Dueling Anyone?

Andrew Jackson, before he became president was involved in about 100 duels !!! Today we have them , it's called road rage !! In Long Island NY recently two men disputed their position at the drive in window of a fast food place .One stabbed the other , got his food and went home !!! :rolleyes:
 
That's the main trouble with dueling. Sometimes you get a sleezebag like Andy Jackson who is a good shot.

TexasCharley, let me be the first to welcome you to TFL. :D Interesting story about Hamilton and Burr; I wonder how it got suppressed.
 
In these times you can probaly sue someone for millions of dollars for a tiny scratch I say dueling is pretty much out of the question, even paintball dueling. Laser tag dueling is probaly out also saying how its "threatening" to point a plastic light toy at someone.
 
So lets say thatt you are challenged to a duel, and you refuse. Are you going to be looked down upon for that?
 
Dueling in the modern world... So really, how would this make a more civilized society? Situation--I back my truck into a Lexus parked behind me and end up in an argument with the owner of the Lexus over who's fault it is. The duel ensues! Pistols in hand, we march 10 paces, turn, and fire. OK, if he really gets lucky he might get me. But... Chances are that he'd be on the loosing end and his widow wouldn't be collecting that insurance policy because I'm betting there would be a footnote that makes it void for active participation in a duel. So I shrug, say to the corpse "see, I told you it was your fault", get in my truck and go about my business. Guess he should have been at the range working on his aim instead of at his lab working on that hydrogen hybrid engine concept car all the time... LOL Sorry, but I couldn't help throwing a little comic relief into this thread. :D Nope, dueling just makes principle and reason take the back seat to ego and temper.
 
Since my last post, I found that I have a mistake. The reference I was using said Hamilton was hit in the thigh. He wasn't. Burr gut-shot him! He was trying to kill him after all--and trying to see to it he died in a very unpleasant manner. Considering what finally brought on the challenge--Hamilton's implying that Burr was having sexual relations with his daughter Theodosia--I can't say I blame Burr for it.
As far as it taking so long for the story of the alterations to the pistols to come out, They remained in Church's family for generations. One of his grandsons had one of them converted to percussion and carried it as his personal sidearm during the War Between the States. Having the modifications made in England almost assured that they would not become known over here, and that's exactly what happened. It wasn't until Chase-Manhattan started preparing for the Bicentennial that it occurred to anyone to have the pistols duplicated. Of course, when they were disassembled to get measurements and make dies, the modifications were found.
I've also found that, prior to the Burr-Hamilton affair, those pistols were considered to be 'irregular,' meaning inaccurate. Smoothbores usually aren't very accurate at extended range, but at dueling distance, which was usually about 20 yards, not 'ten steps,' they were usually accurate enough for serious social work. Adding blind rifling and a concealed set trigger should have made them very accurate and probably did. Hamilton seems to have gotten a mite previous on that set trigger, which caused him to shoot over Burr's head. What went through his mind when he realized he missed we can only imagine, but it was probably something to the effect of "Oh, s..t!"
TexasCharley
 
In Kentucky, there is a state constitutional provision banning anyone who has ever fought in a duel from holding public office. Every office holder takes an oath which includes the oath that he or she has never fought in a duel.
 
Should dueling be restored as a tradition? Probably no.

Should dueling be legal? Probably yes.

Here's why.

As a free individual, I own my life and my body.

It is my right as a free individual to risk this life, since I am the one who owns it.

Therefore, two individuals, providing they are both sane and willing, have the innate, inalienable right, to risk ttheir lives by shooting at each other, hitting each other with baseball bats, or engaging in a dangerous competititve sport.

Why should it be a crime to shoot at a man who consents to be shot at?
 
Let the left-wingers reap what they sew

While reviving the duel is an excellent idea, who would teach most of the left-wingers how to shoot? After all, they ought to have a little bit of a chance, at least.

In my book, the left-wingers deserve the same chance they allow those whom they would disarm when the disarmed has to fight empty handed against a 300 lb. thug; that would be "slim to none."

There would be no left-wingers involved in duels anyway. To engage in a duel, one must have honor, integrity and manhood to defend, and the courage to defend them.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Jackson, before he became president was involved in about 100 duels !!!

Now there's a bad dude! Obviously, he won them all, since he survived to become President. We could use a team like Jackson and Bowie in the White House! :D
 
What ever happened to the days when people just beat the crap out of each other and then had a drink together.
 
Andy Jackson's worst duel

Though it's not generally reported--and when the History Channel did the special on dueling they didn't mention it--when Jackson killed his man with his second try, flint having failed to ignite the priming powder the first time he pulled the trigger, Jackson was hit by his opponent's ball and believed he had taken a fatal wound. He held his stance by sheer will, causing his opponent to say "My God, have I missed him?" When the priming powder failed to ignite on the first try, Jackson closed the pan, recocked the weapon, and tried again. This time the pistol went off and his opponent received a fatal wound. Jackson calmly walked over to him and watched as they covered the man's face. He asked "Is he dead?" When he heard he was, Jackson collapsed. The ball was lodged within an inch of his heart, and remained there all his life. After he came out of a coma, his friends asked "Andrew, why didn't you acknowledge that you were hit?" He replied "I wasn't going to give the SOB the satisfaction of knowing he'd killed me, too."
TexasCharley
 
Therefore, two individuals, providing they are both sane and willing, have the innate, inalienable right, to risk ttheir lives by shooting at each other, hitting each other with baseball bats, or engaging in a dangerous competititve sport.

Why should it be a crime to shoot at a man who consents to be shot at?

I can't argue with that.

Dueling isn't very smart. The same could be said about bungee jumping, skydiving, pretty much any activity in which men consent to lay their lives on the line. At least duelists were standing up for something rather than just looking for an adrenaline rush.

Besides we have plenty of frivolous lawsuits that could be settled much more quickly and cheaply with duels. And plenty of idiots who would probably do it.
 
Dueling it would seem was the "gentleman's way of fighting" as was fist a cuffs (probably got it wrong) after dueling was outlawed.

Both era's are gone. Now the people just go home and then plan a drive by because they were "dissed" and the "fight" is done in a most cowardly way.

We should go back to dueling.

Wayne
 
It was indeed a matter of social class in the past. If a gentleman you insulted considered you his equal, he challenged you to a duel. If he felt you were his social inferior, he would horsewhip or cane you on the spot. They were called 'affairs of honor.' It seemed a particularly Southern trait, I have always felt this legacy was responsible in part for Southern good manners... .

lpl/nc
-------------
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/rulesofdueling.html

Code Duello: The Rules of Dueling

Reprinted from "American Duels and Hostile Encounters," Chilton Books, 1963.


The Code Duello, covering the practice of dueling and points of honor, was drawn up and settled at Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, by gentlemen-delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Sligo, Mayo and Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland. The Code was generally also followed in England and on the Continent with some slight variations. In America, the principal rules were followed, although occasionally there were some glaring deviations.



Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.

Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.

N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offenses in retort not of stronger class than the example.

Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won't decide, or can't agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.

Rule 4. When the lie direct is the first offense, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms; exchange two shots previous to apology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.

Rule 5. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore -- the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane.

If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.

N.B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable. The disarmer may (strictly) break his adversary's sword; but if it be the challenger who is disarmed, it is considered as ungenerous to do so.

In the case the challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone, he must not be killed, as formerly; but the challenger may lay his own sword on the aggressor's shoulder, then break the aggressor's sword and say, "I spare your life!" The challenged can never revive the quarrel -- the challenger may.

Rule 6. If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offenses), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each, or a severe hit; after which B may beg A's pardon humbly for the blow and then A may explain simply for the lie; because a blow is never allowable, and the offense of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rules.)

N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be reconciled on the ground, after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offense transpired.

Rule 7. But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties have actually taken ground, without exchange of fires.

Rule 8. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required by the challenged so to do before their meeting.

Rule 9. All imputations of cheating at play, races, etc., to be considered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.

Rule 10. Any insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be considered as, by one degree, a greater offense than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.

Rule 11. Offenses originating or accruing from the support of ladies' reputations, to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the aggressor: this to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorable to the lady.

Rule 12. In simple, unpremeditated recontres with the smallsword, or couteau de chasse, the rule is -- first draw, first sheath, unless blood is drawn; then both sheath, and proceed to investigation.

Rule 13. No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children's play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.

Rule 14. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal, and equality is indispensible.

Rule 15. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.

Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged.

Rule 17. The challenged chooses his ground; the challenger chooses his distance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.

Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.

Rule 19. Firing may be regulated -- first by signal; secondly, by word of command; or thirdly, at pleasure -- as may be agreeable to the parties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.

Rule 20. In all cases a miss-fire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or non-cock is to be considered as a miss-fire.

Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.

Rule 22. Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.

Rule 23. If the cause of the meeting be of such a nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground, and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses; in such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.

Rule 24. In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol; but in gross cases, two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.

Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals, thus:

If with swords, side by side, with five paces interval.

N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be explained and cleared up by application to the committee, who meet alternately at Clonmel and Galway, at the quarter sessions, for that purpose.
 
We should go back to dueling.
+1 for USP45

Back in "the old days," men generally kept their cakeholes shut and minded their manners, knowing that if they did not, their disrespect would be paid for with their own blood. Not so today.

The old axiom, "An armed society is a polite society" rings true.

Today, @--holes are protected by the law, which promotes torrents of behavior worthy of a first-class @-- kicking.

If said @-- kicking is visited upon the @--hole in question, the kicker stands to go to prison and lose all his worldly possessions to the @--hole and his team of lawyerly parasites.

Why is this considered justice?? Because "violence is never the answer to anything." Actually, violence is the answer - to many more things than our so-called "society" is willing to acknowledge.

As regards dueling, I would advocate three different options, such as -

1: Pistols at 50 yards. Both contestants stand 50 yards apart, each in a box measuring 24"x24". Shooting commences at the order to "FIRE," to be issued by a "referee" presiding over the duel. The duel ends when one contestant steps out of his box, immediately forefiting victory (providing a contestant an "out" if he loses his nerve), with the death of a contestant or with a contestant calling out "I forefit."

2: Ka-Bar knives at 20 feet. Both contestants are armed with one Ka-Bar USMC style knife with 7" blade. Both are then put into a 20x20 "ring." The duel is controlled by a referee who will give the order "BEGIN" to open the duel. The duel ends when one of the principals dies, or forefits by either leaving the ring or (if injured) calling out, "I forefit."

3: Brass knuckles at 20 feet. Both contestants don brass knuckles on each of their fists and put into a 20x20 ring, as above. Same rules for ending/forefiting the duel as applies to Ka-Bars at 20 feet; duel is controlled by a referee as above.

IMHO, 95%+ of duels would never get off the ground in the first place. Given the life-or-death nature of the duel, the vast majority of prospective duelers would either settle their differences peacefully, one of the duelers would lose his nerve and forefit victory to the other man, or people would keep their cakeholes shut and mind their manners in the first place (what a concept!!)

I can't help but think having the spectre of the duel hanging over people's heads would make our society a much more polite one than what we have now.
 
Back in "the old days," men generally kept their cakeholes shut and minded their manners, knowing that if they did not, their disrespect would be paid for with their own blood. Not so today.
You guys are pretty funny, in a sad sort of way.

What you geniuses are advocating is that as long as I'm faster than you are, I can talk about your mother, your business, and your integrity all I want to.
 
Back
Top