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.

'Everybody does it' a childish defense for bullying in life or politics

President Kennedy assassinated in 1963

"Everybody does it. It doesn't matter who they are, they just can't get along." This childish response to argument helps foster bullying and bad behavior in society and politics, including the Congress and other areas of government as well as in daily life.

Those of us who have raised or taught children know that when there is an altercation between two or three or more children, usually no one takes responsibility for it. The fingers point instead to one another, without anyone admitting or finding out who really started trouble. Often everyone gets punished when the culprit is unknown.  And if that culprit is discovered, then the children begin to talk about "everyone is doing it,"especially if that guilty person has a level of control and/or popularity within the group.

We respond to political figures just like we respond to children's arguments. We punish the group without acknowledging the source of trouble. Often we don't even try to find that source with the argument "everyone does it."

In the case of the episodes of gun violence, demonstrated by the high-profile shooting of Gabriel Gifford, Congresswoman from Arizona a few years ago, the school shooting at Sandy Hook, and most recently in Washington State, the atmosphere of hate has been festering for some time.

Clarence W. Dupnik, the sheriff of the county where Gabriel Gifford was killed, was reported to say shortly afterward in a news conference,about an  "atmosphere of hatred and bigotry,"helping to fuel violence.  He spoke strongly of that atmosphere as provoking those with serious mental health problems to act out their violent fantasies. An atmosphere of hate, he said, facilitates problems. He tells us we must all get at the source.

The source of that,according to the reporting of the Christian Science Monitor, is the extreme rhetoric, building up since 2006. Fox News fosters much of it with its news "commentators," hardly news at all. Whether that is Sean Hannity or Sarah Palin, the right remains central to this ugly speech in a very special way.

For example, as David Neiwart pointed out in Crooks and Liars, how Glenn Beck called for kicking California out of the Union, and also referred to Barack Obama as a Marxist, a communist, a socialist and later a fascist. Emails circulate these rumors, and the larger in bulk they become, the more people believe them before hearing the truth.

The argument 'everyone does it' while applauding the angry and sarcastic rhetoric, reinforces bullying and ugly arguments in places where there is vulnerability for that sort of thing. Folks hear aggressive commentators, and people using epithets in reference to public figures; and then its echoes by their political representatives, and then they believe what they hear. Louisiana is one of those vulnerable places where this takes place.  As an example, a few years ago, shortly after Representative John Fleming of Louisiana won his seat in the House, he encouraged separatism and referred to Obama as a socialist during one of his first meetings with constituents following the election. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana did the same during the health care debates. Both represent central and northern Louisiana where the Klan flourished and still has many members. Yet few in Louisiana in the press have pointed to this aggressive language as initiating political bullying and the lessons from history it undercuts in the process.

In fact that lack of admission of who starts what is the problem in politics now, just as it is with bullying in the classroom or the office. After the heat of the present discussions following the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford and the shooting at Sandy Hook and in Washington State, people will likely continue the same response. Fingers will point around the room, not getting at the source.  In fact after the recent midterm election there was a raft of pictures and political statements attacking not just President Obama's leadership but the character of his wife, Michelle, and elements of their private life.  This has been ongoing since Obama was first elected in 2008, but the increase in bullying continues in a climate where the free-for-all seems to be the accepted standard on social media as well as discourse among people everywhere. Strongly worded epithets are part of the verbal violence that psychologists underline as personally abusive.  On a broader scale, the same type of rhetoric creates a national atmosphere of verbal abuse that can lead to the perpetuation of violence.

The rhetoric has been so abusive that newspapers remind people to keep their comments moderate and to avoid angry, personal attacks on the President and others, especially in relationship to politics.

The concern about violent speech and abusive language was part of the discussion following the death of  President John F. Kennedy, who was shot in Dallas, Texas 61 years ago.  Kennedy, who had become identified with civil rights and social liberalism, was called socialist and Communist at the time by anti-Communist Protestant groups in particular, especially in the South where the angry rhetoric against integration was at its zenith.  In reflection of the events of that time, Forbes magazine writes that modern Democrats would see Kennedy as more like former President Reagan, however, as he was adamantly anti- Communist and although deeply religious, not a pawn of the Catholic Church.  As the images of mourners were shown on television, some folks wondered aloud whether or not the verbal violence created the atmosphere that allowed for the assassination of the President.

Talk show Stan Solomon offers the extreme speech recited in generalities by others not so extreme but who listen and believe that if it is said often enough, it must be true.  Solomon has observed that Obama is a Muslim, married to a transgender woman or a man whom Obama knew in college and that the aim of the President is to help impose Shariah law on America.  He and the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America then declared they were preparing themselves, and others should as well, to fight back.

The Southern Poverty Law Center wonders also about the present political atmosphere and the welfare of the current President, Barack Obama.

Experts at the Department of Justice and the Southern Poverty Law Center have for some time said hate speech has increased and hate groups as well. SPLC has been especially concerned about the hate speech from anti-immigrant groups, many of which exist in Arizona.

And psychologists in numerous citations continue to remind us of the hurtful nature of verbal abuse and its risks to individual welfare, abuse that can create a lifetime of trouble that can exceed physical abuse.  Could it also perpetuate physical violence on a wider scale?  Experts maintain it is possible that it has facilitated the aggressive nature of government and personal interaction as well as the type of school shootings that the socially deprived or emotionally disturbed commit in response.

Instead of countering this with a change of behavior, the defense is, "Well everyone does it." But the truth, in fact, is everyone doesn't. The problem of bullying and bad political and social behavior starts somewhere and has to be stopped. Those who refuse to examine the source, and instead say "everyone does it" allow the bullying and the violent speech to thrive.

It starts in childhood, continues on the playground, and never ends unless those who want bullying to end in all its forms tackle the source itself and will not be satisfied with pointing fingers.

Beware of verbal violence during controversies

[caption id="attachment_4359" align="alignleft" width="300"] Non violence meeting[/caption]

Carol Forsloff---Many people don’t understand that unlike the famous line, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me,” is a children’s tale that isn’t true, for words can foster violence and confrontational in ways that can escalate in seriously, especially during arguments about hot button topics, like the potential military intervention in Syria.

Social media is filled with epithets, name-calling and verbal violence.  It is also found on comment feeds on news sites around the world, where readers often not thoughtfully but vindictively, foster violence by their words.  Their words also have inherent violence, in that they hurt the emotions and the ability of an individual to maintain balance in psychological terms.  Research has found that victims of verbal abuse suffer terribly, some for years.  It is especially true for adolescents, who are most vulnerable emotionally.

Mainstream media writers by practice and by ethical guidelines do not respond to negative reader comments, even when the facts themselves are a matter of dispute.  Although there are cases where a writer may respond, and that is seldom; one does not see the writer at Huffington Post, as an example, use epithets and name-calling to respond to reader comments.  It is, however, a pattern on blogs and some citizen journal sites  for the writer to do so.  That type of writing is part of the problem, according to experts, as anything that increases verbal violence can be a social problem as well as a problem for individuals on a personal level.

In times of conflict verbal violence can escalate.  Presently America faces a crisis both of conscience and will, in the possibility of a war with Syria.  There are people on many sides of the debate about whether or not America should intervene to end alleged chemical attacks used by the Syrian government against its own people.  In the debate, both in the halls of Congress and on Facebook and other social media sites, people are now, and will likely continue to be, shrill and angry as the emotions run high during times of tension.  That can escalate feelings and further divide people.

Those in the know about language remind us we need to know how to converse logically, carefully and kindly, and utilize the best discourse with a value-laden orientation and education when we discuss social issues.  It is particularly true for hot button topics.

So as the tensions increase in the Middle East, we are told to use caution in our own speech and interactions with each other and most especially in the printed word which is more lasting and therefore presents more risks for everyone.