I challenge you to a duel

American history tells me that Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton had a famous duel in the early 1800s. I also understand that dueling was outlawed in D.C. in the 1830s and then it faded from American culture.

My question is this:

Is formal (and legal) dueling still conducted in other countries and cultures as a means of settling a dispute?

------------------
Contestant #3

I don't know, but it should be.

This sounds like a very acceptable thing as long as there is a method of assuring that both parties are willing and not under duress. This would drastically cut the belligerent asshole number down from most crowded places.

Great question, C#3.

Michigan law states: 750.171 Engaging in or challenging to fight duel. [M.S.A.28.368]

Sec. 171.
Engaging in or challenging to fight duel -Any person who shall engage in a duel with any deadly weapon, although no homicide ensue, or who shall challenge another to fight such duel , or shall send or deliver any written or verbal message, purporting or intended to be such challenge, although no duel ensue, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 10 years or by a fine of not more than 5,000 dollars, and shall also be incapable
of holding or of being elected or appointed to any place of honor, profit or trust, under the constitution or laws of this state.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;--CL 1948, 750.171

I have found this site to be an ample resource of state laws: http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/

Connie, DAMN good question! In fact, it's worthy of Uncle Cece himself(hint, hint!)

Thanks folks. The question came to mind after having read a recently published article by Lawrence Knutson of the Associated Press. Mr. Knutson based his article upon a soon to be published book by Roger Kennedy entitled "Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson, A Study in Character", as well as the article by Joanne B. Freeman entitled "Dueling as Politics" in the William and Mary Quarterly.

I found the topic to be rather interesting and I just wondered if maybe this kind of thing still takes place in other parts of the world.

Staying on the right side of the copyright police,

------------------
Contestant #3

I'll make you an offer you can't refuse.

I guess it still happens, not quite legally, though.



------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

I remember learning that dueling was already illegal when Burr and Hamilton fought. Burr could have been charged with murder (Hamilton died, didn't he?) but he wasn't. It must be nice to have friends in high places.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

Oh ho ho, here in Kentucky we have extensive legal protections against duelling. To begin with:

Any person convicted of sending, accepting or knowingly carrying a challenge, for the purpose described in > KRS 437.030, shall forfeit any office of honor or profit held by him at the time he committed the offense, or when convicted thereof, and shall thereafter be disqualified to hold any such office. KRS 61.100
Next we have,
Any person who, in this state, challenges another to fight with any deadly weapon, in or out of this state, and any person who accepts the challenge, shall be fined five hundred dollars ($500) and imprisoned for not less than six (6) nor more than twelve (12) months. Any person who knowingly carries or delivers such a challenge in this state, or consents in this state to be a second to either party shall be fined one hundred dollars ($100) and imprisoned for thirty (30) days. KRS 437.030 So not only can I not duel, I can't act as your second or deliver your challenge.

Moving right along,Any person who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, either directly or indirectly, give, accept or knowingly carry a challenge to any person or persons to fight in single combat, with a citizen of this State, with a deadly weapon, either in or out of the State, shall be deprived of the right to hold any office of honor or profit in this Commonwealth; and if said acts, or any of them, be committed within this State, the person or persons so committing them shall be further punished in such manner as the General Assembly may prescribe by law.Ky. Const. sec.239

And here's the oath I had to take to become an Attorney. All our elected officials swear to this as well:Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of..... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State, nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.Ky. Const. sec 228

These provisions have been extremely effective -- I can't think of the last time I heard of anyone in KY (especially an attorney or a politician) being involved in a duel.

Now, I'm trusting you SDMB'ers with this knowledge. Please don't provoke me now that you know I am sworn not to challenge you to a duel.

-----------
Frankd6
Pistols at dawn, ye varlet!

Pete:Here's an interesting piece of information about the duel. Hamilton cheated.Interesting point. Do you have a citation for that?

------------------
Tom~

Interesting that so many states appear to have prohibitions against dueling written in to their constitutions. California's constitution states:

"Any citizen of this State, who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, fight a duel with deadly weapons, either within this State or out of it; or who shall act as a second, or knowingly aid or assist in any manner those thus offending, shall not be allowed to hold any office of profit or to enjoy the right of suffrage under this Constitution."

Atricle 11, Section 2 of the 1849 California Constitution

A criminal penalty was added in 1855, and was codified in 1872, preventing not only dueling and acting as a second or delivering a challenge, but also prohibiting making fun of someone for not dueling and leaving the state to fight a duel. (Interestingly, the anti-dueling statutes were repealed here four years ago as "obsolete.")

One of the more famous duels in California, ironically enough, was between a Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court and a U.S. Senator, in 1859, in San Francisco. The judge, David Terry, killed the Senator, David Broderick. "Pistols at ten paces," as it were.

-Melin

------------------
Phenomenal woman
Bitch Corporate Lawyer
That's me

I also found this a very interesting question, in light of Montana's vigilate and "wild west" history, so I went and looked it up. Unlike the other states mentioned, duelling is apparently not illegal in Montana:

"Engaging in a "mutual gun battle" does not constitute an offense under Montana law. Montana does not have, for example, a statute that outlaws dueling." Keyes v. District Court, 955 P.2d 639, 644 (Mont.1998).

The problem, of course, is that it IS illegal to kill people in Montana (under general homocide laws) and to wound them (under general assault laws), so while the duel itself would not be illegal, the result arguably would be. Of course, the defense might be something like assumption of risk or an estoppel argument. Anyway, the act itself is apparently okay. So does anyone want to engage in a duel with water pistols? You'd have to come out here, but I'd be glad to slap your face, in keeping with the etiquette of duelling. :)

Dueling was illegal in most places at the time Burr and Hamilton got it on.

They had to go to New Jersey for the duel, where it was still allowed.

Here's an interesting piece of information about the duel. Hamilton cheated. What makes it even funnier is that he probably lost because of it. He rigged his own gun so that it would go off when 1/10 of a pound of pressure was put on the trigger, opposed to the normal 4 pounds of the same gun which Burr was given. Because the pressure needed to fire was so light, Hamilton's gun went off when he was turning around and aiming. The bullet went a foot or two about Burr's head. After that, it was an easy shot for Burr.

------------------
I don't know who first said "everyone's a critic," but I think it's a really stupid saying.

The dueling prohibitions have been repealed in California?

Does this now mean that one Californian can challenge another, and shoot him dead, and not be prosecuted? Or would they still get him for, say, assault with a deadly weapon?

While dueling itself is no longer a specifically prohibited crime, certainly if you wounded someone you would be charged with assault and battery, and if you killed them you would be charged with murder. It would NOT be a defense to criminal charges that the other party was a willing participant.

Hey Connie, you had me worried there at first when I saw this thread! I thought you were callin' me out! ;)

-Melin

I think it's a Cecil-worthy question too. I bet there is nowhere in Western civilization where dueling to the death is still legal, or practiced, but I've been in a couple of and seen a few more fistfights. Isn't that sort of like wimp dueling? And, by the way, writers of the past (Twain, Hemingway, Crane, Faulkner, etc.) have their characters getting in fistfights regularly. Was fighting more common in the past than it is now?

Our weapons of choice are now electrons at 2,000 miles. Plenty deadly for our purposes!

--Good thread!
It's too early in the morning for me to do hard research (lazy, I know, forgive me), but it seems to me that most "civilized" cultures have proscribed duelling for some centuries, but tended to look the other way--especially for the "noble" classes; hence the odd times and places. Also, wasn't there frequently a sort of gentleman's agreement that by merely showing up and firing your pistols in the air (or fencing until someone got a scratch), honor would be satisfied and they could all go out to breakfast? I admit you'ld have to be pretty trusting!
--Alan Q

Duelling is also prohibited in Canada, under the Criminal Code, Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, c. C-46, s. 71:

71. Every one who
(a) challenges or attempts by any means to provoke another person to fight a duel,
(b) attempts to provoke a person to challenge another person to fight a duel, or
(c) accepts a challenge to fight a duel,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

I have a vague memory that our first Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald, may have defended someone accused of duelling, when Macdonald was still in private practice.

The reference above to the duel fought by a U.S. Senator brings to mind an interesting corollary: members of Congress are immune from certain laws when travelling to and from sessions of Congress according to the United States Constitution. How does that apply to dueling?

Monty, easy, The constitution specificly mentions "felony", any other questions?

Agree this is a good question. Spent some time researching--zip-nada. I can only add that dueling is illegal in Japan. If two people agree to meet and fight and one dies, the violation of some dueling law is usually mentioned in the newspaper.

I am given to understand that duelling in Uruguay is legal, so long as both parties are registered blood donors.

As to Hamilton's pistols, yes, X-ray studies in the 1960's revealed a concealed hair-trigger mechanism in the pistols, and, yes, from the eyewitness accounts it would appear that Hamilton fired prematurely.

It is not certain that the premature shot was a result of the hair-trigger (the device had to be manually activated), and, if I recall correctly, it is not even clear that Hamilton knew the pistols' secret.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

Tomndebb: If Pete hadn't introduced that fact, I would have. I recall seeing an article in (IIRC, and it's been a good 15+ years) in "Smithsonian". It included not only pictures of the guns involved, but x-ray photographs which clearly showed how Hamilton had had the guns tampered with.

[jon]

I guess I'm another latecomer to a dying thread, but i can't resist as I am an avid reader of napoleonic era history and fiction.

Every account of a pistol duel I have ever read involved a pair of closely matched pistols loaded by the second of one party and presented to the other party to choose one. If one could be sure of which pistol one got, any number of schemes could be applied to give advantage. They were still primitive enough weapons that failure to fire happened frequently even without foul play.

Whatever Aaron Burr was, he wasn't a fool who would not insist on this common protocol, especially when Hamilton was providing the weapons. Does anyone have an answer to this aspect of the rigged gun? The only one I can think of without discounting the report, is that Burr had a choice, but Hamilton presumed that the rigged weapon in his own hand would be an advantage, but in Burr's unknowing hand would result in just what happened to Hamilton himself.

Jon

[jon]

Although I admit I read too fast and missed the part about the mech being concealed, It still sounds like something that could be inadvertently triggered by a nervous hand. For that matter I sure wouldn't want my life depending on such an unfamiliar awkward action like "pushing" a trigger.

[John W. Kennedy]

The hair-trigger mechanism is a concealed one -- that's why it took X-rays to discover it. It requires forcing the trigger forward to activate it.

The pistols came from Hamilton's side of the duel -- I forget the exact connection -- but they were not his personal property. He might have known about the hair trigger, and he might have attempted to use it, but we do not positively know.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[John W. Kennedy]

No, no. First you push the trigger backward, an act that is almost impossible to do unless deliberately. Then you squeeze it in the ordinary way, but it only will take only a tiny fraction of the force that it ordinarily takes; that makes the weapon more accurate, because your hand is less likely to move as a result of tightening your trigger finger.

The theory is that Hamilton activated the hair-trigger mechanism, intending to use it as an unfair advantage, but didn't realize how sensitive it was and accidentally discharged his weapon before aiming. That is entirely consistent with the eyewitness accounts; however, the history of the pistols up to that point is such that it is entirely possible that he had no idea the hair trigger was there. It is still possible that the theory is true that people believed before the pistols were X-rayed -- that he deliberately fired his pistol into the air to shame Burr into giving up the idea of a duel, and that Burr, instead, cooly shot him down. It is unlikely at this date that we will ever know the truth for certain.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams