4, and Lewis's trial commenced two days later. In all probability, the battalion transfer occurred because of Lewis's keen expertise in shooting a rifle, which caught Clark's attention.

Gen. Wayne, as commander in chief of the legion at Fort Greenville, perused every court-martial trial verdict and sometimes changed the court's decision based on preference or using the officer's reputation to teach the enlisted men a lesson. Wayne was irritated with officers who used the court-martial system to settle personal disputes instead of working it out among themselves, and some abused the system repeatedly, according to military law historian Bradley Nicholson, because of their “personal malice and resentment—and without any regard to the benefit of the service, or to the Honor of the Legion.”¹⁷ Lewis would specifically remind the court of this mandate during his trial:

The Commander in Chief further observes that he hopes in future the times of the Officers will not be taken up, or their feelings tortured by hearing and recording charges and proceedings, which only tend to disgrace the orderly books of the Legion. Can any doubt, but what the Commander in Chief, was induced to make those observations from the most noble motives truly worthy of himself…the good of the service.—The reputations of the Officers of his Corps. An anxiety that they should distinguish themselves as gentlemen, men of honor, men who are ever as willing to unsheath the sword in redress of private injuries, as public rongs. Also that the records of this noble Tribunal, a Tribunal which ought to be held sacred to honor and justice among military men, should not be disgraced with charges fostered by malice and dictated by spleen.¹⁸

Lt. Elliot had caught Ensign Lewis on a technicality, that he had violated the officers’ honor code. That was a serious problem that military historian Bradley Nicholson clarified: “Behavior unbecoming an officer and gentleman served as a vague catch-all for undesired behavior by officers.” Nicholson pointed out that “the Articles of War never defined conduct unbecoming an officer” and, by keeping the term undefined, “effectively left regulation of officer's behavior up to self-definition and self-enforcement.”19 What seemed like an open-and-shut case against Lewis was now showing cracks.

Prior to the first day of the trial, Lewis requested that four members of the court be removed. These members had some conflict of interest with Lewis that he felt could jeopardize his reputation.

Ensign M. Lewis had objected to four members of the Gen. Court Martial appointed to try him, viz Capt. Marts, Lieut. Sterett, Lieut. Webster and Lieut. Bissell—The Commander in Chief was made acquainted with the circumstance and directed that four other members should be detailed to supply their places on the Court.²⁰

Courts-martial were governed by the Articles of War, familiar to each soldier because they were read to every man as part of his enlistment procedure and once again four times annually to the assembled companies on the parade ground. The Articles of War specified two types of courts-martial, a general and a regimental. A general court-martial was formed to hear cases of a capital nature—that is, cases for which the death penalty might be invoked, or, in the case of Lewis, a case in which he might be cashiered from the service. It was composed of from five to thirteen commissioned officers, with the Articles stressing the necessity of having the full complement of thirteen officers serve if at all possible. Only a general court-martial could hear cases involving commissioned officers. At this time, there was no jury in a general court-martial; the officers appointed to hear the case were the judges and jury, making the composition of the court extremely important to what the verdict might be.²¹

For a man who had, as far as we know, no experience in a military court, the young Lewis showed great skill. He served as his own defense attorney, assembling his case, calling witnesses, and preparing his summary arguments. His first act of legal diplomacy came in bumping potentially hostile officers from the court and then smoothing the waters:

I hope none of the gentlemen I have objected to have felt themselves hurt on the occasion—I also feel myself disagreeably situated to be obliged to make my objections known which respect the last members which I have objected to—But I trust they will excuse me knowing my reputation is at stake and the obligation is from the order of the Commander in Chief and not from myself.²²

Far from blemishing Lewis's record, as some historians have maintained, the full trial record shows instead that Lewis was a young man of great resourcefulness and intelligence in the handling of his case.

Once the trial started, Elliot's witnesses told their version of the events of September 24, 1795. On that evening Elliot was hosting a convivial party for a small group of officers in his quarters. Lewis arrived during the course of the party accompanied with a Mr. Rand, interrupting the group with his knock at the door and requesting a private conversation with one of the attendees. Lt. Diven said that Lewis asked to speak to him on the porch of the officer's quarters:

[T]hey stepped aside, opened a door which leads to a platform projecting towards the Park—they left the door on a jar perhaps about half open—Doctor Carmichael got up and pushed too the door with his foot—Mr Elliot replied,—that was perfectly right, as he or they (alluding to the Company) did not wish to hear their conversation—in a short space of time the conversation of the gentlemen on the platform became so loud that we heard the sound of their voices.—Mr Elliot rose saying “this is wrong” and opened the door and addressed himself to Mr Diven “Sir you are my guest you were invited here pray do take your seat gentleman (addressing himself to the others) I am sorry that you came to my house to settle your disputes”—Mr Lewis turned into the house and appeared to be very much hurt and answered Mr Elliot “that he did not come to his house to settle his disputes nor had he any dispute with Mr Diven that he wished to settle”—more conversation of this kind perhaps past on both sides…and Mr Elliot mentioned that he wished them to sit down and take a glass of brandy and water and say no more on the Subject.23

Elliot confronted Lewis in a room packed with his guests and embarrassed the ensign.

Mr Elliot warmly said that his house should be sacred that he would not suffer any disputes to be settled in it while he was master of it…but that his favor would be open to any gentleman officer at any time in a respectable decent way—Mr Lewis and Mr Rand in consequence of the second conversation immediately went down stairs—In a few minutes Mr Lewis came up the stairs again—the company were seated round the table—Mr Lewis stepped up towards Mr Elliot and addressed himself…“Sir I am now perfectly cool I consider myself to have been insulted in your house and by you Sir—as an officer and a gentleman I wish for Satisfaction, in two hours I will see you”—Mr Elliot replied “Very well Sir”—Mr Lewis then descended the stairs again.²⁴

Another witness, Dr. John F. Carmichael, surgeon of the Third Sub-Legion, filled in more details about the event. As in civilian courts, witnesses in a military court do not hear the testimony of other witnesses. According to Carmichael, Lewis, accompanied by Mr. Rand, first knocked on the door and waited a few minutes outside before entering the house.

I dined on the day…with Mr Elliot—after dinner Mr Lewis and Mr Rand came into the room and called Mr. Diven from the table. They and Mr Diven went out…leaving the door half open behind them—some interesting conversation appeared likely…and, to prevent my hearing it, I shut the door—for which Mr Elliot thanked me and observed that he never wished to hear any thing like disputes or controversies…he soon afterwards got up…went to the door and invited the gentlemen to walk in and requested Mr Diven to take his seat…he observed to the gentlemen that…in his house…it was not the place for settling disputes…that they could be settled else where—that he wished his guests and such gentlemen as came to his house to enjoy themselves. During this conversation Mr Elliot invited the gentlemen to take some brandy and water—Mr Lewis made some apologies—that he had no intention of quarrelling or disputing in his house—he appeared much agitated and withdrew—a few minutes after he returned to the room and addressed Mr Elliot “Sir I am now cool, I consider myself insulted in your house—I therefore call upon you for satisfaction as a gentleman—I will call upon you in two hours.” He made a slight bow and withdrew—Mr Elliot answer'd “very well.”25

The court asked Carmichael if Lewis was intoxicated, but Carmichael could not confirm it:

I am not sufficiently acquainted with him to determine—he appeared agitated but I did not then know the cause—previous to his leaving the room the first time, he appeared to have some difficulty in expressing himself and shed tears.²⁶

Carmichael testified that a half-hour later, a friend of Lewis's spoke with Elliot and wanted to resolve the situation, but Elliot said, “I don't know you as a friend to Mr Lewis nor do I know Mr Lewis as a challenger untill he sends a challenge in writing.” Lewis's friend left and returned with a note, and when Elliot opened and read it, he exclaimed, “Sir what does this mean?” Lewis's friend said that Lewis wanted to fight him, but no type of gun was stated. He then said the duel was set for the next morning. Elliot rose and stepped toward the table where some books were lying, took up the Articles of War, and said, “Sir this is the way I will fight him—I will arrest him for a breach of certain articles of War naming them.”²⁷

Lewis had signed the note and a copy was handed to the judge and read aloud. “Sir: Your treatment to me as an officer and a gentleman obliges me to call on you for satisfaction…”28 Presumably the person who spoke with Elliot was Lewis's second, but Lewis later stated that Capt. Marschalk misinterpreted what he meant by satisfaction because there was no mention of a weapon. Clearly, in Lewis's day, any mention of the word “satisfaction” was equated with a challenge to a duel, but according to Lewis's testimony in his own defense, he disagreed, stating: “That the word sattisfaction is vague, and may be given in a variety of forms each sufficient to do justice to the feelings of a gentleman, cannot be denyed.”²⁹

Lewis argued three points as he presented his defense. The first concerned the true meaning of the note entered into evidence. The second was to ask why Elliot resorted to charging him with a crime instead of working it out. And third, and most important, he had to convince the court of his brash stupidity and innocence of knowledge about the code duello in this matter. The transcript of Lewis's testimony is about ten pages long and provides a detailed description of his intentions and actions. A court scribe imperfectly wrote as Lewis addressed the court tribunal:

I have been accused of having directly and pointedly challenged Mr. Elliot, I deny it from this presumption, that a challenge should both mention fighting and the implements of War with which to fight, before it can amount to a direct challenge, such as the Rules and Articles of War take cognizance of—We find nothing decisive or printed as having come from me contained in the testimony either of fighting or arms, which I conceive as the only principe constituant [principal constituent] parts of deweling [dueling]. Mr. Elliot has informed you in his testimony that he received that note as a challenge to fite a diewel [duel], provided that note had come from me in his construction of that note, or an explination of it by another to be a proof of my intentions by no means I conceive—If the gentleman from his frantic immagination has construed the vague word Sattisfaction into a loaded pistol intended for his execution; without having any other resources, am I to be accountable, or punished for his frenzy? I trust not or perhaps my stripes might be many. Is any presumtive proof, or the mear opinion of any person as to the intention of the note to justify so harsh a sentence as that of dismissing me from the service of my country.³⁰

Lewis believed that Elliot should have reasoned that they were both gentlemen and that the two could have settled the matter privately.

As to the business of settling personal disputes in a private manner I conceive it is intimately connected with the former (viz—Self Defence) for he who is willing to settle his own private disputes, need not call upon the Publick for her protection in the one cace, or pester trybunals in the other—He who acts differently sets up in opposition to the oppinions of all that vallue their reputations as millitary men, as well as the customs of all armies that have exhisted to the remotest ages, and will no doubt, for his unexampled vanity be rewarded with their contempt.31

Lewis said that he believed Elliot wanted to teach him a lesson, but cleverly diffused this motivation by making reference to Elliot's prior pattern of accusations and by playing upon Gen. Wayne's stated dislike of frivolous courts-martial being instigated by his junior officers:

I observed in the first instance that this business was designed and mallicous, in justification of which, I will observe to the Court, that immediately I was in confinment, proposals were made to the gentleman of leaving it to refferees, who should determan upon honor, who had been the aggressor, and how far, and also the method and manner of the accomidation. this might…have done justice to the feelings of both without the trouble of a Court Martial. But in order to put his favourit scheme in…practice, or from a contintiencious knowledge of the ballance being much in my favour, he proved refractory as he has done in every other instance.³²

Lewis also brought two other officers into court as witnesses for the defense. He questioned them specifically on the subject of intoxication, which Elliot had charged him with. Lewis believed that the specification of being intoxicated proved maliciousness on Elliot's part, “for it has been proven by several that I was not in the least intoxicated either before or after visiting the house of Mr. Elliot.”³³

Ensign Rand,

Ques. by the Court—Did Mr Lewis make use of any provoking words or gestures—

Answer—I don't conceive that his language was positivly provoking—

Ques. by Mr Lewis—Did not Mr. Elliot, addressing himself particularly to me, observe that no gentleman would come to his house to settle his disputes, after being informed by me that it was no dispute I came to settle…

Ques. by the Court—Do you know of Mr Lewis having challenged Mr. Elliot to fight a duel that day?

Answer [:] I do not—

Ques. Was Mr Lewis intoxicated that day—

Answer [:] I did not conceive him to be in in the least—

Ques by Mr. Lewis—Were you not with me from the forenoon of that day until we entered the house of Mr. Elliot when the conversation happened—

Answer. I was with him from 10’ O’ Clock I believe until the…conversation happened…

Ensign Scott testified by saying that “I have known Mr Lewis since Christmas last and have been on a most intimate footing with him ever since—I never saw him the least intoxicated but conceive that he has always conducted himself with the utmost propriety.”34

Lewis confronted the charge of ungentlemanly conduct by turning the tables and making a veiled accusation against Elliot for the same infraction, inferring that ungentlemanly conduct could be seen in his malicious attempts to sully Lewis's reputation through his accusations:

As to the second charge of unofficer and ungentlemany conduct—I defy not only my Prosicutor but the world to alledg any thing derogatory to the character of a gentleman I wish the gentleman may see his faults, and that he never may on his imagination though this life meet with an adversary so malicious refractory or absurd as he had proven to me.³⁵

Finally, Lewis asked the court to find a verdict in his favor. “I also trust that my sword will not only be returned, but that it will be done in a manner which will do justice to the cause in which I have contended.”³⁶ The court promptly returned the verdict, exonerating Lewis of all charges and acquitting him with honor.

Lewis must have breathed a sigh of relief. Indeed, his acquittal must have been a close thing, for circumstantial evidence was certainly strong against him. We will never know what was in Lewis's heart or mind when he demanded “satisfaction” from Elliot and later sent him a signed note demanding the same. Despite his protestations in court, Lewis would have been an unworldly fellow indeed if he had not been aware of the connotations this word carried in American society at the time. Yet his written summation and presentation of it to the court was so eloquent and persuasive that he convinced a bevy of officers that he was innocent of the intention of challenging a fellow officer to a duel, and that the accusations of ungentlemanly conduct against him might have just as easily been leveled against his accuser. This was no mean feat for a young shavetail to pull off. Without the aid of defense counsel, Lewis won an amazing upset in a very tough trial.

The lessons Lewis learned in this court-martial carried through the remainder of his life; for, despite later documented provocations like those he suffered at the hands of Frederick Bates when he was governor of the Louisiana Territory, Lewis never again, so far as is known, demanded “satisfaction” from any man.³⁷