Today is the anniversary of the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, in which Vice President Burr shot former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who later died. The duel was over some remarks that Hamilton may have made about Burr. Repeated correspondence between the two did not settle the manner, so pistols were used to end it.
Dueling has fallen away from popular culture for the most part, but would our society benefit from its return? Would a ritualized confrontation between two people, one of whom is expressing a grievance and another who is denying it, lead to more efficient problem resolution?
Let’s assume for a moment that dueling would be the last resort for gaining satisfaction for the aggrieved party. Maybe you have to go through a sequence of asking for an apology or restitution, then go through the courts, and then you can ask to be met on the field of honor. Possibly the things for which a duel could be demanded could be limited so that young men and women aren’t shooting, slashing, or stabbing each other with too high a frequency.
Would politicians do stupid and illegal things if they knew that the people they were hurting could demand satisfaction at dawn using knobkerries? Could the shrieking classes on both side of the political aisle survive if those they were shrieking about could walk up, slap them across the face, and invite them to hash it out with sabres in front of the cameras?
My gut tells me things would get a lot better once folks figured out that being a lying, cheating, insulting twit could get you hurt in a rather sticky manner.
What say you all?
DaddyBear’s Den 
Katia
/ July 11, 2012I like it. Goes along with “An armed society is a polite society.” RAH
LikeLike
Mad Jack
/ July 11, 2012I’ve always thought so. I think we’d all begin living in a society with much more polite and considerate people, which would be a distinct improvement.
LikeLike
Fill Yer Hands
/ July 11, 2012I think it would lead to a resurgence of the afternoon confrontation shows, similar to the “reality” TV craze. Think Jerry Springer show in an outdoor arena with swords or pistols.
LikeLike
Auntie J
/ July 11, 2012Dunno. On the one hand, I certainly see the appeal.
On the other, I’m sure my brother would come gunning for me, over a series of “offenses” he thinks I’m guilty of and which I just chalk up to good parenting of my children. And that scares me.
LikeLike
daddybear71
/ July 11, 2012I think that a requirement to seek satisfaction through other avenues, such as the courts, before challenging someone to a duel would keep most people who won’t come gunning for others now from doing it with legal dueling. Also, an ambush is murder, a duel is honorable defense of your honor.
But yeah, I know what you mean.
LikeLike
Matt House
/ July 13, 2012“Possibly the things for which a duel could be demanded could be limited so that young men and women aren’t shooting, slashing, or stabbing each other with too high a frequency.”
I’m all for making dueling cheap, and easy to do. If you’re dumb enough to offer a duel over something stupid I want you out of my gene pool. If you’re dumb enough to -accept- a duel over something stupid, I want you out of my gene pool.
Either way, it’s win-win.
LikeLike
Joel C
/ July 13, 2012I don’t know. If we duel with pistols, the better marksmen may tend toward lesser manners. If with hand to hand weapons of whatever sort, the larger, the stronger, (or quicker and more agile, though that may compensate for less than some like to believe) and better skilled may be freer in their ways than we of more common talent.
I’ve no science nor study to back these notions, but I can’t help wondering if we would less solve a problem than exchange one for another.
Just my idle musings.
LikeLike
Matt House
/ July 14, 2012point is, for a duel to get you killed by someone bigger/stronger/better shot, you have to -accept the duel-.
Dont accept? dont get killed.
LikeLike
Joel C
/ July 14, 2012And suck up the insults! 🙂
LikeLike
Matt House
/ July 14, 2012And? If someone is insulting me for the purpose of getting me into a duel, clearly, they’re not insulting me, they’re -trying to kill me-. whole different catagory of concern.
Also, you do know how dueling works, yes? Challenged has choice of weapons…
LikeLike
Joel C
/ July 15, 2012Matt, this is turning into a silly argument which I am not interested in.
Will duels solve or keep a lid on some social problems? Probably. Will duels also impose social ills which we won’t like? Probably. Will it be a good trade off? Might not be.
That’s my take, which has nothing to do with your cheap and easy gene-pool-reject-disposal-system, whatever merit it may or may not possess..
That’s all. I’m done.
LikeLike
Matthew House
/ July 15, 2012I treated you with respect, and courtesy, and told you what I thought. If you feel that it’s a ‘silly arguement’, that’s certainly your choice.
LikeLike