Scott Taylor: Why We Should Bring Back the Art of Dueling
Thursday, March 05, 2015
Things have gotten so far out of hand that I think we have finally come full circle.
The ability that people have in this country to say the most personally damaging, egregious, hurtful and utterly outrageous statements towards another person is unacceptable AND should not be tolerated without granting “Satisfaction” to the victim.
My solution might be considered by some to be a little outdated but none can question its acute theme of justice and consequence.
Let’s review some of the famous duels in American history:
- July 11, 1804: U.S. Vice President Aaron Burr versus former U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton; Hamilton was killed. Hamilton kept talking sh*t about Burr to everybody so Burr challenged the big mouth, cocky, “Mr. Man” Hamilton to a duel. Bang. Bang. Hamilton was dead.
- May 30, 1806: Andrew Jackson and Charles Dickinson; Dickinson was killed, Jackson wounded, becoming the only President to have killed a man in a duel. Dickinson sent Jackson a letter calling him a coward about the same time that his good friend and writer Thomas Swann wrote a column in a local newspaper calling Jackson a coward. Jackson responded in the same newspaper saying Swann was a "lying valet for a worthless, drunken, blackguard" that was meant to indicate Dickinson. Pop. Pop. Out go the lights for Dickinson.
- June 7, 1882: Louisiana State Treasurer Edward A. Burke was seriously wounded by C. Harrison Parker, the editor of The New Orleans Daily Picayune, in a duel with pistols. After Parker published unflattering remarks about Burke, Burke challenged him to a duel. Truth is, if your going to challenge someone you better be a better shot.
If you insulted someone back then, or you are the one demanding “satisfaction,” you better be a damn good shot or good at apologizing convincingly in front of a crowd that would prefer to see a good old fashion display of pistol shooting.
Over the last two decades in this country we have watched an embarrassing onslaught of political name-calling and personal insults. We have watched unfound accusations hurled from political talking heads at their opponents like stones hurled by demonstrators in the streets of Palestine. We have let news reporting agencies report the news while trying to beat their competitors to the story without demanding basic fact checking and reporting the absolute truth.
My bet is that when this country finally made it illegal to challenge someone to a duel it was because the guys that couldn’t shoot had the biggest mouths. They would eventually help outlaw the practice and start the new civilized fad of suing people. HA!!! Guess who wins those verbal duels and makes lots of money doing it?
So, okay, maybe we don’t bring back a pistol duel, maybe we bring back a modern version of it, something that doesn’t enrich lawyers and tie up the courts: I want painful accountability for those that have decided to ruin the reputation of people dishonestly and unjustly. Rich or poor, without prejudice.
Until then I give you this from the pages of history:
“The Art of Dueling” - Author unknown, 1836
“The practice is severely censured by all religious and thinking people; yet it has very justly been remarked, that ‘the great gentleness and complacency of modern manners, and those respectful attentions of one man to another, that at present render the social discourses of life far more agreeable and decent, than among the most civilized nations of antiquity; must be ascribed, in some degree to this absurd custom.’ It is certainly both awful and distressing to see a young person cut off suddenly in a duel, particularly if he be the father of a family; but the loss of a few lives is a mere trifle, when compared with the benefits resulting to Society at large.
I should consider it very unwise in the members of government, to adopt any measures that would enforce the prohibition of dueling…the man who falls in a duel, and the individual who is killed by the overturn of a stage-coach, are both unfortunate victims to a practice from which we derive great advantage. It would be absurd to prohibit stage-travelling-because, occasionally, a few lives are lost by an overturn.”
Related Slideshow: 10 People You Should Be Schmoozing in Your City
Related Articles
- Scott Taylor: 10 People You Should Be Schmoozing in Your City
- Scott Taylor: Five Things I Have to Say About Uber in Portland
- Scott Taylor: How to Discipline Your Kids in 2015
- Scott Taylor: Sick of Portland Street Kids Getting a Free Lunch
- Scott Taylor: Watching the Ferguson Riots with My Black Friend
- Scott Taylor: Why Oregonians Need To Be Told “NO”
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It