[Op-Ed] Bring Back Dueling!

[Zaune]

The Federalist

In a recent debate, Donald Trump accused fellow candidate Ted Cruz of being “the single biggest liar” in the Republican race. He didn’t stop there, punctuating the insult by adding that the Texas senator was “probably worse than Jeb Bush.” This ugly dig — leveled by a billionaire in front of tens of millions of television viewers — was nothing less than character assassination.

These days, though, there’s really no way to fight back against attacks on your honor. You can whine about them, or you can respond with your jabs, but little else. (And Cruz is no amateur on either count.) We’ve spent centuries tempering our Darwinian instinct to swing our clubs at the heads of men who threaten or insult us. This has, in the aggregate, served society quite well. And yet, I can’t help but wonder if the lack of consequence associated with our words and deeds has fed another kind of detrimental vulgarism.

People typically adjust their behavior to the level of risk they face — or so the theory goes. Would Harry Reid falsely accuse Mitt Romney of not paying his taxes if the latter could challenge the Nevada senator to a duel to regain his good standing? Would a politician question an opponent’s Christian faith if that opponent could prove his piousness by shooting the accuser dead? Probably not.

Not that most duels ever ended in bloodshed, mind you. Combatants were represented by a second — a friend, colleague, trusted member of society, or relative — who would diligently negotiate a resolution between the parties to avoid any real violence. People are incentivized to act decently when they are responsible for saving lives.
People are incentivized to act decently when they are responsible for saving lives.

If it ever got to the fight — and as a libertarian I have no problem with people voluntarily working out their difficulties at the Weehawken or Bladensburg dueling grounds — there is a strict set of codified rules that all gentleman must follow. Today, they can’t even follow debate rules. The Code Duello, written by a gaggle of Irishmen, contained more than two dozen rules for would-be duelists (for example, the number of shots or wounds that would satisfy honor). Later in 1838, South Carolina Governor John Lyde Wilson wrote an American version of dueling etiquette called “The Code of Honor; Or Rules for the Government of Principals and Seconds in Duelling.” It is an incredible look into the concept of honor in pre-Civil War South:

If a man be smote on one cheek in public, and he turns the other, which is also smitten, and he offers no resistance, but blesses him that so despitefully used him, I am aware that he is in the exercise of great Christian forbearance, highly recommended and enjoined by many very good men, but utterly repugnant to those feelings which nature and education have implanted in the human character.

Unlike Europe, where dueling was based on aristocratic honor codes and restricted to men of certain classes, here in egalitarian America, men of all backgrounds could participate in duels. Women would as well. Most famously, in 1792’s “Petticoat Duel,” Lady Almeria Braddock challenged Mrs. Elphinstone after the latter said something unflattering words about the former’s woman’s age. The two dueled in Hyde Park, first with pistols before taking up swords to settle the matter. Both survived.

The great Democrat, Andrew Jackson, supposedly participated in six duels with much success. No less an American hero, young Abraham Lincoln was almost involved in a duel before honor was restored.

Is Donald Trump a more honorable man than Abraham Lincoln? I think not. Right now, the leading candidate in the GOP race is celebrated by his fans for his vulgarity and eagerness to attack the dignity of others. People confuse this incivility — and he’s not alone — as a statement against political correctness. It isn’t. That would entail using ideological or cultural rhetoric that others have deemed morally unacceptable. Not calling a rival candidate a “pussy.”
I’m not saying violence is the answer. I’m saying violence is an answer.

Yet, the more personal and boorish his invective gets, the more Trump fans are awestricken. The belief that tough-guy Trump is a “fighter” propels his candidacy, even though pampered scions of wealth rarely have to fight for anything. And his success will only produce others who’ll ape this strategy.

I think we can all agree dueling would be a much-needed corrective.

Now, please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying violence is the answer. I’m saying violence is an answer. Because sometimes a witty retort on Twitter simply can’t recapture your lost honor. Dueling would confer consequences onto all the ugly, dishonest, uncouth, untrue, and defamatory things people say about you or your family. Yes, some politicians might be struck down if we allowed this ancient combat to reemerge in contemporary society. But I’m sure that’s a sacrifice most of us would be willing to make.

I'm almost certain this is satire, but the bolded part does have a certain appeal.

[Esquire]

Ah, yes, the glorious days when skill with a sword or a pistol meant you could say and do anything you liked, and kill whoever objected! Let's bring those back! Or, you know, we could have libel laws that work, and stop voting for insane blowhards.

[Ralin]

Ah, yes, the glorious days when skill with a sword or a pistol meant you could say and do anything you liked, and kill whoever objected! Let's bring those back! Or, you know, we could have libel laws that work, and stop voting for insane blowhards.

I think the assumption is that this dueling with be a private matter and the only penalties for refusing would be social ones.

As in, people challenging Trump and calling him a fucking coward when he refuses.

[Patroklos]

I imagine settling political disputes in our polarized society via firearms would end up being a largely one sided affair. Words might sting but they rarely kill. Lets stick with words.

[Rogue 9]

Being in the reenactment circles that I am, I keep seeing this or variations thereof on Facebook meant in all seriousness. I even got blocked by an acquaintance last week for politely arguing that it was a terrible idea. Except I keep seeing it in the form of "people would be a lot less offended if..." rather than "people would be much more polite if..." as the argument. The trouble is that once you strip out all the flowery language, it essentially amounts to this.

[Esquire]

Ah, yes, the glorious days when skill with a sword or a pistol meant you could say and do anything you liked, and kill whoever objected! Let's bring those back! Or, you know, we could have libel laws that work, and stop voting for insane blowhards.

I think the assumption is that this dueling with be a private matter and the only penalties for refusing would be social ones.

As in, people challenging Trump and calling him a fucking coward when he refuses.

Yes, I'm aware. I've been a sport fencer for coming up on twenty years; knowledge of dueling sort of comes with the territory. As such, I know precisely how pointlessly stupid the whole duelling culture was, especially in the United States. I'd much rather make fun of Mr. Trump for his positions, racism, and hair, thanks.

[biostem]

I forget where I saw it, but there was a concept that if you challenge me to a duel, *I* get to pick the medium/form of the duel.

You: I challenge you to a duel!
Me: Very well. TF2 at noon! (Or insert any other non-pistol activity that I'm good at and you're not)

[Esquire]

Depends on where you are. In Britain and America, the challenged party chooses; in Europe proper, the challenger does.

EDIT: Were, that is.

[Ralin]

Depends on where you are. In Britain and America, the challenged party chooses; in Europe proper, the challenger does.

EDIT: Were, that is.

I imagine that if we really did this it would work out in practice to something like the Code Duello in Dresden Files where the challenger has first choice of a list of weapons, which the challenger can accept or refuse until they settle on one that no one has a ridiculous advantage at.

I'm sure there are plenty of politicians good with guns, but how many of them are good with handguns and specifically ready for a dueling situation?

[Broomstick]

Fucking hell, wasn't the Aaron Burr/Alexander Hamilton duel enough? With that one we lost the sensible statesman and the madman survived to continue to wreck havoc, including charges of treason just a few years later.

The problem with dueling is that the "good guy", the "honest guy" and/or the "honorable guy" isn't always the winner. It's like goddamned trial by ordeal.

[Esquire]

I imagine that if we really did this it would work out in practice to something like the Code Duello in Dresden Files where the challenger has first choice of a list of weapons, which the challenger can accept or refuse until they settle on one that no one has a ridiculous advantage at.

I'm sure there are plenty of politicians good with guns, but how many of them are good with handguns and specifically ready for a dueling situation?

That's exactly as open to abuse as the no-negotiation versions. Why, it's almost as though this wasn't a good way of determining guilt or innocence. Imagine that.

[Purple]

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".

[Ziggy Stardust]

Even if we ignore the fact that dueling is insane and stupid, what evidence is there that it actually WOULD work to reduce this type of defamatory speech? If you look back at political speech from the 19th century, it was hardly less libelous and ridiculous than it is now. Candidates back then, just as now, could get away with saying just about anything they wanted about their opponents or their stances. Clearly the threat of a duel didn't actually do anything. The notion that society back then was more polite is a moronic myth.

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".

Well, if we are hypothetically bringing back the 19th century dueling tradition, the vast majority of duels wouldn't end with anyone dead or injured. Most, in fact, would never happen, with the secondaries negotiating a gentlemanly resolution. So, really, any wealthy or influential person would be able to wiggle out of it, anyway.

[Purple]

Well, if we are hypothetically bringing back the 19th century dueling tradition, the vast majority of duels wouldn't end with anyone dead or injured. Most, in fact, would never happen, with the secondaries negotiating a gentlemanly resolution. So, really, any wealthy or influential person would be able to wiggle out of it, anyway.

Well, yes. We in the modern day do in fact have a highly romanticized view of society back than and its customs. Which is why the people arguing pro dueling are objectively wrong to do so.

This said, I wonder if we were to actually have a dueling system that is "reformed" to ensure skill plays little or no role (like say using modern handguns) and there is no way out other than to duel what effects that would cause.

[Broomstick]

Modern handguns actually DO require skill and practice to hit your target, even at relatively close range. Care to try again?

[Purple]

Modern handguns actually DO require skill and practice to hit your target, even at relatively close range. Care to try again?

I just figured that at the kind of ranges duels happened and with a 20 round magazine you'd be likely to hit at least once. But like what would you suggest? Hand grenades?

[LaCroix]

A pistol duel was done with one shot, each. Only in rare occasions, there was supposed to be a second round.

[Purple]

A pistol duel was done with one shot, each. Only in rare occasions, there was supposed to be a second round.

I know. But in the case of my "what if" the purposes of the "reforms" would be to ensuring maximum lethality so as to maximize deterrence.

[General Zod]

I'd like to see political scuffles handled in a WWE ring, myself. The two old geezer opponents can talk as much trash as they want and pick their champions in the ring to fight it out for them. Not unlike regular pro-wrestling.

[Simon_Jester]

I will be quite honest, I think dueling MIGHT become a net good for society IF it were somehow regularized to the point where it did not occur 'on the sly' or become a pretext for mass gang violence, and if there was some way to stop it being used by evil jackasses to enforce their right to be evil jackasses.

Unfortunately, this is completely impossible.

Gang violence was the de facto consequence of dueling in Europe for several centuries, which is exactly why it was made illegal in the first place. The line between a duel and a gang brawl usually consists of whether the seconds start shouting insults at each other or not.

And dueling in the Americas was routinely used by, for example, southern plantation aristocrats in an attempt to silence anyone who seriously attempted to argue that they were committing a personal evil by practicing slavery.

[Zixinus]

Dueling to settle pretty much anything but who is a better dualist/fighter is an incredible counterproductive way to settle things and there has been a reason that it has been attempted to be banned since medieval times or before.

The only sensible situation in the modern age where dueling would be in any way useful would be between martial artists to settle who fights better. Controlled duels like this would finally put all the posturing and bullshit to rest.

Nothing else, no other benefit can be gained. In older times the idea behind a dual was that the the more righteous member was somehow guided or protected by God. Which is a retarded way to judge righteousness. Even when you tried to control this by somehow trying to balance the two duelists, you just end up with whoever is more skilled or more violent or just more lucky as the winner. No analysis, discussion of anything takes place, only a senseless fight between two members who refuse or lack the maturity to handle their conflict in any other way. If the dual could not happen, such a discussion could take place anyway.

On a society dueling would also place a great burden whose only potential benefit is that it would keep violent people in better practice. Because that's the logical endpoint that history has proven to be true: with dueling, you just end up with the most skilled duelists dominating everyone who isn't. They can work entirely within dueling laws/codes and still be effective bullies whose base for legitimacy is due to the dueling system in the first place.

The article's sole, appealing argument is that you could challenge Trump to a dual for his vitriol and bullshit. That sounds great because he's an old, fat asshole who probably never had to really fight for anything for his life (or so I get the impression, I don't know Trump's life).
Except that in such a situation, all Trump would have to do is hire a master duelist as his second. Suddenly, anyone who want to call him out now has to be an equally good duelist and now what matters is who is a better duelist rather than the cause they defend. For many people that are sick and tired of the level of political discussion taking place, I think it would still appeal because it seems simpler than having to evaluate or challenge a politician's rhetoric. Except that in such a situation, Trump could emerge as a righteous victor more likely than without it and that's something even worse.

[Grumman]

Another reason it's a bloody stupid idea becomes more apparent when you see the most recent two threads in this forum: a thread about bringing back dueling, and a thread about a hundred thousand people who support murdering anyone who insults the honour of Muhammad. Do you really want to encourage honour culture like this?

[Thanas]

Gang violence was the de facto consequence of dueling in Europe for several centuries, which is exactly why it was made illegal in the first place. The line between a duel and a gang brawl usually consists of whether the seconds start shouting insults at each other or not.

Most dueling did not devolve into gang warfare. Where are you getting this from?


As to the OP, this is just stupid, because it will inevitably result in somebody who is in better physical shape to insult at will while his opponent can do nothing. I see no benefit to it.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

[Welf]

I'm almost certain this is satire, but the bolded part does have a certain appeal.

I'd be lieing if I said it's not appealing.
Unfortunately it works in both ways. Imagine if some white supremacist challenged Obama to a duel in 2008 (and as Broomstick pointed out that happened before). Plus you don't want to establish that it's okay to gun down someone because you don't like what he says. The part with the rules and the public challenge in advance will like be optional at some point.
The article also has a big flaw, it doesn't get there were very good reasons for the tight regulation of European duels. The rules were made to ensure a duel was only decided by skill, and not by some other advantage like age or size. Such a seemingly egalitarian system will be unfair to women, disabled or elderly. And will have to effect of shutting them out of politics.