"Sir, I challenge you to a duel!" While these words today are a joke,
and at most would give you the opportunity to slap someone with a
glove, not so long ago these words meant serious business. Since the
dawn of time, men have always had the urge to show their male dominance.
And what better way to accomplish this than by a potential deadly duel?
But dueling could not be over a quibbling matter, no, dueling was
reserved as a way to restore honor to one's name.
I just started reading Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation,
by Joseph E. Ellis, and the first chapter tells of the most famous duel
in American history. In reading, I ran across a passage which informed
the reader of the probability of injury. "But the inherent inaccuracy of
a projectile emerging from a smoothbore barrel, plus the potent jerk
required to release the cocked hammer, ignite the powder, and then send
the ball toward its target, meant that in this duel, as in most duels of
that time, neither party was likely to be hurt badly, if at all." (1) I
also found numerous other sources that indicated the same notion. "The
chance of dying in a pistol duel was relatively slim. Flintlocks often
misfired. And even in the hands of an experienced shooter, accuracy was
difficult." (2)
If this was such an ineffective way to duel, why
even take part? I realize that the chance of dying is possible, but like
all sources state, not likely. It almost amounts to dueling with
billiard balls, which two Frenchmen did in 1843. (3) I am guessing that
neither of these gentlemen died-well, not from billiards dueling anyway.
The
Burr-Hamilton duel, which would become the most famous duel in
America's history, took place on July 11, 1804. This duel, which took
the life of Alexander Hamilton, would forever change the country's
opinion on dueling. Dueling, just as slavery, was a nasty, customary
element of the era. The custom of dueling started in medieval times and
came to America, with the Pilgrims, on the Mayflower. Only one year
after establishing a colony in Massachusetts, in 1621, Edward Doty and
Edward Lester had a sword duel. The punishment for this "crime"?-the two
men spent one hour with their ankles tied to their necks. I would say
the punishment hardly fits the severity of the crime.
In
researching this topic, I ran across several stories about the duel
between Andrew Jackson and Charles Dickinson. This 1806 duel led to the
death of Charles Dickinson and an injury resulting in a lifetime of pain
for Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson-yes, Old Hickory himself-fought
in many a duel, and was known to leave a few lifeless bodies in his
wake. In the earlier referenced PBS.org source (2), there was a quote,
"In the eyes of many, Jackson's behavior amounted to little more than
murder." Not only had he killed a man in this duel but he also broke a
rule, which by today's definition would label him as a cheater. This
leads me to a question. Let's say that Republican Nominee for President,
Mitt Romney, participated in a duel in his younger years. Would he be
elected president? Would the press not make this issue the issue? I think so!
Interestingly
enough, somehow this history of dueling turned into a political survey
and not so much a history lesson. But I digress. As America became a
civilized country dueling, like slavery, would be seen for what it truly
was and like slavery be abolished.
No comments:
Post a Comment