[Op-Ed] Bring Back Dueling!

[Jaepheth]

We already have dueling. Any two people can go to a gym and get in a boxing/MMA ring anytime they feel like it.

"Oh, but then the stronger person will always be right."
So? With guns or swords the faster or better coordinated person will always be right. That's better how exactly?


IMO, these people are just trying to justify their desire to shoot someone to shut them up permanently.

[Thanas]

Hm. I apologize, based on what I remember (from admittedly hazy-in-the-past sources) emphasizes the problem of violent bravos getting into group fights instead of- or as an adjunct to- the actual duel. This may have been a problem specific to, for example, bored young violent idiots in cities.

Statement retracted, although I will maintain that group violence between partisans of one side and the other in a duel is one of the probable consequences of widespread dueling culture. Calling it "gang warfare" may imply that the groups in question are officially criminals, which may or may not be true in any given instance.

Why is it probable? The duels were invented to exactly limit the mass brawls and focus them on highly-ritualized bouts. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying "barroom brawls are one of the probably consequences of boxing."

[bilateralrope]

What about person A encouraging other people to be offended at something person B said and challenge B to a duel ?

If the people being encouraged lose, A has lost nothing except maybe money. A isn't putting himself at risk.

How many duels can B survive ?

[Zeropoint]

If we're going to bring back duelling, I like Purple's suggestions of grenades. The duel official will present a case with two apparently identical grenades, one of which is live, and the other of which is an inert dummy. The challenger picks one, the challengee gets the other, they walk to 50 paces, pull the pins (holding down the spoons) and wait. On the referee's signal, they release the spoons and then hang onto their respective grenades until one of them is the winner.

[Thanas]

You do not seem to realise that dueling since the 1700s was not aimed at killing people, but rather preventing deaths. Heck, the whole reason they replaced rapiers with smallswords (besides dancing) was because rapiers were considered to be too deadly for duels.

[madd0ct0r]

I recall a polish Lord challenging Nigel farage to a duel in the election and Charlotte Church challenged Katie Hopkins to a charity boxing match recently.

It's something about right wing bluster and windbag that make people want to seem them deflated, coupled with a call to tradition that is normally their trump card. I can't recall anyone challenging a lefty in the UK to duel recently.

[LaCroix]

Hm. I apologize, based on what I remember (from admittedly hazy-in-the-past sources) emphasizes the problem of violent bravos getting into group fights instead of- or as an adjunct to- the actual duel. This may have been a problem specific to, for example, bored young violent idiots in cities.

Statement retracted, although I will maintain that group violence between partisans of one side and the other in a duel is one of the probable consequences of widespread dueling culture. Calling it "gang warfare" may imply that the groups in question are officially criminals, which may or may not be true in any given instance.

You probably refer to the Duel of the Minions. (No, not the yellow kind, but about equally stupid...)
The Minions were a group of low ranking nobility youngsters in the entourage of the king, and quite a raucous bunch, spending their time drinking, seducing women, and dueling due to the two prior mentioned activities. They had at least one very famous duel that escalated massively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Migno ... he_Mignons

Same happened in the US, with Mr. Bowie (not the singer, butthe one the americans named the already existing type of knife after because he used it a lot) attending.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbar_Fight

[jwl]

Dueling only makes a difference if there is a culture in place that means people are actually likely to take it seriously. If someone challenged Trump to a duel, legal or not, he would laugh in their face.

[Simon_Jester]

The more formalized the practice of dueling becomes, the less the danger of duels escalating into general brawls (like the Sandbar Fight) or of random violent idiots deciding to fight for stupid reasons (like the Duel des Mignons).

However, many societies had bans on dueling even while the nobles continued to semi-openly practice it... and so far as I am aware, a major reason for these laws was that you can never be sure any given duel won't escalate into larger-scale violence.

[LaCroix]

Well, duels often resulted in people seeking more duels for petty reasons, to take revenge for themselves or friends/family. Aka Vendettas.

Also, there was always the option to simply apologize to get things off the table, or outright decline if someone tried to bully you into a duel for dishonorable reasons. Nobody could make you duel someone. If they were to spring it on you, it was an assault and would lead to charges, only your consent and the formalities being observed made it a duel.

Of course, he then could try to slander away at you for declining, but you could slander right back at him for being a brute looking for fights, disregarding their merit and honor.

[Rogue 9]

Dueling advocacy I've seen of late, being on Facebook, has tended to take the form of this, mostly this very macro in fact:



Where the implication is that you just get to kill whoever gets offended at what you say, especially since the creator chose to use the murder of Alexander Hamilton as his background. I have serious doubts that anyone who advocates bringing back dueling with sincerity has any other real intention.

[Thanas]

Honourable exception:

In May 1856, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts delivered a vituperative denunciation of President Franklin Pierce and Southerners who sympathized with the pro-slavery violence in Bleeding Kansas. In particular, Sumner lambasted Senator Andrew Butler, a cousin of Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina. Three days later, Congressman Brooks advanced upon Sumner while he worked at his desk in the Senate chamber. Using his cane, Brooks beat Sumner into unconsciousness, with Sumner ripping his bolted-down desk from the floor as he attempted to escape. Brooks received no official censure from the House of Representatives, and was instead hailed as a hero in much of the pro-slavery South.

Shortly afterwards, Burlingame delivered what The New York Times referred to as "the most celebrated speech"of his career: a scathing denunciation of Brooks' assault on Sumner, branding him as "the vilest sort of coward" on the House floor. In response, Brooks challenged Burlingame to a duel, stating he would gladly face him "in any Yankee mudsill of his choosing". Burlingame, a well-known marksman, eagerly accepted, choosing rifles as the weapons and the Navy Yards on the Canadian side of the U.S. border in Niagara Falls as the location (in order to circumvent the U.S. ban on dueling). Brooks, reportedly dismayed by both Burlingame's unexpectedly enthusiastic acceptance and his reputation as a crack shot, neglected to show up, instead citing unspecified risks to his safety if he was to cross "hostile country" (the northern U.S. states) in order to reach Canada.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I think that most arguments pro dueling come from the perspective that libel laws do in fact not work under conditions where journalists can say pretty much anything they want and politicians can bribe/expensive lawyer their way out of anything. And that given the fact that most of them are unfit to survive a fist fight, let alone a duel such arrangements would effectively be upping the stakes for slander from "slight inconvenience" to "probable death that you can't wiggle out of".

In other words, it's still another excuse to abandon rule of law for the rule of (cave)men in the Land Of I Got Mine, So Fuck You. Oh, and, by the way, the duelling horseshit only applied to the rich. The lower classes weren't challenged to duels by their "betters," their "betters" just had the shit kicked out of the peasants. If they were lucky.

No thanks. To paraphrase Churchill, democracy may be the worst system imaginable, except for all the other systems we've tried.

[Ralin]

Honestly, it wouldn't even serve the purpose of reducing the amount of Trump style crap since you know full well someone like him is just going to shrug off any challenge and mock people for it.

Only way this would ever be legal is if dueling was a purely voluntary activity between two people, and joking aside it's going to be rare to have people issue and accept challenges and unlikely to be a big thing socially. I suspect that we could legalize it on those terms so long as there's a contract and a lawyer and see fairly little difference either way.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Only way this would ever be legal is if dueling was a purely voluntary activity between two people, and joking aside it's going to be rare to have people issue and accept challenges and unlikely to be a big thing socially. I suspect that we could legalize it on those terms so long as there's a contract and a lawyer and see fairly little difference either way.

Not even then. The potential use of such a legality as a "get out of jail free" card is just too much for the law to even be on the books. We've already seen the various stand your ground laws abused in just this fashion.

Also, honor is just a word with too many, especially of Cruz's and Trump's stripe, and definitely with those who paid lip service to codes of chivalry and duelling, when they were a thing; amongst many of those, the codes were observed more in breach than in compliance.

On a tangential note, this thread has put me in mind of the stories written by William F. Wu, in which, as an alternative to an overworked civil court system, potential litigants would hire professional wargamers to fight their battles in virtual-reality re-enactments of historical battles. Two of those shorts appeared in separate volumes of Jerry Pournelle's There Will Be War anthologies.

[Rogue 9]

Honourable exception:

In May 1856, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts delivered a vituperative denunciation of President Franklin Pierce and Southerners who sympathized with the pro-slavery violence in Bleeding Kansas. In particular, Sumner lambasted Senator Andrew Butler, a cousin of Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina. Three days later, Congressman Brooks advanced upon Sumner while he worked at his desk in the Senate chamber. Using his cane, Brooks beat Sumner into unconsciousness, with Sumner ripping his bolted-down desk from the floor as he attempted to escape. Brooks received no official censure from the House of Representatives, and was instead hailed as a hero in much of the pro-slavery South.

Shortly afterwards, Burlingame delivered what The New York Times referred to as "the most celebrated speech"of his career: a scathing denunciation of Brooks' assault on Sumner, branding him as "the vilest sort of coward" on the House floor. In response, Brooks challenged Burlingame to a duel, stating he would gladly face him "in any Yankee mudsill of his choosing". Burlingame, a well-known marksman, eagerly accepted, choosing rifles as the weapons and the Navy Yards on the Canadian side of the U.S. border in Niagara Falls as the location (in order to circumvent the U.S. ban on dueling). Brooks, reportedly dismayed by both Burlingame's unexpectedly enthusiastic acceptance and his reputation as a crack shot, neglected to show up, instead citing unspecified risks to his safety if he was to cross "hostile country" (the northern U.S. states) in order to reach Canada.

Not noted there is the fact that Brooks was at first inclined to challenge Sumner to a duel, but his friends and potential seconds (naturally fellow slaveholders) counseled him that Senator Sumner was obviously of a lower social class than Brooks, not being a master of slaves, and a duel rather than simple physical chastisement as one would chastise a slave was inappropriate. So Brooks took their advice and got basically his only claim to be noted in history.

[Ralin]

Not even then. The potential use of such a legality as a "get out of jail free" card is just too much for the law to even be on the books. We've already seen the various stand your ground laws abused in just this fashion.

Really? How hard could it be to set up a standard where you have to get a notarized statement signed by both parties to the effect of "We are going to duel and hereby absolve the other of any legal responsibility if we should die in the process of [insert agreed upon parameters]"?

[Gandalf]

Because of the stakes involved, coercion would be a big issue.

"Sign this waiver or we'll hurt your family."

[Broomstick]

Not even then. The potential use of such a legality as a "get out of jail free" card is just too much for the law to even be on the books. We've already seen the various stand your ground laws abused in just this fashion.

Really? How hard could it be to set up a standard where you have to get a notarized statement signed by both parties to the effect of "We are going to duel and hereby absolve the other of any legal responsibility if we should die in the process of [insert agreed upon parameters]"?

Such a waiver would in no way prevent your (or their) heirs from pursing the winner in a court of law, just as waivers for inherent risky activities have not prevented heirs from suing.

[Zwinmar]

So tell me again why I would want a bunch of meatheads swaggering around because they are good at [whatever].

Yes, I understand the appeal of wanting to deck someone because they run their mouth without consequence and think there needs to be some repercussion for when idiots and assholes do so, however, a duel only implements the 'might is right' attitude rather than addressing the actual problem.

[Highlord Laan]

Much as I may sometimes wish that High Noon on the Whitehouse lawn was a thing, it's generally made in frustrated jest. Bringing back dueling would be bad. If only because most of the winners would be from the batshit right. There's other, much more pertinent and PC reasons, but thats my main one.

I do, however, think that the laws and procedures banning physical violence in Congress should be rescinded. Because really, sometimes the only way to shut an idiot up is to get up, cross the aisle, and deck the fucker. And it's not like some most fucking all of them haven't done something to deserve it. An all-out brawl breaking out would at least drive up C-Span ratings, and might generate more taxable income via bets on who wins.

[Lord Revan]

Yes because de facto censoring of opinions is such a good idea and would never in a million years backfire badly. There's very good reasons why US Gongress bans physical violence and they're not the only ones either.

After all if physical violence was allowed what would be there to stop the extremist from employing thugs to make sure that their policies and only their policies would passed via threats (or acts) of violence.

Sometimes it would be nice if you actually thinked about what you typed before pressing "submit" or if you were joking indicate it clearly.

[Ralin]

Such a waiver would in no way prevent your (or their) heirs from pursing the winner in a court of law, just as waivers for inherent risky activities have not prevented heirs from suing.

Obviously I was assuming that in this scenario the law is changed to make those waivers binding.

Because of the stakes involved, coercion would be a big issue.

"Sign this waiver or we'll hurt your family."

A valid point, but you could apply that to a lot of things now.

I just can't help but think that there wouldn't be any significant consequences to legalized dueling because only a handful of people would do it. At least big picture-wise. Maybe I'm just being dumb.

[Gandalf]

Because of the stakes involved, coercion would be a big issue.

"Sign this waiver or we'll hurt your family."

A valid point, but you could apply that to a lot of things now.

I just can't help but think that there wouldn't be any significant consequences to legalized dueling because only a handful of people would do it. At least big picture-wise. Maybe I'm just being dumb.

It's a way to legally kill people. Imagine you live in a town that has to deal with organised crime. Townsman Phil sees something highly inappropriate going on. Instead of assaulting/killing him as might happen now, Criminal Jim could pressure Phil into "duelling" with a professional duellist. Witness eliminated, community intimidated, no risky murder necessary.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Obviously I was assuming that in this scenario the law is changed to make those waivers binding.

That still would not prevent a legal challenge, any more than a binding contract would. All a plaintiff has to do is establish, by preponderance of evidence, that the waiver was signed under false pretenses.

Not to mention the obvious point brought up by other posters: No one sane and rational wants to live in the Old West, not in 2016. And, this is all this would be, the Old West with a veneer of legitimacy. Matt Dillion got the fuck out of Dodge years ago.