The Laughing Wolf

In Defense Of Dueling

A few weeks ago, I made a public offer to stand second for Blackfive in the matter of a particularly odious threat and individual. In the process, I discovered many things. One was that some people do not know what it means to stand Second (or be Best Man at a wedding). Another was that some people thought I was joking or posturing, which was not the case. The third was a train of thought about the framework behind dueling, and how it applies to the situation today. As a result, I fear that I see a need for the field of honor, and to put forth a defense of dueling.

On the surface, this would appear to be indefensible and a complete abrogation of Rational Pacifism and principle. After all, we are talking about two individuals hurting, maiming, or killing each other “for no good reason.” That has been the call behind almost every argument against dueling for centuries. And it can not be denied that dueling does harm individuals and deprives various social constructs of their presence. Yet, while this does hurt individuals and society, does it truly harm it?

A favorite analogy of many in describing society and governance is the anthropomorphic one of the body, and references to it, such as “the body politic” abound. It was also used in efforts to ban dueling by claims that any death removed critical portions of the anatomy, and therefore threatened the life of all. Given the state of knowledge about the body of the day, it was not necessarily a bad analogy. Given the state of knowledge about the body and biology today, it may provide an even better analogy for the defense of dueling.

To begin the process, one must first understand that dueling has been around for centuries, if not millennia. It is a world-wide phenomena that appears to have emerged from the idea of single combat. Warriors oft challenged other top warriors in battle, and many ancient battles were really nothing more than a loosely-connected series of individual combats. War was and is an expensive business, and had a far greater impact in early agrarian societies. War meant that people were not available to tend the fields and herds, collect the harvest, and do all the other things necessary to survive the winter. As a result, campaigns even into the 1800s often were conducted at a time when there was little need for large numbers of people: after the crops were planted and before the harvest. This also coincided, usually, with the best weather and conditions for marching and fighting, since winter was too cold, spring brought rains and mud, and the fall the harvest. Hence, we get the term “campaign season” to describe the time from late spring to late summer that became the time when most battles were conducted.

There is much more to this, but that is a discussion for another day. What matters to this discussion is what happened early in history, before the organization of massive states. In this time, war was an even larger drain on the local economies, and it was possible to win the war and loose anyway, because there were no supplies to get through the winter. It was during this time that the idea of single combat flourished, and entire wars could be decided (for that year at least) by a single match. This protected the labor pool, allowed harvests to be gathered and allowed the best and brightest to stand forth. This is, in fact, how the Olympics came about.

This can be thought of as a form of natural selection of leadership, if you will. Over time, most of these single combats came to feature members of the nobility, and publicly wars were often fought over slights. This masked the real reasons and ambitions of the parties, but it also brought forth the idea of fights for individual honor.

The forms vary around the world, but the root idea is the same. A person offers another offence, in the form of insult, lie, or even physical altercation. This was a challenge, and it not only has roots in individual combat but in ancient traditions for the selection of leaders. The notion of hereditary monarchies is in some ways a new one. In ancient times, leaders were often selected by their ability to fight, to hold things together, and to get things done. This placed a premium on physical rather than mental abilities, and just as members of a wolf pack look for signs of weakness in a leader so they can advance, so to did the members of many early societies. Anything that was seen as a challenge to the leader had to be dealt with, to show that they were still in control. Something that still continues on some levels to this day…

Suffice it to say that a challenge had to be met, by a leader or anyone who would be a leader. Nor was this limited to the male of the species. In different cultures and at different times, women could issue challenge, accept challenge, and can and did fight in combat. Indeed, in some cultures they were just as into the chest thumping as the males, as even a cursory study of ancient British and European cultures will show. Even into fairly modern times, women could and did duel though society officially abhorred it.

Philosophers and others took note of the fact that dueling had its roots in primitive/ancient leadership rites and in the concept of nobility or class structure. Both were an anathema to the revolutionary thinkers of the 1700s and 1800s, and thus dueling was a thing to be hated. There was good reason for some of their hatred. Over time in the West, the concepts of challenge had mutated somewhat, and the entire process was hijacked by unscrupulous leaders.

The concepts of challenge had changed so that almost anything could be taken as such. A sneeze could constitute a challengeable offense, and it could come from anyone of any rank. Under the social rules of the day, one did not have to have a fair fight with anyone not of proper social standing. Instead, you could have them seized, held, and beaten/whipped/etc. This resulted in one of the most outrageous acts to publicly occur in Congress, when one member took his cane to another whom it was felt had offered insult but was beneath the first party’s station. In short, the rules had become Byzantine and no longer were related to just challenge.

The entire process of dueling had been used by the unscrupulous for some time. It provided an easy cover for getting rid of political opponents, by allowing them to be killed in an acceptable manner. It also provided a means for getting rid of an inconvenient husband, so that the wife would be free to marry another in the days before easy divorce. The death of the Russian poet Pushkin may have bound up all of these into one neat package. Evidence suggests that the Tsar was behind the challenge of Pushkin, wanting him dead for his involvement in various revolutionary activities and desiring Pushkin’s wife as a consort. While the activities merited death, political realities prevented an open execution. Thus, a neat solution was arranged through dueling.

This also helps highlight the fact that many bright and capable people were killed in duels. Some may argue that it was a disproportionately high percentage, and there is some merit to the idea. Your best and brightest always represent the ultimate challenge to those in power, as they will replace them. Leaders craving to hold onto power don’t like this idea. Add to this the fact that the best and brightest are not always the most tactful and diplomatic in expressing their ideas, and you do indeed set the stage for harm to the body politic. Not to mention that the revolutionary thinkers, being part of the best and brightest, had a particular interest in this concept.

The American Revolution helped bring about the end of legal or tolerated dueling in Western Civilization. Supporters of banning such pointed out that the class basis was hardly in keeping with the ideals of a semi-classless society, and that such chest-thumping machismo was hardly the thing a civilized person would do. The loss of Button Gwinnett and the Burr-Hamilton duel helped this along since the repercussions and loss were keenly felt in the new Republic. It brought about uniform laws between the States outlawing dueling, and the enforcement of same to end unofficial sanction of such as well. The idea of conservation of human resources caught on and spread, effectively eliminating widespread practice.

This is well and good, but there are some deeper layers to consider. The fact is, dueling was the enforcement mechanism of manners. One was polite to others, did not make false allegations against another, or spread malicious rumors because there was a penalty attached. There were not just social repercussions, there was a very real possibility that you could pay with your life. If you said that Sam Adams was a lousy brewer, that might get social sanctions, but if you claimed falsely that he put horse urine in his beer, you might find yourself facing him across the green. This did indeed have a tendency to encourage people to keep a civil tongue in their heads, to act with propriety, and to otherwise behave in a semi-civilized fashion.

The concept of civil courts, and slander and libel laws, to deal with this was a new one. Yes, there were indeed slander and libel laws before the birth of the Republic, but they were nothing like what we know today. Much of it was reserved for government, and the agents of government, rather than the average individual. America was, in many respects, the first nation to seek to use the courts as the enforcement mechanism for manners and the social contract. Based on the idea of a responsible Citizenry, it would seem workable and did to what I regard as a fair job until fairly recent times.

Over the last 75 to 100 years, however, the idea of a responsible Citizenry has been under sustained attack. Indeed, the entire concept of individual responsibility has come into question. Some of this was legitimate, and the result of the American dedication to Justice. This is a topic for another day in many respects, but what matters for now is that the concept of root cause was expanded not just to the actions of other individuals, but that of society as a whole. This has led to the modern, and in my opinion fallacious, idea that societal constructs bear the responsibility for an individual’s actions, not the individual.

This process is in many ways the continuation of the most extreme of the revolutionary thinkers that shaped our Founding Fathers. While some held to the ideal of the individual, others argued that the greater good was the true destination and that individuals mattered not. Therefore, concepts such as individual honor and individual responsibility have no meaning. This school of thought is very much a large part of modern liberal philosophy. Lost in the glaring problems that have resulted from the last 60 or so years of social experimentation is the fact that the denial of individual honor and responsibility in the legal system has eliminated it as an enforcement mechanism for manners and the social contract. This poses several direct threats to the Republic.

Leaving aside the loss of faith in the Courts and Government, and other delights, there are two particular areas of concern. The first is an unnecessary increase in violence. The second is a toleration of lies and deception that extends to the highest political levels and endangers the very concept of an informed citizenry.

The loss of the Courts as an effective enforcement mechanism has many repercussions, one of which is that obtaining satisfaction or justice once again becomes a matter for the individual. In the past, other societal mechanisms worked to limit damage to bystanders. Dueling was the leading one, and by the rules of the day it was a matter between the two parties, aided by an impartial (hopefully) Master of the List and very partial Seconds. The Seconds handled the negotiations, worked out the forms (apology, first blood, death, etc.), and ensured general order and safety so that the two parties were the only ones in danger. The sense of honor of the two parties helped ensure that the forms were followed in most or all particulars.

Without these mechanisms, there would have been few if any limits on what occurred. Fights could have occurred in crowded streets, in homes, and other inappropriate places. Entire families could have been butchered instead of just the responsible party. By now, I hope you see where I am heading with this. Today, the least slight can in some areas or societies result in massive amounts of random gunfire. Gang related crimes are horrendous in all respects. The concept of respect and disrespect have returned to the most ancient and primitive of days, and it is not just limited to gangs. It is spreading and poses a real problem because there is no concept of honor and integrity in a large part of our youth.

Even more terrifying, however, is the toleration and encouragement of lies by our political leaders. The problem of crime and enforcement can be dealt with, and dealt with reasonably quickly. The erosion of an informed electorate, however, will take generations to repair – if it can indeed be repaired at all.

Lies have always been a part of any political campaign, and probably always will be. You distort, you deceive, you do a great deal to make your opponent look bad. Until fairly recently, however, there were limits on this part of politics. If you told too big a lie, or did something too far beyond the pale, the courts were there to back you up. In this day and age of the public figure and the elimination of the courts as a realistic enforcement mechanism, there seems to be no limits applied.

This is particularly evident on the part of the “Far Left” where the bigger and better the lie, the more it is spread (and believed). The so-called Bush resume, various conspiracy theories (Haliburton on Mars!), and more are a staple of life for them. The problem is, this has spread into the mainstream, such that we seen the head of the Democratic party make a false and slanderous charge against a sitting President for partisan gain in a time of war. While this is perhaps the most egregious example of this, it is far from unique. The lie has become the weapon of choice, apparently on the basis that the ends of gaining power justify the means.

When lies are the norm, reported as fact in the Old Media, and are unchallenged, then there can be no informed electorate. Without such, you can have a group of self-serving and self-propagating group of “rulers” develop just like a tumor in the body politic. Furthermore, a portion of the public knows that these things are lies, and so grows distrustful of political leaders, media, and the entire process of governance. This distrust will grow and fester, just like an infection in the body politic. Unchecked, it will kill the body politic, and what will result then is anyone’s guess.

Which brings us back to our original analogy. In olden days, individuals were seen as major organs or parts of the body politic. For good or ill, today they can be perceived as cells. The elimination of individual cells in the body, be they in a tumor or a general infection, can hurt. Excising them, however, need not harm the body but instead strengthen it. The careful application of surgery or medicine does wonders.

Could it be that the medicine we need is dueling? Might it be a way to return the concepts of honor, dignity, and integrity to the body politic? Might it not help reduce the fever of violence? Mayhaps we need to bring out of the cupboard the old bottle of horrible stuff. It tastes noxious, but it may just do the job. Who knows, maybe just the sight of the bottle coming out will do the trick. Maybe then the patient will sit up and begin to act right.

Who knows? To me, the scariest and saddest part is that I have come to believe that discussion of dueling, or even its return, can do no harm.