Showing posts with label Gabrielle Gifford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gabrielle Gifford. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Did American colonial laws embrace dueling as the way to resolve political conflict?

Hamilton-Burr duel
Politicians used to have unique ways of settling disputes, with some of them saying that in the early days of America people respected an aggressive style of taking care of business. However, there are differences of opinion on the matter, with a narrative that appears to favor the present style of disagreement over the way things used to be done during those early years.

Sarah Palin said, in response to attacks accusing her of verbal violence a few years ago, that America's past political disputes were more violent than present ones, using dueling as an example. But what does history say about it?

Since the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Gifford in Arizona and school shootings that have occurred both at Sandy Hook and in Washington State, people have disagreed about the present political climate. Some say politics has always been violent and confrontational, whereas others argue the present political atmosphere is particularly toxic.

Palin was accused of fostering violence by having a map on her Facebook page with crosshairs targeting political opponents. She countered this accusation by saying, "There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those "calm days" when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?"

History tells us that harsh language and dueling were common in the 18th century and that it was the ultimate outcome of political debates that could not be reconciled by discussion or apology. It was, however, frowned upon by key figures in America's early period of independence.

Dueling was one of the methods used to resolve political differences in the 18th century. This method was imported from Europe, where nobles fought with swords or guns to defend their honor. Men from various backgrounds dueled in America, with guns most often the chosen weapons used. For example, Button Gwinnet who was one of those who signed the Declaration of Independence was shot by General Lachlan in a duel. In addition history records the fact that Abraham Lincoln narrowly escaped a duel with swords but prevented it by issuing an apology to a state official.

Dueling had its formal rules, codified in 1777 and known as the Code Duello. An individual would issue a challenge; and if that challenge was accepted, both parties would select a second. A second was to try to settle the dispute between the two opponents. If they were unable to do that, a time and place was selected for the duel. Death was not necessarily the desired outcome. A shot fired and blood drawn could be sufficient.

Experts tell us that death from dueling was infrequent and that it was the last resort of an unreconciled argument. It was considered harsh, and the expectation was the opponents would work out their differences before this occurred. Although dueling was common enough, many members of the clergy and key government officials such as Benjamin Franklin and George Washington opposed it.
One of the most famous duels took place between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr in 1804. Hamilton and Burr were both personal and political enemies.

The duel between Burr and Hamilton was politically motivated, unlike the Arizona shooting or school shootings, but the notion of having a gun for self defense as a personal weapon was not something the ordinary citizen embraced during the Colonial period.  Yet there were those instances, as in the Hamilton and Burr duel, where the love of the gun became the emotional spur for resolving disputes.

Alexander Hamilton was an advocate of strong central government, wrote the Federalist Papers and was America's first Secretary of the Treasury. His opponent, Aaron Burr, was a Republican who was elected and served as Vice President of the United States with President Thomas Jefferson.
Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel following Hamilton's interference with Burr's re-nomination for Vice President in 1804 and attempt to become New York's governor.

The duel commenced, and Burr's shot mortally wounded Hamilton. The physician on the scene recorded the following of Hamilton's words and behavior before he died: "Soon after recovering his sight, he happened to cast his eye upon the case of pistols, and observing the one that he had had in his hand lying on the outside, he said, "Take care of that pistol; it is undischarged, and still cocked; it may go off and do harm. Pendleton knows " (attempting to turn his head towards him) 'that I did not intend to fire at him.'

Hamilton was then taken to his home and was said to havdied in agony the following day with the pistol's ball lodged next to his spine. Burr may have won the duel, but he was indicted by both New York and New Jersey. The trial, however, never took place. He ended up wandering the country and died in poverty and disgrace in 1836. The duel may have settled the score, but the way it was done was not embraced by the laws of the times, just as it would not be today. By the time of the Civil War it had declined because of negative public opinion.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Anti-Defamation League issues statement on Arizona shooting

[caption id="attachment_4340" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Guns non violence sculpture"][/caption]

PRN - GHN News - The Anti-Defamation League is standing up against hate speech with its
recent declaration, along with other groups tired of the type of
language that risks lives and reputations.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL)  condemned the tragic shooting rampage that wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed and wounded more than a dozen innocent bystanders in Tucson,

with reports of six dead and 14 wounded.  In doing so it underline the
serious problems that take place where hate speech is allowed to linger.

Miriam Weisman, ADL Arizona Regional Board Chair, and Bill Straus, ADL Arizona Regional Director, issued the following statement:

"We
are shocked by this unconscionable and horrific act of violence against
one of our highly respected public servants.  We agree with President
Obama and House Speaker John Boehner that
this was more than an attack on one member of Congress – it is an
attack on all public servants and the very fabric of our democracy.

During
her years in the statehouse, Rep. Giffords served on the ADL Arizona
Regional Board.  Her affiliation with ADL, which monitors and exposes
hate and extremist groups, contributed to her awareness of the nexus
between hate ideology and violence.  It is a testament to her dedication
to her constituents that despite past threats against her, Rep.
Giffords has always been so accessible to the people she represents.
Our thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords and the other
victims and their families.

ADL remains in contact with
law enforcement as investigators endeavor to establish a motive for the
attack. It is critical to determine whether the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner,
acted alone or with others, and whether he was influenced by extremist
literature, propaganda or hate speech.  While it is still not clear
whether the attack was motivated by political ideology, the tragedy has
already led to, as Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik
put it, "soul searching" about the connection between incivility and
violence. We applaud Sheriff Dupnik's statements condemning the volatile
nature of political discourse in America and for taking this
investigation seriously.

The Anti-Defamation
League was founded in 1913.  It is reputed to be the world's leading
organization as it has often led the fights not only against
anti-Semitism, but also against other behaviors that cause hatred,

prejudice and bigotry.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Vigilante justice remains part of the West's traditions





[caption id="attachment_4465" align="alignleft" width="227" caption="Wyatt Earp"][/caption]


GHN News Editor - A
recent case in the State of Arizona reveals vigilante justice continues
to be the way some people settle problems, but that doesn't mean it
something the law allows, as in the case of border vigilante Roger
Barnett.
Barnett, it is said, accosted a group fo 16 illegal

immigrants in 2004 near Arizona on State Highway 80.  He held the
immigrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrived.  This is that vigilante justicethat historically took place in border towns of the past.


He
is now being held for $73,000 damages in the case, following an Arizona
jury's award, although the 9th Circuit is deciding whether the verdict
should be reversed.


According to the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, which represented the group, Barnett had
hollered to the women in Spanish,

"My dog is hungry, and he's hungry
for ass."   The jury decided to award damages to the victims for
emotional distress and assault claims in February 2009.


Last
Wednesday Barnett's lawyer John Kaufmann maintained that these damages
should not have been awarded and that the case itself "should never have
been presented to the jury."  He maintains the jury is simply punishing
his client for bad behavior.


In the meantime Arizona remains at the crucible in the area of immigration with its new law
continuing to draw fire as well as imitators, both inside and outside
the state, as the federal government continues to maintain the state
stepped outside the limits of the law in enacting its own laws on the
subject.  That too is a form of justice the federal government in some


words declares a form of vigilantism in itself.