This social dynamic was real for *everyone* though, as well. Rich, poor, or middle class. An ordinary man expected basic respect and civility from everyone around him.
I was intrigued to read this because this addresses one of the issues I always had with duelling culture, despite admiring the way that (in principle) it demanded people back up public slander with public bravery: in practice, it was very easy for the wealthy who could afford better weapons and training time, or even to hire champions to fight on their behalf, to abuse the privilege of "calling out" those who "disrespected" them by deliberately "taking offense" at the words and actions of those too poor or friendless to be any kind of a dangerous opponent. This, in turn, served to disincentivize return challenges; as with today's cancel culture, by demonstrating what happens to the first person who dares to call out an established authority, most of the rest are strongly discouraged from being that first spark.
Was this dynamic less at play in the 19th-century USA? In a theoretically classless society, differences in class privilege should have been less of a protection, but I admit I still find it hard to believe a poor dockworker could challenge his wealthy shipping magnate boss to a duel and manage to accomplish anything.
Greetings!
Yes, my friend, indeed, class structure has always been present in America, and I think you are right in that there probably was more of a social layer of "insulation" say, in the East, for our hypothetical ship magnate and a common dock worker. However, it would be far more hazardous--and thus the class barriers and social "insulation" far thinner and much more fragile out West. Essentially, everywhere west of the Mississippi River. In the West, there were incidents of wealthy ranchers and landowners getting gunned down, or strung up and lynched for their sins. Arrogance and offending anyone--even a common man--could be very hazardous, even for a wealthy person far above them in social class.
Throughout American society, especially from the 18th and through the 19th centuries, there is an interesting cultural impact that Honour Culture and the traditions of dueling made, effecting different strata in different measures, and thus also inspiring some differences in interpretation and application, certainly, though I think the presence and influence has been significant throughout this time period. Out West, severe enough outrages provoked, as I mentioned, not being killed in a duel--more often with pistols--but with being burned alive or lynched. Sometimes the whole family was killed as well.
It all fed into a social climate that composed the frontier America. Of course, the elite had "Noblisse Oblige"--wealth and success were naturally applauded and hugely admired, as well as social aspects of speech, learning, reading, and breeding. Though there was also a consciousness that all men were equal, at least in God's eyes, and all men deserved dignity and respect. Provoking that basic truth was undoubtedly dangerous. I was surprised to learn that yes, that was a real social dynamic for everyone. It certainly does seem to have contributed strongly towards inspiring an American culture that was, after a fashion, generally polite, civil, and respectful. Much, much more so than we have today. For example, it was also once the social standard to address every man as "Sir" or "Master". Later conventions, similar to the European traditions, were to address people also by their last name--"Mr. Johnson" for example. Addressing someone by their first name, let alone by some common familiar "hey you" or something, was only appropriate for the best of friends or family members. American society was much more respectful and formal, in speech, in dress codes and standards, as well as social behavior. Many of these traditions and expectations endured well into the 20th century, perhaps up until the social rebellion of the hippies and scum of the 1960's and 1970's.
That reminds me of stories and traditions that my grandmother on my mother's side used to often instruct me about. She always explained that in *her day* society and people were much more polite, respectful, and dignified than so many people today. It was scandalous and shameful in her view how society had degraded.
I can well imagine how much more strict, and demanding society must have been *before my grandmother* who was born in 1906.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK