According to Lance Stell’s 1979 publication dubbed “Dueling and the Right to Life”, the legal definition of dueling refers to it as an “act of fighting with deadly weapons between two persons in pursuance of a previous agreement” (p.7). Apparently, in the case of a dispute, the opposing individuals take it upon themselves to deal with their disparities without the interference of a third party, especially the law. Hence, “Dueling as Politics” by Joanne Freeman promptly informs readers that duelists were often victims of matters beyond their control, “haunted by private demons” (1996, p.290). Thus, upon the issuing of a duel challenge, there was only one acceptable answer, and it entailed an acceptance coupled with the arrangement of the date, time, and location (Freeman, 1996, p.303). Now, the third paragraph in “Dueling, Lynching, and War” by Snow McCormack explains the given claim by pointing out that duelists possessed the “passion” to be “instrument[s] of retribution” for every evil done upon their persons (1916, p.104). As a result, individuals and societies embraced the confrontations as the surest way of instilling justice and restoring honor where there is a need for the same. Still, that was not the only function of duels. Apparently, as per Norma Basch’s assertions in “Marriage, Morals, and Politics in the Election of 1828,” duels worked as romantic gestures as well. In the author's words, Andrew Jackson “won his wife” after challenging her first husband to a duel before “seizing [the woman] at gunpoint”; duelists could be romantic as well (Basch, 1993, p.909). To that end, it is evident that the mentioned texts not only approach the question of duels from different angles but also provide different insights on the subject. This paper analyzes the authors’ arguments in their respective texts before proceeding to determine their stand on the proposed thesis: duels did not render justice but merely cost the United States its leaders as they were not right.
Foremost, there is “Dueling as Politics” by Joanne Freeman that revolves around the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, two prominent American politicians who took an active part in the drafting and adoption of the United States Constitution (Freeman, 1996, p.303). In her depiction of the feud between the two men, Freeman engages the reader in a thorough and systematic exposition on the role of duels in the American political fields of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Notably, one would expect that the men, who probably knew the Constitution better than the rest of the American populace, would refrain from actions that only promoted violence. However, that was not the case, and Freeman dedicates a big portion of the article to explain the given phenomena. Apparently, there was an “honor code” that the people associated with duels (Freeman, 1996, p.298). Therefore, once challenged, a refusal to duel sufficed for cowardice and could destroy the reputation of even the most powerful individual of the time.
Perhaps the fact that both men were desperate for the much-coveted honor played a key role in their decisions, and Freeman appears to share the same sentiments. According to the author, Hamilton’s “illegitimacy” and Burr’s need to escape the “saintly mantle of his grandfather” made them a perfect match for a duel because they were both cautious of what their peers thought of them (Freeman, 1996, p.290). In other words, both Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr were aware of how important their duel would be to their reputation as they sought to “accommodate the mandates of honor and politics with those of morality, religion, and the law” (Freeman, 1996, p.292). Still, the results were inevitable, and on July 12, 1804, Alexander Hamilton died after being “mortally wounded” by Aaron Burr the previous day after a duel (Freeman, 1996, p. 312). Freeman’s work encompasses both primary and secondary sources as she presented Hamilton and Burr equally and based on combat culture in the United States. In that sense, the article concurs with this paper’s thesis as it highlights the loss of a politician’s life and the ensuing “physical [and] intellectual exile” of the other (Freeman, 1996, p.317).
In what appears to be an echo of Freeman’s ideas, Lance Stell’s “Dueling and the Right to Life” promptly declares that “dueling should be legally outlawed” (1979, p.8). According to the author, the despair over the supposed inability of the law courts to handle feuds is as baseless as it is a flimsy excuse for people to exert revenge on their enemies. However, as the text argues, while every individual has the right to live and is at liberty to handle his or her life as he or she sees fit, that does not condone suicide or the dangers of a duel (Stell, 1979, p.11). To explain her views, Stell utilizes the doctrines of philosophers and Biblical passages; all of which elaborate on the concept of liberty and its connection to rights. Extensively, Immanuel Kant reckoned that for social cohesion, human beings have to relate by “ends” as opposed to “means” (Stell, 1979, p.20). Consequently, when one person uses the life of another to promote his or her social standing, that action challenges the concept of an end because the former becomes the means to the latter’s honor. Such as in the mentioned case of Hamilton and Burr, the fact that they both desired the honor that was to come with the defeat of the other places them in the wrong.
Subsequently, the right to live is a liberty because no law forbids people from living. About the rights of individuals, Stell uses the parable of the Good Samaritan to explain that while the Levite and the priest acted immorally by refusing to aid the injured man, they did not infringe on any of his rights because they were not obligated to offer their assistance (1979, p.12). However, the thieves were at fault as they defied the rights of their victim by attacking him and taking his possessions. In that sense, liberty and rights are different, but life creates the middle ground between the two by being inalienable to all people but beyond the control of whoever possesses it, a claim that people gave to recognize. Stell’s views are highly dependent on adopted ideas from secondary sources, yet she manages to show why duels are not right. To that end, the article concurs with the given hypothesis.
So far, the presented sources agree with the given thesis by depicting duels as infringements of rights and responsible for the deaths of otherwise prominent leaders. Snow McCormack and Norma Basch have different perspectives as explained in “Dueling, Lynching, and War” and “Marriage, Morals, and Politics in the Election of 1828” respectively. Snow’s work covers two pages, and there is a constant theme in both: duels are acceptable. According to the man, “the militarist, the duelist, -even the lyncher- differ from most peaceable [people] in degree rather than in kind (1916, p.104). In other words, every man “prefers fighting to thinking” and that makes dueling, lynching, and war “naturally more attractive to humanity than lawsuits” (1916, p.104-105). Hence, a duelist would be different from common folk because he or she overcomes personal inhibitions to respond to the natural perceptions that lie beneath the surface. Notably, McCormack lists no sources for his work and as a result, he presents biased ideas stemming from his personal ideologies. Meanwhile, the romance and “petty legal misunderstanding[s]” that created the foundations of Andrew Jackson’s marriage to Rachel Donelson dominate the arguments in “Marriage, Morals, and Politics in the Election of 1828” (Basch, 1993, p.891). The only mention of a duel in the article surrounds a scene in which Andrew Jackson challenged Rachel’s first husband, Lewis Robards, and eventually whisked the lady in question to a hideout before marrying her (Basch, 1993, p.909). Campaign slogans before the elections of 1828 argued that “a vote for Jackson was a vote for sin” because of the adulterous nature of his wife (Basch, 1993, p.891). Accordingly, the use of primary sources including newspaper articles on the subject period enhances Basch’s research; however, the article does not concur with a thesis that argues against duels.
At this point, the eligibility of the writers as experts on the subject of this paper is worth mentioning on the grounds of whether or not are conversant in the same. At the time of writing, Joanne Freeman was a history Ph. D. candidate at the University of Virginia and was for that reason, with enough access to resources and the aid of her professors who went on to advise her in publishing “Dueling as Politics (p.289). Meanwhile, Norma Basch was by 1993 the chair of the department of history at Rutgers University and was for that reason, well versed in the History of the United States. Finally, there are no details on Snow McCormack and Lance Stell. However, their grasp on dueling as a subject remains commendable. Now, Snow’s writing speaks of lynching and has 1916 as the publication date. With that in mind, the man does not need any sources as his is most likely a primary work and from his support of dueling and lynching, he must have been a Southerner.
In conclusion, of the four articles, two endorse this paper’s thesis while the others fail to give substantial details to prove the same. From the ones in support, it is evident that duels indeed cost the United States its prominent leaders. Of particular interest is Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers and a key player in the writing of the United States Constitution. At the same time, there is support for the assumption of duels failing to deliver justice. It seems absurd that politicians likened small exchanges of words to the battle grounds in which one of the two people engaging in the confrontation has to die. The illogical nature of the given scenario is evident Stell’s work as she argues for the right to live. If one considers the nature of duels and the apparent disregard with which duelists engaged each other without any care for their well-being, the need for Stell’s writing on liberty is acceptable if not expected. The duelists needed a wakeup call to the detrimental factors of their constant gun confrontations. The idea of romantic duelists certainly requires more time to understand.
References
Basch, N. (1993). Marriage, Morals, and Politics in the Election of 1828. The Journal of American History, 80(3), 890-918.
Freeman, J. B. (1996). Dueling as Politics: Reinterpreting the Burr-Hamilton Duel. The William and Mary Quarterly, 53(2), 289-318.
Snow, M. (1916). Dueling, Lynching, And War. Advocate Of Peace, 104-105.
Stell, L. K. (1979). Dueling and the Right to Life. Ethics, 90(1), 7-26.
