Why Dueling Should Be Reinstated
May 13th, 2009 | By Linda Brady Traynham | Category: Featured, Morning Whiskey
From long before Revolutionary times through the Code of the West there was a simple method of resolving conflicts. Men backed their actions and words with public apologies, sometimes humiliating, or defended them with their lives when others did not agree. Alexander Hamilton used it several times, and only lost once.
That could definitely give one pause for thought. What is worth risking dying for? Not hasty, ill-thought-out words. Not starting a squabble over someone whipping into a parking place you had first claim to. Not rancorous accusations to injure a political opponent.
Dueling obliges men to be courteous. Duels reduced crimes of passion and cowardly attacks. Drive-by shootings, assault and battery, arsenic in the soup, and hiring hit men should remain illegal, but restoring dueling would be a simple means to obtain redress for grievances which did not require lawyers and would ensure decorum.
One cause of senseless violence is the inability to combat the true causes of ire, justified or not. (Consider the enormous spike in the incidence of battered women on Super Bowl Sunday.) No more would the annoyed have to content themselves with demonstrating that they still had their bow fingers in a gesture that goes back to Agincourt or blustering obscenities; a simple warning of lifting a cautionary right index finger an inch upwards quietly would convey no insult or aggressive intent, simply an indication that one was prepared to back words with deeds. It would calm tempers and foster courtesy.
There was once clear recourse to an assault on one’s honor, and never mind that I don’t think ladies ever fought duels. This is the 21st century; those who are so inclined should certainly be allowed to participate. Last March I was insulted egregiously and brutally. There were no extenuating circumstances.
I regained my sense of humor by flicking a yellowing kid glove contemptuously across the lout’s face mentally and sneering, “You, sirrah, are a coward, a boor, and a liar. In the unlikely event you can find a gentleman to act for you, my seconds are…” The officious oaf might have felt better had he been able to suggest a bout of fisticuffs, since he felt I had wronged him, but our society does not allow men to strike females; I felt better thinking of meeting him on equal terms, thus allowing him true freedom of expression. He would have my permission to say anything he dared in a world where I could call him out over his words.
I then worked off my frustrations and righteous fury writing this essay (which I am sending Gary in the hope that he will find it similarly salubrious. I hope that you, dear reader, will find it assuages a bit of the outrage we felt over the unconscionable insult to Gary Gibson recently.), after which I solved the “problem” quietly and calmly, by informing the lowlife scum, through a third party, that I had not been offered and would not have accepted an honorary office he had been and did, which isn’t much of an explanation but all you need to know.
Duels are not about violence but to promote kindness, dulcet tones, and careful courtesy. Insult or injure another at your peril knowing that if you do not retract after several opportunities you will face the consequences. Most duels were not killing matters.
A public challenge is resolution attempt number one. My assailant could decide that he preferred to apologize, and custom would oblige me to accept. My honor would be cleansed, and he would think before erring again.
Having demonstrated his lack of sense and manners already, in due course the oaf would find two others to act for him, and they would call upon my seconds with the laudable object of seeing if they could induce the pair of us to calm down. The first duty of seconds is to settle the conflict without anyone having to get up at dawn followed by blood under the dueling oaks. He might retract his words, and I would be stymied although lusting for retribution. The rules are the rules. The challenged party has only two choices: fight, or apologize. The offended party must be satisfied with a public apology if one is proffered. No brawls, punctilio, and a cooling off period.
Having exhausted peace efforts, the seconds set up a time and place, allowing the principles to reflect again. The challenged party has the right to name the weapons. One would not necessarily have to be a lily-livered poltroon to question the wisdom of facing another at twenty paces with pistols, closer up with cold steel (Hey, I had a few fencing lessons back about 1960, I’m game.), or even the Ivanhoe thing of “I bear mace and chain this day!” Even a brave man might realize that the little lady is really, really upset, and perhaps an apology is in order.
Whoops of laughter, but I think I could take him with raw steel or a .22. Shades of ERB, Sir Walter Scott, and Anthony Hope, “NO man calls me a ___and lives!” Nobody calls me a foul name with impunity even if I am not allowed to demand satisfaction. By glory, I’ll make his name a hissing and a byword, that I will. Me Irish dander is up, laddies, and no man insults me honor, me man, and me butler, uh, Scot free. (Put it this way: he started with the names Carrie Prejean has been called and proceeded to my appearance, character, and lifestyle! I don’t suppose I have ever been so astounded or outraged in my life. His was a splendidly vindictive e-mail in terms of vituperation, although unwise, destructive, and devoid of facts.)
All should find it sobering to ponder whether they can shoot faster and straighter than another. Cold smile. I have a framed target that could make a braver man consider saying publicly, “Dear lady, I apologize profoundly for my ungentlemanly conduct.”
I was outraged enough to chance taking a slug for the pleasure of shooting at him were it possible. I know just how Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr felt! No, I would not “delope,” or fire into the air, tacit admission that my cause was not just or that I was at fault…and he might be uncertain that I would accept the implicit apology if he did so. The rules still give me my one shot at him if he does! No need to kill him…kneecapping would have been just barely on the wrong side of “excessive”…a clean, painful wound through the thigh, perhaps…
There are other benefits to Hamilton’s solution. If I dispatched the villain or gave him a singular distaste for dueling he would never insult another, and he would remain a good object lesson for the benefits of courtly behavior and reasoned words. If not…he might find himself challenged by several, starting with my seconds, both of whom he insulted in his attempt to hurt me. I doubt he wanted to vent his frustrations enough to have to defend his behavior thrice upon the field of honor, and if he did, I would have been at his service first had it been legal. That is not a privilege I would yield to big, strong, protective men. I would have first call on his liver and his lights in a civilized world.
We would even solve part of the economic crisis, as abandoned bowling alleys became dueling centers. Install a doc in the box, put a mortuary next door, and open a string of “Honor Satisfied! Arbitration Centers.” In time we would reduce the surplus population of hotheads, fools, and vulgarians, and the brandy concession would thrive.
There ARE things worth fighting and dying for, and I submit that this issue comes under States’ Rights. The Liberals will never understand, but those from Texas to Virginny will.
Regards,
Linda Brady Traynham
May 13, 2009
I wonder if you read Robert Heinlein’s Star Line. He carried the concept of the armed citizen into what at the time was a pretty realistic future.
The problem and the cause of the end to dueling was the development of proxies. The American West was settled not with people meeting at High Noon on Mainstreet but by excessively bad guys getting shot in the back by someone never found. Wild Bill Hickock was very good at that and very effective. All wide open dueling would accomplish would be would to create a tyranny of the physically skilled (probably at the behest of someone else).
I don’t think we need dueling back. But a trained armed citizen should be enough to bring politeness back into vogue. It sure would cut down on second burglaries.
JohnL
Bravo, dear lady! I’m with you all the way!
Texas Cowgirl
Dear Texas Cowgirl:
How kind you are!
We could have clubs, and woe betide any man who sent us one of those purportedly “humorous” e-mails that contains insulting gender-oriented stereotypes. The answer to “Women drivers!” or “Blondes!” would be, “Smile when you say that, Podnuh.”
“Uh…sorry, ma’am, no offense intended.”
I can’t imagine a true Texas gentleman challenging a lady, although the look on the face of one if we issued a challenge would be truly magnificent to behold. How utterly taken aback the poor man would be.
We here in Texas have the greatest menfolk in the world, and they almost never MEAN to be offensive.
Uh-oh, gotta quit right now or I’ll start writing an article on how NOW and Liberals have damaged the ideal of Chivalry that was so beneficial to both genders and the family.
Thanks for a great inspiration, Cowgirl!
LBT
Check out http://www.frontsight.com for serious self-defense instruction – and uphold the 2nd Amendment while you are at it!
Matthew 5:43-44
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Matthew 5:39-41
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Watch out when anybody takes the moral high ground by quoting scripture.
Edit:
Say, so if I come to your house, assault and restrain you and take all your stuff, you won’t resist or call the authorities?
Not that I would. Just asking.
Dear Mr. Laniewicz:
I am passionately fond of Science Fiction, and Robert Heinlein is one of my favorite authors of all times. Harry Turtletraub…what a marvelous mind. Robert Forstchein…
I admit (although it pains a soul also devoted to Louis L’Amour) that many a thug and bully met with an, uh, unfortunate accident some dark night in the American West (a very short period, historically), and the only question the local Judge asked was, “Did the deceased deserve to be deceased?!”
I understand the concept of “champions,” but why would anyone agree to a duel by proxy? Are you thinking of those who might import a gunslinger to insult a foe? One is not obliged to accept a challenge, and it is VERY bad form to shoot it out in the middle of the street.
I don’t think we have to contemplate seriously the chance that dueling will be revived. We can certainly agree that being able to take care of ourselves physically is a good idea, and hurrah for you for pointing out that the recidivism rate tends to drop sharply where citizens are armed, and so does the crime rate in general. It makes a burglar tend to be a bit more cautious when he knows homeowners may have guns and that he will face a much stiffer sentence if he carries–far less uses–a gun in commission of a crime.
Thank you for your knowledgeable, interesting, friendly answer. It is a real pleasure and a compliment to get a letter like yours.
Linda Brady Traynham
Ho, “partner in crime!” Nice answer.
Chad, I am a Christian and I take following all clear injunctions as well as is sensible and practical at any time pretty seriously. I’m not about to say that we can ignore the teachings of the Bible, or even that Matthew didn’t have much worse to contend with than Roman soldiers on “peace-keeping” duty and run-of-the-mill criminals. I won’t even say that he was just an Apostle!
Let me tell you a little anecdote from Viet Nam days. My husband, a Captain of the Artillery, was on detached duty with an Infantry group. One of his men was a very devout and deeply committed conscienscious objector who was serving as a medic. The squad went out one day and was ambushed. The fighting was sudden, vicious, bloody, and there wasn’t any time to ponder whether or not to turn the other cheek; anyone who had done so would have been dead, which rather defeats the purpose of what Matthew was saying, don’t you think? The young medic did not defend himself, but went about patching up the wounds of his comrads.
The next day, the patrol went out again, and the Viet Cong, to enliven a dull day, ambushed it again. Once again, out of nowhere, armed men were trying to take the lives of our boys without warning, and there were more wounds and at least one death. Again, the very young man worked cooly and calmly to care for the wounded.
It was a very bad week, and the third day they were set upon suddenly despite their training and caution, and, again, the medic did a magnificent job.
The next morning, just before the patrol was due to head out, John noticed that the corpsman was wearing a sidearm! “What’s this, son?” he asked with the paternalism an earnest young officer can develop, gesturing towards the holstered .45. “I thought you didn’t believe in killing people.”
The medic answered, grimly, “I don’t, Sir. The Lord said not to do it, but I don’t figure He meant for me to be a damn fool about it, either!”
My article was ah, not a serious proposal that the Legislatures reinstate dueling, since I doubt many sponsors could be gotten, although I do think it would have exactly the good effects I suggested. We live in an increasingly violent and uncivil world, where strangers blow up buildings and set off bombs amongst civilians and those who do not have the self-control, education, and ability to deal with their lives go on killing sprees. It is one thing for YOU to decide that you will not resist a hold-up man or lift a hand to defend yourself if someone assaults you, and another for the rest of us to be denied the right to make our own choices. Those who are slain needlessly in college classrooms, cafeterias, and old folks’ homes would have been far better off if some of the others in such situations had been carrying weapons. Such crimes fall to almost zero when the citizenry is armed.
To carry a weapon or not is as personal a choice as there is, and it carries very grave responsibilities, as well. I will ask the other side of Gary’s question: if I see a man leap out of his car screaming obscenities about your driving and begin beating you up, would you prefer that I not interfere? If he is robbing you and threatening your life and your wife, would you like for me to stand idle? Even if I called the police immediately, the robber would be gone long before they arrived and you might be beyond medical help.
That is widening the discussion, but my questions follow naturally from your reply. In one case we were speaking of recourse to uncivil behavior, not a situation that was life-threatening immediately. My point is that the impotence many feel over being in control of almost nothing in their lives and the growing rudeness of the population would both be reduced by some formal, calm, civilized form of redress. I think a lot of others feel the same way, as evidenced by the outrage over how Miss California has been treated. There was a time when men did not allow their wives, daughters, or even young ladies they did not know to be abused in such ways.
I thank you for your letter and for your personal bravery. In this day and age, it takes a lot of courage to stand up for what you believe and quote scripture, even in the safety of the Whiskey Bar.
Linda Brady Traynham
Perhaps it would be instructive if you read from the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. “My princes are rebels and consorts of thieves!” comes to mind immediately. Somehow, I never got the impression that the Lord had in mind sitting by calmly over such behavior. Yes, I know: “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.” He didn’t say He intended to avenge you, personally, if you were assaulted, and I think this is rather like a sparrow not falling without the Lord taking notice. That’s lovely, but of very little use to the sparrow. Do you know what happened when a prophet got mad at little kids laughing over his bald head?!
Anyway, Isaiah will show you that the way this works is that terrible things happen to those who do not heed the Lord, but wonderful things occur when they turn from their wicked ways. Again, that’s great if you are one of the wicked, but not very comforting if you just want to lead a quiet, peaceful life but have to deal with those who think violence is a solution.
Now those who asked about my background–I’m working on a biography, but you all know it is very hard for me to be brief. Today’s lesson is that if you fling Scripture at Linda she’s going to have some snappy bits of her own to toss right back!
Dear Timo:
Thank you VERY much for your suggestion, which I look forward to checking out. It was very kind of you to take the time to send it, and I shall report, in due course, on what I found.
I continue to recommend NRA classes, reading, and practice, practice, practice for those who didn’t grow up around guns and were not drilled thoroughly in safe gun-handling and etiquette when they were young. Analyzing “shoot/don’t shoot” scenarios is a particularly good part of the training; it is one thing to know how to hit a target, and a very good thing, but it is essential to do our thinking ahead of time and to be able to tell the difference between when a situation is very dangerous and when it is better merely to remain calm while removing one’s self from the potential arena of combat.
I hope all of you come to enjoy anecdotes from my unusual life! When Beauty was 16 (the minimum age) I ran her through several NRA classes because we weren’t on the ranch or even in Texas and hadn’t been for years so that I could teach her to shoot entirely by myself. One night we were on the way home from class and had to stop at the local Albertson’s near the very nice area where we lived. Just as I pulled my beloved, elderly 528e into the parking place, the world errupted into Masaad Ayoob’s “COME AS YOU ARE” war. Shots, running feet, shouting, great gracious, we’re in downtown Belfast, not Tacoma (later Lakewood), Washington.
I, of course, was “carrying,” and my daughter had her Glock 9 in the shooting bag at her feet since she was not old enough to have a CC permit. Tiffany is very level-headed, and had been an excellent student in both written and shooting exercises. How many of you know what we did? Without even a look at each other to coordinate our actions?
Darned straight, we put our heads in our laps, covered them with our arms, and stayed out of it, hoping no loose rounds came our way! IT WASN’T OUR WAR. That was no time to jump out of the car, draw my piece, hold up a warning hand, and ask sternly, “All right, both of you, who are the good guys here, and who are the bad,” like an irate old maid Sunday School teacher who has just seen a spit wad go by. No, indeed. There are times to hunker down and stay out of what is happening. It all ended as suddenly as it had begun. The manager collared the robber just as the police came up, lights flashing.
Timo is right that information and instruction are imperative. A Glock Nine isn’t much harder to learn to use than a fly swatter, but just becoming competent enough to put holes in a nice pattern on paper targets and not shoot fellow students or the instructor isn’t sufficient. We need to learn judgement, the law, how to react in given common circumstances, and basic tactics for covering a retreat, “clearing” a house, seeking cover, and similar things which may be needed some day. Our instructor had us practice shooting from awkward angles, at different heights, and even some basic practice with our off hand in case the dominant hand were disabled.
Timo, thank you again–and if you would like to tell us more about what is to be found at http://www.frontsight.com, please do. That’s what this part of W&G is for, more personal exchanges of thoughts and ideas, and encouraging others to write.
Linda Brady Traynham
Dear Timo:
I can’t resist one more anecdote. I have a VERY beautiful daughter, who looks nothing like her mother. I started out to teach her myself on the range at Fort Lewis, and, to quote Louis L’Amour, “She taken shootin’ up right nice oncet I showed her how.” On our fourth visit, the Range Master asked me politely to leave, and not to return!
I was horrified beyond belief. I don’t think anyone takes gun safety and punctilious observations of the rules more seriously than I do, and Tiffany had been an apt student obeying both me and the RM scrupulously. I goggled at him, running our behavior through my mind. No, we hadn’t done ANYTHING unusual, far less dangerous, unless you want to count that I taught her to shoot dueling fashion. (I.e., turning sideways, which makes it easier to sight without the temptation to close an eye, gives a straight sight down the extended arm, and protects vital organs better.) How lovely she looked, shooting one almost flawless target after another…her cloud of staggeringly gorgeous red hair (at least a dozen different shades of red, gold, copper, bronze, and blond shining in the sunlight) blowing out to one side…jeans outlining those long, slender legs…
Turns out that was the problem.
“Ma’am,” the Range Master explained, “the Lieutenants keep falling off the berm!”
Backwards, to safety, when they were behind the firing line, but one sees his point. They were having trouble concentrating and we don’t like that on our ranges. Chuckle…what Lieutenant in his right mind wouldn’t want a girl that gorgeous who could shoot that well and didn’t giggle or chew gum, with a mother who is a great shot, too?! I took my serene, elegant bit of jailbait to an NRA class where the fat, middle-aged instructor who was totally impervious to her looks and admired her only for her shooting and her written work.
What can I say? These things just happen to me. LBT
I am a liberal and support reinstating dueling. I would go so far as modernizing the chivalric code of honor.