1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The History of Dueling in America

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 2dogs, Jun 16, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    the city
    Not sure if this belongs in legal/political, and it is long. An interesting look at history of dueling.


    D U E L I N G


    Have you ever defended your honor ?

    The History of Dueling in America

    Like many early American customs, dueling was imported. Starting in the Middle Ages, European nobles had defended their honor in man-to-man battles. An early version of dueling was known as "judicial combat," so called because God allegedly judged the man in the right and let him win. In an era known for its bloody encounters, judicial combats probably prevented men from killing in the heat of passion. Still, numerous authorities, including heads of state and the Catholic Church, banned dueling -- with little effect.

    In 1777, a group of Irishmen codified dueling practices in a document called the Code Duello (listed below). The Code contained 26 specific rules outlining all aspects of the duel, from the time of day during which challenges could be received to the number of shots or wounds required for satisfaction of honor. An Americanized version of the Code, written by South Carolina Governor John Lyde Wilson, appeared in 1838. Prior to that, Americans made do with European rules.

    In a typical duel, each party acted through a second. The seconds' duty, above all, was to try to reconcile the parties without violence. An offended party sent a challenge through his second. If the recipient apologized, the matter usually ended. If he elected to fight, the recipient chose the weapons and the time and place of the encounter. Up until combat began, apologies could be given and the duel stopped. After combat began, it could be stopped at any point after honor had been satisfied.

    Edward Doty and Edward Lester, of the Massachusetts colony, fought the first recorded American duel in 1621, just a year after the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth. Armed with swords, both men sustained minor wounds. A unique aspect of this duel was that Doty and Leicester were servants. For the most part, only gentlemen dueled.

    The fatal duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr shocked the nation. But it was the identity of the man killed, not the fact of the duel itself, that produced such dismay. By 1804, dueling had become an American fixture. And for another thirty years or more, its popularity would continue to grow.

    Most duelists chose guns as their weapons. The large caliber, smoothbore flintlock pistols Hamilton and Burr used in their encounter typified the American dueling weapons. Many American men owned a pair of such pistols, and, from about 1750 to 1850, many were called to use them.

    The chance of dying in a pistol duel was relatively slim. Flintlocks often misfired. And even in the hands of an experienced shooter, accuracy was difficult. Generally, pistols had to be discharged within three seconds; to take aim for a longer time period was considered dishonorable.

    In an 1802 duel, DeWitt Clinton was challenged by John Swartwout, a friend of Aaron Burr. Swartwout accused Clinton of trying to ruin Burr with political smears. The men exchanged five rounds. After each round, as the code provided, seconds encouraged the combatants to mend their differences. Clinton adamantly refused to sign a letter of apology. Swartwout, despite being shot in the thigh and ankle, refused to quit. Unwilling to continue shooting at a wounded man, an exasperated Clinton left the field. Surgeons standing at the ready tended Swartwout's wounds.

    In America, duels were fought by men from all walks of life. But many of America's most important citizens defended their honor on the dueling grounds. Button Gwinnet, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, was shot down by General Lachlan McIntosh in a duel. Commodore Stephen Decatur of the United States Navy, an experienced duelist, died at the hands of another commodore, James Barron. And Abraham Lincoln narrowly averted a battle with swords by apologizing to an Illinois state official he had ridiculed in a local newspaper.

    Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were among the most prominent Americans to condemn dueling. Franklin called duels a "murderous practice…they decide nothing." And Washington, who undoubtedly needed all the good soldiers he could get, congratulated one of his officers for refusing a challenge, noting that "there are few military decisions that are not offensive to one party or another."

    Religious and civic officials worked hard to stop duels. But diatribes such as Reverend Mason Weems' illustrated pamphlet "God's Revenge Against Dueling" did little to change public sentiment. Anti-dueling ordinances also failed to stop the flow of blood. Duelists ignored or evaded such laws. In fact, the most popular dueling ground in America was at Bladensburg, Maryland, near the nation's capital. Dueling was banned in Washington, but not in Maryland, which was a short carriage ride away. Irate legislators could simply shuttle out to Bladensburg and fire at will. Due to the partisan nature of their work, politicians frequently received challenges -- as did newspaper editors and attorneys.

    While dueling was common, it was often used for such political murders. One such scheme was tried to get rid of Andrew Jackson. His foes induced the most famous duelist in the country to insult Jackson's wife. They knew Jackson would challenge the guy and they figured their man, who had already killed 26 people in duels, would put Jackson in the ground.

    As a young man, attorney Andrew Jackson, future president of the United States, had earned a reputation as a formidable duelist. He suffered injury, however, in his duel against Charles Dickinson in 1806. Dickinson fired his pistol first, slightly wounding Jackson.

    Jackson, however, had spent the evening before the duel taking the buttons off his coat and sewing them back on, three inches lower than normal. He knew the man would fire the first shot aiming at the top button, and so he did. Dickinson's 50-caliber ball hit Jackson in the chest -- three inches below his heart. The impact staggered Jackson, and, for a moment, it looked as if he would fall. Then, like a great tree rising from the wind, Jackson straightened up, took careful aim and killed his opponent. Then he collapsed.

    When he regained consciousness several hours later, his friend and doctor said, "I don't see how you stayed on your feet after that wound." Jackson looked into his friend's eyes, and I can imagine him smiling as he said, "I'd a-stayed on my feet long enough to kill that son-of-bitch even if he had shot me in the brain."

    By the time of Hamilton and Burr's deadly encounter, dueling had begun to decline -- at least in the North. In the South, where the chivalrous novels of Walter Scott held sway, dueling remained the preferred way to defend one's honor -- or even to commit murder. A jilted lover need only wait for a rival's insult, or even manufacture one. He was then free to challenge and kill the rival without condemnation.

    Some men -- accurate shots in particular -- practically made careers of the duel. Among these men was Alexander McClung, who once killed an opponent at over 100 feet with a smoothbore pistol. This remarkable shot -- and subsequent killings at shorter distances -- honed McClung's fearful reputation. Yet it was said that he was haunted by the ghosts of his victims, and maybe this was so. The last man McClung killed with a pistol was himself, in 1855.

    For every man who gloried in the duel, there were many others who feared it. A word or two passed in private company on a Friday night could well mean a challenge on Saturday morning and death on Sunday. Avoiding a challenge wasn't easy. Particularly in the South, where men who refused to duel would be "posted." A statement accusing them of cowardice would be hung in public areas or published in a newspaper or pamphlet.

    When Congressman John Randolph of Virginia refused to meet General James Wilkinson in a duel, a furious Wilkinson posted him. The post declared "In justice to my character I denounce to the world John Randolph, a member of Congress, as a prevaricating, base, calumniating scoundrel, poltroon, and coward." Wilkinson, a co-conspirator in Aaron Burr's treason plot, had little character to damage.

    By the time of the War between the States, now known as the "civil war," dueling had begun a decline, even in the South. Not surprisingly, public opinion, not legislation, caused the change. What once had been a formal process designed to avoid courts and amend grievances had deteriorated into cold-blooded murder. The last formal vestiges of the duel took place out West, on main street, at "high noon", when men agreed to meet and settle their disputes with a sixgun. People were shocked by it, and they showed their disdain. It may have been too late to save Alexander Hamilton. But if America was to pretend to be a truly civilized nation, the publicly sanctioned blood shed in dueling would have to end.

    Code Duello: The Rules of Dueling

    The Code Duello, covering the practice of dueling and points of honor, was drawn up and settled at Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, by gentlemen-delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Sligo, Mayo and Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland. The Code was generally also followed in England and on the Continent with some slight variations. In America, the principal rules were followed, although occasionally there were some glaring deviations.

    Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.

    Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.

    N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offenses in retort not of stronger class than the example.

    Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won't decide, or can't agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.

    Rule 4. When the lie direct is the first offense, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms; exchange two shots previous to apology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.

    Rule 5. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore -- the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane.

    If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.

    N.B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable. The disarmer may (strictly) break his adversary's sword; but if it be the challenger who is disarmed, it is considered as ungenerous to do so.

    In the case the challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone, he must not be killed, as formerly; but the challenger may lay his own sword on the aggressor's shoulder, then break the aggressor's sword and say, "I spare your life!" The challenged can never revive the quarrel -- the challenger may.

    Rule 6. If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offenses), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each, or a severe hit; after which B may beg A's pardon humbly for the blow and then A may explain simply for the lie; because a blow is never allowable, and the offense of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rules.)

    N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be reconciled on the ground, after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offense transpired.

    Rule 7. But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties have actually taken ground, without exchange of fires.

    Rule 8. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required by the challenged so to do before their meeting.

    Rule 9. All imputations of cheating at play, races, etc., to be considered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.

    Rule 10. Any insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be considered as, by one degree, a greater offense than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.

    Rule 11. Offenses originating or accruing from the support of ladies' reputations, to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the aggressor: this to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorable to the lady.

    Rule 12. In simple, unpremeditated recontres with the smallsword, or couteau de chasse, the rule is -- first draw, first sheath, unless blood is drawn; then both sheath, and proceed to investigation.

    Rule 13. No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children's play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.

    Rule 14. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal, and equality is indispensable.

    Rule 15. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.

    Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged.

    Rule 17. The challenged chooses his ground; the challenger chooses his distance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.

    Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.

    Rule 19. Firing may be regulated -- first by signal; secondly, by word of command; or thirdly, at pleasure -- as may be agreeable to the parties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.

    Rule 20. In all cases a miss-fire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or non-cock is to be considered as a miss-fire.

    Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.

    Rule 22. Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.

    Rule 23. If the cause of the meeting be of such a nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground, and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses; in such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.

    Rule 24. In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol; but in gross cases, two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.

    Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals, thus:

    If with swords, side by side, with five paces interval.

    N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be explained and cleared up by application to the committee, who meet alternately at Clonmel and Galway, at the quarter sessions, for that purpose.

    Original Irish document signed by:

    Crow Ryan, President
    James Keough and Amby Bodkin, Secretaries.


    Rule 1. No party can be allowed to bend his knee or cover his side with his left hand, but may present at any level from the hip to the eye.

    Rule 2. None can either advance or retreat, if the ground be measured. If no ground be measured, either party may advance at his pleasure, even to touch muzzle; but neither can advance on his adversary after the fire, unless the adversary steps forward on him.

    N.B. The seconds on both sides stand responsible for this last rule being strictly observed; bad cases having accrued from neglecting of it.

    The Irish Code Duello was followed to the letter by most gentlemen duelists of the Emerald Isle, but was often altered to suit the notions of contestants in England, Europe, and America. For example: although the Clonmel rules specify that the challenger is to choose the distance, it was the challenged, Bainbridge, who was given the privilege. It will be recalled that it was Stephen Decatur who insisted on the murderous distance of four paces when he acted as the second for Bainbridge in his duel with James Cochran at Malta.


    OUTLAWS LEGAL SERVICE hereby presents a DEMAND for those that may be fighting now inside a trial court, doing battle with a lying prosecutor or facing a corrupt judge that automatically denies all of your defense motions and refuses to follow the Rules of Court or honor any of your Constitutionally guaranteed Rights. If you are skilled with weapons, you can utilize this legal DEMAND to quickly resolve your dispute with any government agent. Be advised that we have never had a prosecutor or judge actually accept the terms of this DEMAND as they are all cowards and will never ever agree to any "fair fight" where they just might lose - - everything.



    Your Full Name ) Number: ___________________________
    Petitioner )
    vs. )
    [ or JUDGE ] )
    Respondent )
    _________________________ )


    NOW COMES The Petitioner, A Sovereign, private non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary color of law statutory regulations, in the above styled and numbered action, appearing Specially in Pro Per as himself, and demands this court issue an Order setting this matter for Trial by Combat.

    (cont'd next post.)
  2. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    the city
    (cont'd from last post)

    Petitioner being first duly sworn, deposes and says truthfully that :

    1. In disregard of the Rules of Court, this Court has refused to require the Respondent to state the verified basis, claim or legal theory of its determination that Petitioner owes any duty or obligation whatsoever to the Respondent, and

    2. The Court has by its protective orders unlawfully obstructed the Petitioner from discovering such basis, claim or legal theory, as well as prevented Petitioner from discovering the true facts and evidence needed to prepare his defense for a Court "trial", and

    3. The Court has caused it to appear that it will continue to provide coordinated assistance only to the Respondent in open disregard of the published Court Rules and procedure, and

    4. The Court has by its own direct actions frustrated the administration of what passes for "justice" in these matters and has cut off the possibility of any resolution of the dispute along the lines formally established as modern legal procedure.

    In order to resolve matters Petitioner proposes a fall-back from the current and biased Court's procedure to a more honorable method which predates the current government rules, that being a Trial By Combat as codified in the documented Code Duello and formerly used by all gentlemen.

    In further support of this demand for justice, Petitioner does state that:

    A. The suggested procedure is quick and effective for resolving Pro Per or Pro Se disputes, and it has a long history of successful use.

    B. In the majority of cases the losing party will not appeal, which further shortens the resolution process and the required paperwork.

    C. Effective self-representation is quite feasible in the majority of cases, with hired or appointed representation ("Champions") available as an alternative for the weaklings and cowards now employed as government lawyers or other bench warmers.

    D. The process is properly known as "judicial combat," and is self-adjudicating, therefore not requiring a judge or jury whose prejudices or ignorance can impair the unbiased verdict.

    E. Petitioner is adequately skilled to represent himself in such a proceeding, and to assist the Respondents, Petitioner will select Respondent's representative from among the ranks of the attorneys, and the judiciary, thus saving those dishonorable men the trouble of deciding who is to be first (or last!).

    F. Petitioner further advises that certain friends of his have expressed an intention to intervene in a capacity analogous to that of an Amicus Curiae; Respondents are hereby noticed that their friends, if they have any, my wish to do likewise.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner demands the unalienable Right to a Trial by Combat to restore his good name and honor, and for such other and further relief to which he may show himself to be entitled including both at law and in equity.

    I AFFIRM that all of the foregoing is true and correct. I affirm that I am of lawful age and I am fully competent to make this DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY COMBAT AND AFFIDAVIT OF FACT. I hereby affix my own signature to all of the affirmations in this entire document with explicit reservation of all my unalienable Rights and my specific common law Right not to be bound by any contract or obligation which I have not personally entered into knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and without any misrepresentation, duress, or coercion.

    Subscribed and sworn, without prejudice,
    and with all Rights reserved,

    Signed with all due respect,

    Petitioner, by Special Appearance,
    in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris.


    I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY COMBAT AND AFFIDAVIT OF FACT has been furnished in WRITTEN FORM by HAND DELIVERY conveyed via My lawful Second this ____ day of MONTH, 2001 to the Respondent, and by follow up WRITTEN confirmation by UNITED STATES MAIL to the Clerk of Court for entry into the court record and forwarding to the judge that adjudicated this matter in open violation of the Constitution.

    Informational copies provided to:

    Chief Judge this Judicial Circuit
    Chief Justice State Supreme Court
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page