Today is the 207th anniversary of the duel between Alexander Hamilton and “Aaarnnnbrrrrr!” (video:ESPN covers the duel). It was far from the only duel in U.S. history- Declaration signer Button Gwinnett died in a duel, Andrew Jackson killed at least two men in duels, even Abraham Lincoln accepted a challenge to duel (though with some asterisks in place), and many others as well, but the habit died out in time.
So, in their honor, suppose that somehow duelling had remained socially acceptable and at least fringe-legal. (In the case of Hamilton-Burr they chose a place where it was on the legal fringes.) Has there been anybody in your life you would have challenged?
Assume of course that you had a fighting chance- either you’re a good shot or decent with a sword.
I’d prefer a duel to first blood with swords. Dueling with guns is too easily escalated (if it isn’t already presupposing) a duel to the death. I could see myself (in my youth, anyway) fighting for honor’s sake and inflicting or enduring scars thereby, but I’d definitely draw the line at dealing in death.
I get hot-tempered and foolishly stubborn sometimes. So, yes, I probably would have gotten into some duels, both as challenger and challenged. And based on my shooting ability, I’d probably be dead.
I’d never challenge anyone, since I might lose. And if challenged, I’d refuse if I could, or try to find some way to ambush and kill the guy before the duel if I couldn’t. If an issue is important enough to kill over then it’s too important to play games making it a “fair fight”.
When Lincoln was challenged it was by Col. Jimmy Shields who accused him of anonymously authoring a series of editorials about him. (They were probably written by Lincoln’s jilted fiancee, Mary Todd.) Shields was a crack shot and also good with a sword so he figured he had Lincoln either way (though I think mainly he figured Lincoln would run for the hills). Lincoln read the Code Duello and realized he had the choice of weapons and the date/place of the duel; Lincoln chose broadswords. (How he got hold of a broadsword in 19th century Illinois is anybody’s guess, but he did.)
Lincoln was a head taller than Shields, had much longer arms, and was famous for his upper body strength (“the rail splitter”). Had they actually fought he could have done some serious damage, because even though Shields had a military background Lincoln had far superior reach due to his arm length and strength. They did go out to meet (Sunflower Island- a sandy little shoal off the Missouri side of the Mississippi) but ended up laughing and shaking hands and ultimately became sorta kinda friends (not bosom buddy, but they worked together on some projects before and during Lincoln’s presidency) and there are statues of them both in the Capitol now (though Shields represents Minnesota, where he moved after he left Illinois).
Many people misunderstand the motivation behind dueling. The point wasn’t that you felt so strongly about an issue that you were willing to kill somebody. The point was that you felt so strongly about an issue that you were willing to risk your life over it. So killing your opponent via ambush wouldn’t accomplish anything - you’d just be a common murderer.
To put in a personal context, you might challenge somebody like Rush Limbaugh to a duel. Not to kill him but in the expectation that when it came to putting his own life at risk, Limbaugh would chicken out and refuse. And after that, nobody would take Limbaugh seriously - he’d have shown he wasn’t willing to stand up for what he said.
Basically it was playing chicken with them. Many if not most people challenged either offered an apology for the offense was or else didn’t accept the challenge and did whatever damage control they could to not look like a coward.
Many duels were settled with first blood or both parties firing into the air. One school of thought on the Hamilton-Burr duel is that Hamilton discharged into the air thinking Burr would but instead Burr drilled him; there’s no way of knowing if this is true. It is known that Hamilton’s gun had a hair trigger and that he knew this but declined an offer to fix it. Some latter day psychoanalysts have suggested Hamilton was committing “suicide-by-duel”: his career was not in a good place due to many factors, he was in a financial hole from which he couldn’t climb out due to bad investments and lavish living, he was depressed over the death of his oldest son in a duel three years before, his marriage would not have ended in divorce probably due to the fact polite society didn’t divorce but the wife had almost certainly noticed her husband’s extramarital affair being front page news, he really didn’t have a lot going for him at this time.
It’s unknown what the incident that caused Burr to challenge him was- it was said to be an insult privately circulated, but if it was written no copy has been found. Vidal famous speculated in his novel Burr that Hamilton had accused Burr of committing incest with his daughter Theodosia, this being based on the facts his relationship with his daughter definitely raised eyebrows (e.g. when Burr was in Europe he wrote Theodosia detailed accounts of his sex life) and that whatever Hamilton said was bad enough that Burr clearly went there intending to kill the bastard (you don’t gut shoot somebody with a flintlock pistol at a distance by accident); while the Vidal theory hasn’t and probably can’t be proven or disproven, it’s interesting how it’s almost taken for granted by some writers as it pops up in articles and even in the occasional book (though obviously not in detailed bios of Hamilton, save perhaps a mention that “novelist Gore Vidal said…”).
Certainly it would accomplish something; your enemy would be dead. I’m aware of the historical ideas behind dueling; I was just making the point that I don’t agree with them so I wouldn’t be inclined to play by those rules. I’m reminded of a quote from the character Cazaril of The Curse of Chalion, which I use in my sig on another forum:
Spoken while he has the guy who tried to challenge him pinned by the throat against a wall, for extra authority.
Well yes, you can choose any weapon… but to paraphrase a friend of mine, if the gentleman you challenge selects something other than a pistol or rapier then he has proved that he is no gentleman, and the proper course of action is to send your footmen to thrash the blaggart on the steps of whichever club has stooped so low as to have him as a member.
There’s the issue of what you value. If you value your ideas you want people to listen to them. Going around stabbing a bunch of people in the back will give you a reputation as a psychopath not a philosopher.
Presumably either you try to avoid getting caught, or you bring an army along with you to help. As for them listening to ideas; you don’t kill to win arguments, you kill to destroy the other side. If you think there’s any chance they’ll listen to reason, then you shouldn’t be killing them in the first place.
