Why Was Dueling Legal
Unfortunately, to paraphrase Mill again, it is not enough to demonstrate to some that a law has no justification (in Mill`s case, women`s disenfranchisement, in our case, the prohibition of duels); It is also necessary to show what benefits abolition would have. Those who make this request are pretty sure that the violence of the duel is, as Franklin mistakenly thought, “useless.” This view is probably biased by an insipid nonviolence associated with hippie notions of verbal conflict resolution. So let me refute these stubborn messages with the following three points: Why, then, did such rational men prefer the struggle of apologies or mere indulgence? Maybe because they didn`t see an alternative. Hamilton, at least, was explicit. “The ability to be useful in the future,” he wrote. in the crises of our public affairs that are likely to occur. imposed on me (as I thought) a special necessity not to refuse the call. And Lincoln, though appalled at being held responsible for staging the vanity of a political rival, could not bring himself to express regret. Pride obviously has something to do with it, but pride, reinforced by the imperatives of a dueling society.
For a man who wanted a political future, escaping a challenge may not seem like a plausible option. The weapons and rules of duel on the Indonesian archipelago vary from culture to culture. In Madura, the duel is known as carok and was usually practiced with sickle or cellurite. The Madurais filled their sickles with a khodam, a kind of mythical spirit, with a kind of prayer before engaging in a duel.  Do you remember all the speeches your Little League coach gave you about sportsmanship? This also applies to duels. Photo by Robert Brammer. Your first question assumes that duels were legal when it was still a “thing,” which is largely not the case. Even participating in a duel could be a capital crime in some cases (Henry IV of France made the exhibition a challenge!), and killing a man was very important, but the simple fact is that one could usually expect a pardon, a prosecutor not to pursue the case, or a jury would reject the conviction or give a little slap on the wrist (A few months imprisonment in comfortable accommodation).
Im Großbritannien of the 19. In the nineteenth century, for example, there were virtually no convictions. In 1814, “The Edinburgh Review” noted how completely ineffective the law was when it came to duelling: European dueling styles established themselves in the colonies of European states in North America. Duels were used to challenge someone on a woman or to defend one`s own honor. In the United States, the duel was used to resolve political disputes and disputes, and was the subject of an unsuccessful amendment to the United States Constitution in 1838.  It was quite common in the United States at the time to end disputes through duels such as the Burr-Hamilton duel and the Jackson-Dickinson duel. Duels have been obsolete in the north since the beginning of the 19th century. Duels in the United States were not uncommon in the South and West, even after 1859, when 18 states banned them, but by the early 20th century they were a thing of the past in the United States.
 To date, anyone sworn into a state office, county office, or judgeship in Kentucky must declare under oath that they did not participate in a duel, act second, or provide support in any way.  For some time before the mid-18th century, swordsmen duel at dawn often carried lanterns to see each other. This happened so regularly that fencing manuals incorporated lanterns into their lessons. An example of this is the use of the lantern to parry blows and blind the opponent.  Manuals sometimes show fighters carrying the lantern wrapped behind their backs in their left hand, which is still one of the traditional hand positions in modern fencing.  In the United States, the climax of the duel at the time of the Revolution began and lasted nearly a century. The real home of the custom was the pre-war south. Duels were eventually fought to defend what the law would not stand for – the personal sense of honour of a gentleman – and nowhere were the masters more sensitive on this point than in the future Confederation.
As self-proclaimed aristocrats and often slaveholders, they enjoyed what one Southern writer described as a “habit of command” and an expectation of reverence. For the most sensitive among them, virtually all problems could be interpreted as a reason to gather at gunpoint, and although laws against duels had been passed in several southern states, the statutes were ineffective. Arrests were rare; Judges and jurors refused to convict. According to a 2020 study, dueling behavior declined in the U.S. as government capacity (measured by post office density) increased.  By the 1780s, the values of dueling had spread to the broader and emerging society of gentlemen. Research shows that the largest group of later duelists consisted of military officers, followed by the younger sons of the metropolitan elite (see Banks, A Polite Exchange of Bullets). The duel was also popular for some time among doctors and especially in the legal professions. It is difficult to quantify the number of duels in Britain, but there were about 1,000 between 1785 and 1845 with mortality rates of at least 15% and probably slightly higher. The last duel in England took place in 1852 between two French political exiles. In 1777, a code of conduct for the settlement of duels was established among the summer assizes in the town of Clonmel, County Tipperary. .