Ashley Hunter
ECB Publishing, Inc.
Today, when neighbors, enemies or political rivals argue, it isn't common for the dispute to devolve into a gun-toting standoff.
But there was a time, not that long ago in American history, when the duel was the go-to method of settling arguments, disputes, insults and disagreements.
Originally, what we know as “dueling” began as a way to settle disputes in the European Middle Ages.
Unlike a bar brawl, fistfight or scuffle, duels had rules and a strict code of honor among the two duelists – this wasn't a sudden argument-fueled fight, but a planned and practiced way to settle differences with guidelines that were respected and kept sacred.
During the 17th and 18th centuries, duels were primarily fought with swords, although pistols began to enter the dueling scene later in the 18th century; even with the emergence of pistols, swords and rapiers continued to be a frequently-chosen weapon for dueling.
Even Abraham Lincoln, prior to his presidency, was challenged to a duel over a newspaper editorial he had written. Reportedly, Lincoln called another man a “smelly, foolish liar” and was called out to a duel as a result. Lincoln chose swords as the weapon-of-choice, as he believed that his long arms and tall statute would give him an advantage; we don't know if he was right, though, as the disagreement was smoothed out before it could result in a duel.
According to The Code of Honor, an 1847 publication of dueling rules written by an anonymous “Southron” gentlemen, some of the honor-bound rules of dueling were:
• A proper apology can prevent a duel, but should the duel be sparked over a physical offense (such as hitting, punching, etc.) or over an offense to a lady, then no apology can prevent a duel. Whether or not an apology is issued, a duel must continue, once issued.
• No officer can challenge a prisoner, as such a challenge was considered “ingenerous” and “incompatible with perfect equality.” A gentleman, likewise, was not allowed to challenge someone who was “below his status” for the same reason.
• During the duel, the two participants are not allowed to issue “harsh language” towards each other. Additionally, the winner of the duel must not speak disrespectfully of his late antagonist. “If you cannot speak respectfully of him, speak not of him at all.”
• Do not speak badly of those who choose not to duel over a disagreement, but settled their argument without the need for weapons. “For courage is respectable almost under every appearance.”
The Code of Honor has a total of 39 articles and sought to “show the whole manner in which the duel is to be conducted.”
While dueling as we know it began as a European tradition, many countries in Europe eventually outlawed the duel; France outlawed dueling in 1685 although the law against it hardly kept duels from taking place and Germany had laws against dueling since the Middle Ages.
By the 19th century, dueling had – for the most part – fallen out of favor, although it continued in some pockets of North America.
The word “gunslingers” often draws to mind the image of two Old American West cowboys, standing back-to-back in a dusty street; in the west, “dueling.”
Dueling also remained fairly strong in the Southern United States up until the American Civil War; historians report that dueling began to decline following the Civil War, possibly due to public distaste over more bloodshed, conflict and death.
Even today, dueling continues to remain present in the United States – for example, in Kentucky anyone who is sworn into any statewide or county office, or judgeship must swear under oath that they have never participated in or been a second in a duel.
In the 1920s, Florida finally outlawed dueling within the state.
As a specific offense, dueling is not known in common law. However, the act of dueling when resulting in death is treated as homicide and the act of dueling when resulting in injury is treated as a maiming, a breach of peace, an assault or battery, all chargeable and arrest-worthy offenses.
You must be logged in to post a comment.