[BBC List] dueling

[Mike Abendroth]

Robert Dabney on this perversion of divine providence.

 

8. Dueling Murder.

The modern duel is a very peculiar usage, which has descended to us from a
perversion of an institution of chivalry: the ordeal by battle. This was a
means adopted by the ignorance of the middle ages, to appeal to God's
judgment where the question of right was too obscure to be unraveled by
their rude courts. It was founded on an abuse of the doctrine of Providence.
Because the Scriptures teach that this providence is concerned in all
events, the Middle Ages jumped to the conclusion, that this providence would
so decide the issue, as to vindicate justice. It needs no argument to show
you the fallacy. Since the intelligence of modern days has exploded the idea
of the divine ordeal, the duel remains a barbarous remnant of the middle
ages, without even the shadow of an argument in its favor.

Arguments For It Futile.

In refuting the arguments by which the duel is defended, I will not take the
ground that the sentiment of personal honor is irrational or unchristian; I
will not assume that it is no real injury to wound it. My position is, that
the duel is no proper remedy for that injury. And, first, the only lawful
object, when one is wounded in his honor, is selfdefense, and not revenge.
The latter is expressly forbidden in every case. Now, for the defense of
one's honor and good name, a duel is naught. Perhaps where malignant
passions are not harbored, the challenger to a duel is most frequently
actuated by this feeling; that his passive endurance of an insult will cause
his fellow men to think him a coward, and that therefore he must expose
himself to the dangers of combat, in order to convince that he is not a
coward; and thus retrieve his credit. Now dueling does not prove courage;
for notoriously, if some brave men have fought, so have many cowards. It
only proves a species of moral cowardice, which shrinks from the path of
rectitude, and cowers before the finger of scorn. It is yet more obvious
that the issue of the duel will prove nothing as to the truth or falsehood
of the charge which constituted the insult. If one calls me a liar, and I
kill him, therefore, this shows nothing whatever as to my truth or
falsehood. The proper and reasonable remedy here, is to require the accuser
to substantiate his charge, or else confess its injustice. His refusal to do
either would place him so effectually in the wrong, that no other reparation
would be needed.

Duels Unfair.

Another objection to the duel is, that it usually prevents, and that in the
most deadly manner, that very fairness and equality which it boasts of
securing. The plea is, that it puts the weak man equal to the strong one, by
appealing from mere brute muscle, to arms and skill. But according to its
laws, the duel authorizes an inequality of skill far more deadly. I am
ignorant of the use of the pistol. A violent and malignant man who knows
himself a dead shot, may so outrage me that I am impelled under the code of
honor, to challenge him. He, exercising the right of the challenged, chooses
pistols. Thus he has me more completely at a disadvantage than if he were a
pugilist of the first fame, and I an infant, and the result is not a parcel
of bruises, but my death. The system is, when tried by its own presence,
flagrantly unfair.

Jeopardizing of the Injured Unjust.

It is also absurdly unequal in this that if its proceedings have any
justice, then it puts the righteous man and the culprit on the same footing.
Unless the challenger is committing a monstrous wrong, he must hold that the
challenged is a capital criminal, for does he not claim that it is right to
subject him to the liability of a capital punishment? Why then should the
innocent man, already so grievously wronged, when he proceeds to inflict the
righteous penalty, give the culprit equal chances to inflict the same
penalty on him? Shall the magistrate, in putting a condemned felon to death,
courteously invite him to take his equal chances to put the magistrate to
death? What more absurd? If the assailant really deserves to die, and this
is duly ascertained (if it is not, the challenger is guilty of murder in
seeking to slay an innocent man) then by all means, let him be killed,
without giving him opportunity to perpetrate another unprovoked crime. When
one has to kill a mad dog, he does not feel bound to give the dog a chance
to bite him!

The Interested Made Judge, Etc.

Last, the dueling code is a monstrous one, because it makes the man who
supposes himself wronged, accuser, judge, and executioner in his own cause.
It is right then, that the statute laws of the Commonwealth treat the
duelist who has slain his adversary, as a murderer with prepense malice.

Pleas Refuted.

One plea for dueling is, that it is the necessary chastisement for classes
of sins, (as against one's good name, against the chastity of one's family)
for which the laws afford either no remedy, or such a one as no man of
delicacy can seek. The answer is, that if the facts are true, they are
arguments for perfecting the penal laws, not for the iniquities of dueling.
Another argument is, that nothing, but the code of honor will secure
chivalrous manners; which it boasts of doing through the influence of the
knowledge that the man who departs from that style of manners is in danger
of a challenge. The answers are two. Surely that courtesy has little claim
to be chivalrous, which is only coerced by fear. And facts show that the
influence of the code is not what is claimed, for the societies where it has
fullest sway, are sometimes the rudest and most debauched.

[1] 

 

 

Thanks.

 

Charis,

 

Mike Abendroth

 

 <http://www.bbcchurch.org> www.bbcchurch.org

 

2 Tim 1:2b  "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Lord."

 


  _____  

[1]Dabney, Robert L.: Systematic Theology. electronic ed. based on the
Banner of Truth 1985 ed. Simpsonville SC : Christian Classics Foundation,
1996, S. 486

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bbcchurch.org/pipermail/bbc_list/attachments/20061024/17c9c045/attachment.htm