« Judges and arms | Main | Md bill -- "shall issue" for women »
Code of the Duel
I suppose it's the ultimate arms law -- here is a Code Duello drawn up by a convention of gentlemen in Ireland in 1777, and subsequently accepted by custom throughout Great Britain.
It actually has few regulations regarding the duel itself, and much more on what manner of apology must be given in order to avoid it. The first to insult must be the first to apologize, even if the response was more insulting. Actually slapping the other person is so severe an offense that an apology cannot be made save by handing the other person a cane and invited them to cane you (or you must fire three shots, and then you can apologize without offering the cane). For some offenses, honor is restored by two shots without a hit, others require three. If the challenge is made without specifying grounds, one shot suffices, and the most trifling of flesh wounds counts as a hit and ends the duel.
An insult to a lady under a gentleman's care is automatically one higher level than it would be if offered to the gentleman himself. An insult to a fellow in the course of defending a lady's reputation is such that only a slight apology is needed.
The seconds must be equal in social stature to their principals, since if they have a falling out, they will fight each other. A challenge may not be given at night (the assumption seems to be that at night a person may be inebriated and hotheaded).
The rather late date of this code bears out a point Clayton Cramer has made, that formalized dueling was a novelty in the early American republic. He points out that it was quite rare prior to the Revolution. Then Americans wound up with British and French officers hanging around, and picked up the habit.
I liked Abe Lincoln approach to one challenger. He specificed a duel with cavalry sabers (where his upper body strength gave him an advantage) and that each party must remain within a a box made on the ground, the two boxes being at some distance (giving advantage to his longer arms). He reasoned that he ought to be able to disarm the other fellow this way without having to slice him up. I think the other declined.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
Thanks for the posting Lieuteant Richardson was my gggg grandfather.
Marla
”The rather late date of this code bears out a point Clayton Cramer has made, that formalized dueling was a novelty in the early American republic. He points out that it was quite rare prior to the Revolution. Then Americans wound up with British and French officers hanging around, and picked up the habit.”
I have to disagree with the premise. Prior to the Revolution we were all British and so British officers were around in force during the French and Indian war and other lesser known conflicts. Dueling was a problem in the Colony of Virginia. The Virginia House of Burgesses passes its Articles of War in August 1775. The following is Article 11. : Article Xl. No officer or soldier shall use any reproachful or provoking speeches or gestures to another, nor shall presume to send a challenge to any person to fight a duel; and whosoever shall knowingly and willingly suffer any person whatsoever to go forth to fight a duel, or shall second, promote, or carry any challenge, shall be deemed as a principal; and whatsoever officer, or soldier, shall upbraid another for refusing a challenge, shall also be considered as a challenger; and all such offenders, in any of those or such like cases, shall be punished at the discretion of a general court-martial.”,
When Patrick Henry was the first governor of the new Commonwealth he had to deal with the issue in the following case: “The proceedings of a general Court Martial in the trial of Lieutenant Walker Richardson of the second Regiment of State Troops for fighting a Duel with Lieutenant Triplett of the same Regiment Contrary to the Articles of War section 7th & Article Second, being laid by the Governor before the Board for their Opinion there upon and it appearing that the said Richardson was sentenced by the said Court to be cashiered for a Breach of the said Article, but that inasmuch as he had conducted himself as a Gentleman & Officer it was recommended that he be reinstated to his former Rank. The Council taking the same into Consideration are unanimously of Opinion that the said Sentence be confirmed, to show the abhorrence of the practice of Duelling notwithstanding the recommendation of the Court advised his Excellency to let him remain Cashiered; which the Governor orders accordingly.”
The practice continues well into the 19th century although it had been outlawed in Virginia. One of the best State court cases upholding the right against self incrimination involves a doctor who would not testify that he was attending a duel in the case of Cullen v. The Commonwealth, 1873, “"The right to refuse to answer such questions before any judicial tribunal was the well-settled law of England long before the separation of the American colonies from the mother country; but the State of Virginia, ever foremost in proclaiming principles of personal liberty and security, and providing safeguards to individual rights, was unwilling, when she assumed the attitude of an independent and sovereign State, to leave this great principle and others of kindred character subject, as at common law, to the mutations of legislative will or to the hazard of judicial discretion. She therefore thought proper, as far back as June 12th, 1776, and prior to the declaration of independence, when forming her own State Constitution, to make a solemn declaration of the rights of the good people of Virginia, 'which rights do pertain to them and their posterity as the basis and foundation of government…We sympathize fully with the legislature in their efforts to suppress the barbarous and anti-Christian practice of dueling. Having its origin in false pride and a mistaken sense of honor, and upheld and sanctioned to a certain extent by a vicious public sentiment, the practice has lingered in the Southern States much longer than it should have done, although condemned alike by the laws of God and man; and notwithstanding it has cost our country the lives of some of her noblest sons. We would gladly see it forever banished from our land. The practice is cruel in the extreme, and is founded neither in morals nor in reason, nor in common sense. It has been well and truly said that it proves nothing, except that the parties, as is commonly the case with male animals, are willing to fight. It not unfrequently results in the death of one or both of the combatants, and, the question which called them to the field of honor (so called) remains unsettled and is adjourned forever, leaving, quite as often as otherwise, the injured party the victim and the wrongdoer triumphant. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory and unreasonable, and, as we have already said, we sympathize fully with the legislature in their efforts to suppress so baneful a practice. But we should ever be careful, whilst endeavoring to suppress a great evil, that we do not ourselves fall into the error of committing a great wrong; not to do wrong that good may come of it; not to invade the constitutional right of the citizen. We are very reluctantly drawn to the conclusion that such is the effect of the act in question; that it would deprive the witness of his constitutional right to refuse to give evidence tending to criminate himself without indemnity, and is therefore to that extent unconstitutional and void. "