TREASURt ROOM 
 
 George Washington Flowers 
 Memorial Collection 
 
 DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 ESTABLISHED BY THE 
 FAMILY OF 
 COLONEL FLOWERS 
 
 Treasure \ 
 
AN 
 
 ESSAV 
 
 ON 
 
 DUELLING. 
 
 BY WILLIAM JAY, 
 
 OF BEDFORD, :^2Vr-Y0IlK4 
 
 fiOH WniCH TUP, GOLD MSBAL WAS AVTAHDID, BY THtn 
 
 SAVANNAH; 
 
 rtJBLISUED DT OUBETl OF TUE ASSOCIATICjr, 
 
 1829, 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2014 
 
 https://archive.org/details/essayonduellingOOjayw 
 
At the Anniversary of the Savannah Anii-Duel- 
 ling Association, on the 8tli, of January, 1828, the 
 following resolution was passed. 
 
 Resolved^ That a premium of Fifty Dollars, or a 
 Gold Medal of that value, be offered hy this Associa- 
 tion for the best Essay on Duelling, and that a Com- 
 mittee be appointed to circulate a notice of the same, 
 and to decide upon the merits of such essays as may 
 be presented. The Committee appointed are : 
 
 JOHN GUMMING, JAMES M. WAYNE, R. W. HABERSHAM, 
 WILLIAM LAW, & M H. MCALLISTER. 
 
 At a meeting of tlie Association on the 15th, Jan, 
 1829, the Committee reported that tweniy-one Essays 
 had been received by C. W. Rockwell, Esq. the 
 Secretary, the merits of several of which would well 
 entitle them to publication, but that the funds of the So- 
 ciety are inadequate to authoris e it. Three of the essays 
 were by unanimous consent selected, to be put in com- 
 petition for the premium, and the one to which it has 
 been awarded, is discovered to be the pr(»ductioa of 
 Mr. William Jay, of Bedford, in the State of \ew- 
 York. 1 he Committee recommend that it be published. 
 
 Extract from the Minutes, 
 
 CHS. W. KOCKWELL, 
 
 becty* 
 
AN ESSAY ON DUELLING. 
 
 The aitempt to remove ancient and widely extended 
 prejudices, although arduous, is not always hopeless. 
 The opinions of mankind, like their works, are seldom 
 permanent, and the acquisition of knowledge, frequent- 
 ly constrains us to abandon long cherished opinions, 
 and to adopt very different ones in their place. 
 
 Keligious toleration, which is now so generally ad- 
 mitted to be the right of all, was at one time supposed 
 to be contrary to the precepts of Christianity ; and the 
 magistrate was exhorted to use his sword, for the de- 
 struction of heresy. That our intercourse with the 
 Aborigines of our country, ought to be governed by the 
 principles of justice and liumanity, will at the present 
 day, be denied by none: but such an admission, howev- 
 er true and obvious, is comparatively novel. In 1755, 
 the Colony of Massachusetts, being at war with cer- 
 tain Indian tribes, Governor Shirley, with the appro- 
 bation of both Houses of the Legislature, issued a 
 
6 
 
 proclamation, oiTerin^^ a bounty of ^£20, for the scalps 
 of Indian children under the age of twelve years 
 No individual would now dare to insult the moral 
 sense of the community, by proposing a measure so 
 attrocious. In the almost universal abolition and ex- 
 ecration of the slave trade, a trade which the con- 
 stitution of our country specially protected till with- 
 in the last twenty years, and which our laws now pun- 
 ish with death, we have another striking instance of 
 the triumph of education and religious influence, 
 over long established, and even interested prejudices. 
 These examples, and others that might be adduced, of 
 radical changes in public opinion, encourage us to 
 hope that the time may arrive when the duellist will 
 share in the contempt and abhorrence to which the 
 slave trade is now consigned. 
 
 Public sentiment in a free country will ever be om- 
 nipotent, and when rightly directed, will prove more 
 efficacious in correcting erroneous opinions and prac- 
 tices, than all the penalties that law can inflict. No 
 sooner shall public sentiment unequivocally declare 
 itself hostile to duelling, than this relic of barbarism 
 will vanish ; for duellists themselves, will quail be- 
 neath its frown. Every effort therefore, however fee- 
 ble, to draw the attention of the public to the evils of 
 duelling, may have some influence in promoting its 
 suppression. When the community generally are con- 
 vinced that this practice is both wicked and absurd, 
 they will cease to countenance it. This conviction 
 however is to be effected, not by angry declamation; or 
 
 •See the New York Mercury of 25d. July 1755, 
 
7 
 
 personal invective, but by calm and frequent appeals 
 to the understanding and the conscience. 
 
 While the immorality of duelling is generally ad- 
 mitted, the extent and nature of its sinfulness is as 
 generally overlooked ; and many who condemn it in 
 principle, still regard it as an evil which the state of 
 society renders unavoidable, and therefore excusable. 
 To him who makes the revelation of his Maker, the 
 rule of his conduct, arguments are unnecessary to 
 prove, that it can never be right to yield obedience to 
 the customs of men, rather than to the commands of God. 
 
 Unfortunately however, there are many who have 
 not been led by education or reflection to apply the 
 precepts of the Bible, to duelling. It may be useful to 
 direct the attention of such persons, to the plain and 
 positive injunctions, and the awful denunciations of 
 the sacred volume. 
 
 All false religions have been accomodated to the 
 corrupt passions of their votaries, but the religion of 
 the Bible, proceeding from a Being no less infinite in 
 holiness, than in wisdom and power, is intended to 
 control, and not to gratify our evil propensities — pro- 
 pensities which cannot be indulged, without impairing 
 our present, and endangering our future happiness. — 
 Hence one striking peculiarity of this religion, is its 
 prohibition of all malevolence, hevenge, which by 
 the nations of antiquity was regarded as nearly allied 
 to virtue, is by the religion of the Bible denounced as 
 a crime, and we are solemnly assured, ^*if ye forgive 
 not men their trespasses, neither will your Father for- 
 give you; your trespasses, We are urged to the ex- 
 
8 
 
 crcise of benevolence towards others, by the consid- 
 eration of the divine goodness towards ourselves. ^*Be 
 ye kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving onc- 
 another, even as God for Christ^'^ sake hath forgiven 
 you." *'If any man have a quarrel against any, eveu 
 as Christ forgave you, so do ye.'' As forgiveness of 
 injuries is thus enjoined, so of course revenge is forbid- 
 den. ^^Sec that none render evil for evil against any 
 man.'' ^'Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but 
 rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, veil- 
 geance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord." 
 
 Not only does the Gospel inculcate forgiveness of 
 injuries, but with a sublimity of doctrine peculiarly its 
 own, and which indicates its divine origin, it requires 
 us even to love our enemies, to do good to them that 
 hate us, and to pray for them which despitefully use 
 us, and persecute us ; and it enforces these commands 
 by this beautiful and affecting illustration, '^That ye 
 maybe the children of your Father which is in heav- 
 en, for He maketh His sun to shine on the evil and 
 the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust." 
 These texts, and many more that might be cited, prove 
 that forgiveness of injuries, is required of us, not mere- 
 ly as a duty, but as an indispensable condition of the 
 pardon of our own offences. It therefore deeply con- 
 cerns the duellist to inquire, whether he can reconcile 
 the passions which drive him to the field, with these 
 great and solemn precepts of the Bible; whether he can 
 take the life of his enemy, and still hope to ])e forgiven. 
 
 Not only are the passions indulged by the duellist, 
 forbidden, but the very act to w^hich they prompt him, 
 
9 
 
 is prohibited in the most express terms, and under the 
 most awful denunciations. One of the reasons assign- 
 ed for the destruction of the antediluvian world was^ 
 that it was '^filled with violence," and one of the first 
 commands given by the Almighty, after the waters of 
 the di'luge had proclaimed him an avenging God, was, 
 "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood 
 be shed.'^ The injunction ^Hhou shalt not kill,'^ was 
 announced by the voice of the Deity himself amid the 
 sublime terrors of ISinai, and by his hand twice engra- 
 ven on stone. The Jewish go>^ernment was a theoc- 
 racy, and the laws relating to murder mark the ab- 
 horrence in which this crime was held by the divine 
 lawgiver; ^•Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of 
 a murderer ; he shall surely be put to death.^^ Blood 
 defileth the land, and the land cannot be cleansed of 
 the blood that is shed therein^ but by the blood of him 
 that shed it." The sanctions of the Mosaic laws were 
 geneially of a temporal nature, and it was reserved for 
 the Gospf 1 to vindicate the divine sovereignty, by 
 withdrawing the veil which concealed the future world, 
 and exhibiting the penalties intlicted there, for the 
 transgressions committed here. The declarations, 
 "no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him, " 
 and "murderers shall not inherit eternal life/' derive 
 a most impressive confirmation from the suil^lime vis- 
 ion in the Apocalypse, in which Christ i-s represented 
 as sitting on his throne, and proclaiming "He that o- 
 vercometh shall inherit all tilings, and I will be his 
 God, and he sluU be mj son ; but murderers shall 
 have their part in the lake that burnetii with fire and 
 brimstone; which is the second death." 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 Were we not acquainted with the deceitfulness of 
 die human hearty we should imagine it impossible 
 that any one who acknowledges the scriptures as a 
 divine revelation, should ever venture to engage in a 
 duel ; and yet it would not consist with candor to as- 
 sert, that every duellist is an infidel ; or that when 
 advancing to the field, he abandons all expectation of 
 happiness beyond the grave. That the great mass of 
 duellists are at least practical infidels, and are reck* 
 less of future retribution, is abundantly evinced by the 
 general tenor of their lives : s(ill there are many, who 
 while they profess a belief in the Bible, and hope to 
 participate in the blessings it reveals, nevertheless re- 
 gard duelling as an offence, for which circumstances 
 "wiW afford a sufficient apology. Such persons will 
 not readily consent to apply to duelling, the denuncia- 
 tions of scripture against murder. But however un- 
 "Willing they may be to incur the guilt and odium of 
 murder, both the language of the Bible, and the plain 
 common sense of mankind, unite in giving this name to 
 th^ir crime ; and the laws, not only of our own, but of 
 every civilized country, regard the man who kills his 
 antagonist in a duel, as a murderer. 
 
 It may however be asked, if the duellist be in fact 
 a murderer, why is he not abhorred and treated as 
 such? to this it may he replied, that as respects the 
 Deity, so fat as wq can form an opinion from the rev- 
 elation He has been pleased to make of his will, we 
 are constrained to believe^ that by Him the duellist is 
 abhorred and treated as a murderer. It is true, that 
 various causes have combined Ko induce mankind ia 
 
11 
 
 general, to view this species of murder with more in* 
 duigence tlian assassination. The antiquity of the 
 practice, the rank usually held in society by those who 
 engage in it, and above all, the personal danger with 
 which it is accompanied, tend to divest duelling of a 
 large portion of that atrocity and cowardly baseness, 
 which most frequently belong to assassination. But 
 a little reflection will convince us, that these circum- 
 stances can have little, if any effect, in mitigating it^ 
 moral guilt. If duelling is to be excused on account 
 of the length of time it has been practised, so may 
 fratricide; since it occurred in the first family on earth. 
 The rank of an offender, may to a certain degree, ex* 
 empt his crime from the reproach of vulgarity, but it 
 cannot diminish his guilt in the view of that Being, 
 who is no respecter of persons. Nor can we suppose 
 that the general prevalence of any crime, will be re- 
 garded as an apology for its commission, by that holy 
 and jealous God who brought a deluge on a guilty 
 w orld, and rained down fire upon the cities of the 
 plain. Still less can we imagine that the publicity 
 and audacity of a crime, can extenuate its sinfulness. 
 Admitting every duellist to be brave, it cannot be de- 
 nied, that courage, so far from being a virtue, is often 
 associated with the vilest and most detestable actions. 
 In the revolt of Satan we have an instance of despe- 
 rate daring — a recklessness of consequences to which 
 human exploits can afford no parallel. The pirate and 
 the highwayman, often encounter perils from which 
 most duellists would shrink with terror. Every duellist 
 hopes to escape with impunity^ and his courage there^ 
 
12 
 
 fore, is vac^tiy inferior to that of tiiose, who, to gratify 
 their revenge, rash upon certain death. There are 
 many instances, in which assassins have given the fa- 
 tal bL>w under circumstances, which they well knew 
 would inevitably consign them to a painful and igno- 
 minous execution : such high resolve, firmness of 
 nerve, and contempt of pain and death, are unequal 
 led in the annals of duelling ; and if these qualities 
 are in themselves deserving of applause, the most de- 
 termined duellist must yield the palm, to such assas- 
 sins as Ravalliac and Fenton. 
 
 In a question of so much moment, as whether duel- 
 ling is oris not murder- — a question involving interests 
 more enduring than time, and sufferings and enjoy- 
 ments surpassing human imagination — it becomes us to 
 lay aside all idle declamation, and all the prejudices 
 derived from the customs and associations of the world, 
 and U) bring the inquiry to the only sure tests, — reas- 
 on and scripture. 
 
 It is true that duellists, occasionally, while they ex- 
 pose their own lives, refuse to take those of their oppo- 
 nents; but these are such rare exceptions to the gener- 
 al practice, that we need not now examine them ; and 
 even in these cases, if the guilt of murder be avoided, 
 that of suicide is incurred. 
 
 It will be admitted, that the immediate object of two 
 persons engaged in a duel, whatever may be their pro- 
 pelling motives, is to kill each other : by the common 
 consent and understanding of mankind, the deliberate 
 and malicious taking of human life, is murder : it is 
 in vain therefore to urge the antiquity, and the general 
 
1«J 
 
 prevalence of the practice, or the customs of society, 
 to distinguish duelling from murder. Nor can the 
 personal danger to which the duellist exposes hims df, 
 make the distinction : it would be an insult to any 
 court^ to contend, that the soldier who had shot his 
 oflicer on parade, had not committed murder because 
 the time and place he had selected for perpetrating the 
 act, proved that he had voluntarily placed his own life 
 in jeopardy. Equally absurd would it be to agree, 
 that killing a person in a duel was not murder, be- 
 cause the party slain had consented to his own death. 
 So far is this from being true in fact, that duellists of- 
 ten resort to expedients to save their lives. But ad- 
 mitting the assertion, yet no man by his mere consent, 
 can justify another in taking his life ; and he who 
 should aid in the commission of suicide, would un- 
 questionably be adjudged a murderer. 
 
 The only plea in behalf of duelling that is not obvi- 
 ously false and absurd, is, that it is practised, not for 
 revenge, but in self defence. This plea merits, and 
 shall receive, a full and candid examination. The 
 moral sense of mankind, revolts at the sacrifice of hu- 
 man life for the gratification of revenge, and the perpe- 
 trator, is in every civilized country, doomed to an ig- 
 nominious death. It is not therefore surprising that 
 duellists should disavow motives, that would reduce 
 them to the level of the vilest felons, and expose them 
 to the execration of their fellow-men ; hence they seek 
 to excuse themselves by an alledged obligation to 
 obey, w hat they are pleased to call, the laws of honor ; 
 and by the right and duty of preserving even at the 
 
14 
 
 cost of another's life, a reputation, on which, they af- 
 firm, their future usefulness and happiness^ and even 
 personal security depend. 
 
 Wlien however we come to investigate the origin, 
 and attending circumstances, of most duels, we shall 
 be disposed to question the sincerity of this disclaimer 
 of malignant motives. All duels are founded on an 
 alledged injury received, and the offending party is 
 required to give '^satisfaction/' as it is called, by 
 allowing the person aggrieved an opportunity of taking 
 his life. It is certainly difficult to discriminate be- 
 tween such a demand, and a desire for revenge ; and 
 still more so, to reconcile the demand itself, with 
 those divine precepts, of long suffering and forgiveness, 
 which have been already cited. It is not pretended 
 that the laws of honor, sanguinary as they are, require 
 more, than that each party should give proof of his 
 courage by hazarding his life, and after this proof has 
 been given, a reconciliation is permitted If then, du- 
 ellists act only in obedience to these laws, and are not 
 impelled by revenge, how comes it that each party so 
 generally aims at the other, and that after a fire has 
 been given and received, and of course the requisitions 
 of honor fully satisfied, the combat is often prolonged, 
 till one or the other is disabled ? Instances have oc- 
 curred, in which the parties, in the interval between 
 the challenge and the duel, have practised in shooting 
 at a mark, to ensure a more deadly aim. It is difficult 
 to imagine a stronger proof than this, of what the la\V 
 denominates malice prepense;^ a cool deliberate inten- 
 tion of taking life, and a calculating use of the requis* 
 
15 
 
 ite means. In such cases, it would be folly to deny the 
 existence of a fixed purpose of revenge; and although 
 the evidence of malice may nut be equally obvious ia 
 every instance, yet the fact, that the duellist deliberate- 
 ly endeavours to take the life of bis enemy, after hav- 
 ing calmly made his preperations for the purpose, af 
 ter having advised with a friend on the subject, and 
 after having entertained the design for days, and some- 
 times for months, affords proof of settled malice, more 
 strong and conclusive, than is usually offered in trials 
 for murder ; and if such proof is to be rejected, then all 
 the rules of evidence by which human tribunals are 
 guided, and by which we are accustomed to judge of 
 the conduct of our fellow- men, are vague and decep- 
 tive. Let not the duellist then flatter himself, that 
 while his hands are imbrued in his brother's bloody 
 his heart is unpolluted by malice — 0 let him not ven- 
 ture his all, on a conceit so vain and delusive. 
 
 It must not be supposed that the preceding remarks 
 apply only to him who seeks the combat, and that he 
 who merely accepts a challenge, is exempted from the 
 charge of malice, and the guilt of murder. The chal* 
 lenge is given for a real or supposed injury received : 
 if the injury be real, the malice that prompted it must 
 be greatly aggravated by the infliction of a still great- 
 er injury, the taking of life itself. He who fiirst insults 
 or slanders his neighbour, and then attempts to shed 
 his blood, will in vain plead, that he is free from all 
 jnalignant feelings. Admitting however that no real 
 or intentional injury had been committed, the chal- 
 lenger in such a case obviously labours under a mis- 
 
16 
 
 take and by tlie code of duellists themselves ; an 
 explanation, or a disclaimer of oSTeusive intentions^ 
 renders a combat unnecessary. Yet the party clial- 
 lenged, ratlicr than condescend to speak the truth, de- 
 liberately aims his ^veapou at the life of a man who 
 lias given him no cause for oifence ; and the apology 
 offered for this art is, that it m as not prompted by irri- 
 tated passions or violent provocations, but solely by a 
 wish to avoid all suspicion of a v/ant of courage. He 
 who challenges his opponent; may at least plead the 
 vehemence of his passions, and the outrages he has 
 suffered ; but he who accepts it, is destitue of even this 
 poor excuse^ and the malignity of his heart, is aggra- 
 vated, by the absence of ail other motives than a self- 
 ish and cowardly solicitude about the opinions of oth- 
 ers. 
 
 It may be asked, what other alternative is left to a 
 person who is challenged, than either to accept it, or 
 by refusing it, to expose himself to obloquy? A plain 
 unsophisticated man, whose ideas of right and Wi ong 
 are derived, not from the maxims of the world, but from 
 the revelation of his Maker, will never be at a loss to 
 discover his duty on receiving a challenge. If the in- 
 jury complained of be imJiginary or unintentional, he 
 will frankly and honestly make such explanations as 
 truth and justice, and a due regard for another's feel- 
 ings, may require. If the injury however be real, but 
 one which he had a right to inflict ; as the exposure of 
 the true character of a candidate for olSce , or a cen- 
 sure of public measures, he will witiiout hesitation 
 avow and justify his conduct; asserting his riglJts, and 
 refusing to be called to account for exercising thejn. 
 
17 
 
 Should his conscience however fell him that passion 
 or inadvertence, had hetrayed him into unwarrantable 
 expressions or behaviour, he will with the same fear- 
 less aud simple adherence to truth, confess his error, 
 and acknowledge his sorrow for it. Those who do 
 not see in such conduct, more true honor and magna- 
 nimity, than in that sullen and revengeful silence, 
 which is broken only by the acceptance of a challenge, 
 have reason to fear, that their own moral sense is la- 
 mentably depraved. 
 
 Having examined the disclaimer made by duellists, 
 of malignant intentions, we are now to consider the 
 truth of the assertion, that the practice we are con- 
 demning, is resorted to by them as a measure of self- 
 defence ; it being under certain circumstances, indis- 
 pensable, not merely to their reputation, but even to 
 tlieir exemption from future indignities. 
 
 It may not be improper here to remark, that this 
 apology can in no way avail the seconds to a duel, as 
 it is not pretended that they are compelled by a regard, 
 either to their reputation, or to their personal safety, to 
 countenance and assist their friends in taking each oth- 
 er's lives If duelling be a crime, those w ho volun- 
 tarily aid in its commission, cannot be guiltless ; nor 
 can they find an excuse for their conduct, in the fact, 
 that they harbour no resentful feelings towards those 
 whom they are leading, and not unfrequently urging, 
 to mortal combat. Human laws would adjudge him 
 guilty of murder, who should w ilfully furnish an as- 
 sassin with weapons to eflfect his deadly purpose ; 
 and at that a*>vful tribunal to which we are all hasten- 
 
 C 
 
18 
 
 ing, we have every reason to believe, that the seconds 
 in a duel, will be regarded as deeply criminal. 
 
 Were we to assent to the assertion of duellists, that 
 their reputation, usefulness, and even personal safety, 
 sometimes require them to give or receive a challenge, 
 it would not follow as they seem to suppose, that duel- 
 ling must tlierefore be justifiable. There are many 
 cases in wiiich duty may require us, not merely to 
 disregard the good opinion of others, but even to sac- 
 rifice our lives and fortunes. History aftbrds us fre- 
 quent illustrations of this truth, in the self devotion of 
 patriots, who have voluntarily endured disgrace, pov- 
 erty and death, in the cause of their country. Self- 
 defence does not justify every act, to which it may 
 prompt : on the contrary, he who to avoid the penal- 
 ties due to his crimes, should accuse an innocent per- 
 son, w ould be justly and universally execrated. But 
 when we bring this plea to the test of christian mo- 
 rality, its fallacy is still more obvious. If the com- 
 mands of the Creator be paramount to the opinions of 
 his weak and erring creatures — if to barter the soul, 
 even for the whole world, be the extreme no less of 
 folly than of wickedness, then surely the expectation 
 of establishing a reputation for courage, or the hope 
 of avoiding future insult, cannot warrant the infraction 
 of a divine command. I he christian martyr, when 
 required to scatter a few grains of incense upon the 
 altar of an idol, rejectedwith disdain the proffered re- 
 wards of compliance, and joyfully endured all the ig- 
 nominy and suffering with which iiis persecutors could 
 load him; rather than violate the allegiance he had 
 
19 
 
 pledged to his divine master. The opinions, the dis- 
 tinctions, the pleasnres of the world ; even the ties of 
 kindred, and of friendship, were unable to detain him^ 
 a voluntary victim, from the stake or the scaffold. 
 Tlie principles professed by the duellist, would have 
 rendered him, in the early ages of the church, a recre- 
 ant apostate. He acknowledges the world as hi^ 
 master, and to acquire or preserve its applause, is 
 ready to hazard his life ; while he indignantly refuses 
 to submit to the slightest indignity, from regard to the 
 commands of his maker. Whether the conduct of 
 the martyr, or the duellist, is most consistent with true 
 honor and wisdom, will be doubted by few now, and 
 by none hereafter. 
 
 But the plea of necessity, is no less false in fact, 
 than it is unsound in principle. It is not true, that 
 the refusal to give or receive a challenge, necessarily 
 occasions a loss of reputation, or leads to subsequent 
 indignities. The ancient judicial combats to which, 
 duelling probably owes its origin, were regarded as 
 appeals to Heaven, and the issue was supposed to be 
 providential By the laws of England, which former- 
 ly recognized these combats, the parties or their 
 champions, previous to the combat, made oath of the 
 justice of their cause, and the vanquished was deemed 
 convicted of perjury, and was forever after incapable 
 of serving as a juror or witness. Hence we may easi- 
 ly conceive, that it might have been disgraceful to de- 
 cline the wager of battle, since the refusal might be 
 imputed to a consciousness of guilt. But modern du- 
 ellists; far from intending an appeal to heaven, seem to 
 
20 
 
 Forget, that the eye of Omniscience is resting upon them. 
 Hence the only motive for declining a duel, that can 
 possibly he esteemed disgraceful, is a fear of personal 
 injury; and even this motive is only unworthy, he- 
 cause higher and nobler ones ought to operate. Still 
 M e do not hesitate to assert, in contradiction to all the- 
 declamation of duellists, that this practice is not ne- 
 cessary to preserve an honorable reputation. Innu- 
 merable are the instances, both in private and public 
 life, of men of high character, treating insults and ca- 
 lumnies with silent contempt, or appealing to the laws 
 for redress, without experiencing the slightest dimin- 
 ution in their respeclability or influence.^- Not a sol- 
 itary case can be adduced, in which a man has low ered 
 himself in public estimation, by declining a duel from 
 a sense of duty. 
 
 It may however be urged, that although a man pro- 
 fessedly religious, may be excused from fighting, yet 
 in other cases, a refusal can be ascribed only to cow- 
 ardice, and must therefore of course, be considered 
 disgraceful. And is it the christian alone who shrinks 
 from shedding human blood ; or who admits the ex- 
 
 *A gentleman in the State of New- York, was some years since publicly as- 
 saulted by a political opponent, and knocked down — no challeng-e ensued, 
 but an appeal was made to the laws, and damag-es awarded, to the amount 
 of g3,0U0. Not the slig-htest stig-ma ever rested on the character of this 
 g-entleman for not demanding" the ordinary "satisfaction." In the last war, he 
 held a hig'h commission, and was distinguished for his chivalrous bravery. 
 
 Another g-entleman was attacked in ;ne of our cities, by a person to whom 
 he had given offence, and struck with a cane — His principles did notjjcr- 
 mit him to attempt to expiate the insult in the blood of the aggi-essor , but 
 so far was his respect for the laws of Ms Maker and his Country, from tar- 
 nishing his reputation, that he was afterwards elected a Member of Congress, 
 and at the present time, enjoys in no ordinary degree, the esteem and 
 tJonfidence of his fellow-citizens^ 
 
2i 
 
 istence and attributes of a Supreme Being, and the 
 possibility of a future state of retribution ? Is the heart 
 warmed with piety towards God, the only heart iu 
 which parental or conjugal afiection ever glows? The 
 duellist will not readily make these admissions ; but 
 unless he makes them, he must confess that even an 
 infidel may have many and powerful motives for de- 
 clining a duel, wholly distinct from any apprehension 
 of personal danger. 
 
 Still it is contendefl, that to avoid a duel, from a re- 
 luctance to hazard life, is cowardly, and that he who 
 is not restrained by religious principles, or family con- 
 siderations^ must fight when insulted or challenged, or 
 be forever disgraced. 
 
 The incorrectness of this assertion is proved by the 
 almost daily instances, of men passing over in silence 
 the insults offered to them, without forfeiting their 
 honorable standing in society: and without pleading 
 either religious or domestic restraints^ as an apology 
 for their conduct. 
 
 That cowardice is disgraceful is true, but the ap- 
 plication of this maxim to the present subject, adds 
 another to the numerous instances, in which serious 
 errors have resulted from the use of words in a vague, 
 indefinite sense. Where is the duellist, who, assailed 
 by a dangerous disease, would think it cowardly to 
 save his life by using the prescribed remedies ; or 
 who, if a spectator at a shooting match, would disdain 
 to stand without the range of the shot, lest his courage 
 might be suspected ? If a desire to avoid pain and 
 death be cowardly, all mankind are cowards. A du- 
 
22 
 
 ellist thinks it no disgrace to decline fighting with un^ 
 usal weapons, because they would expose him to still 
 greater danger. It is not therefore an unwillingness 
 to hazard life, or an anxiety to preserve it, that con- 
 stitutes cowardice. He alone is a coward, who forms 
 an unreasonable and exaggerated estimate of danger; 
 or who refuses to encounter it at the call of duty. 
 Before therefore a man can be deemed a coward, for 
 not consenting to be a mark to be shot at, it must be 
 proved, either, that he exaggerates the risk he would 
 run, or that by withholding his consent, he is violating 
 some paramount obligation. 
 
 Duelling is said to afford ^^satisfaction.'' As the 
 advocates of this practice are unwilling to admit that 
 they are actuated by a passion so odious as revenge, 
 they profess to use the term ^^satisfaction," in the sense 
 of ^^vindication." An insult has been offered, and a 
 challenge ensues, not avowedly to revenge the insult, 
 but to prove that it was underserved, and also to pre- 
 vent its repetition. To pretend that such is in fact, 
 the satisfaction afforded by a duel, is to insult the 
 common sense, and daily experience of mankind. The 
 insult we will suppose, is a charge of want of veracity, 
 or integrity. This it is evident cannot be disproved, 
 either by giving a challenge, or by the result of the 
 duel. If the charge was believed by the community, 
 surely that belief will not be shaken, by the evidence 
 afforded by the accused of his disregard of morality, 
 in seeking the life of a fellow being — He who should 
 propose to test the title to his estate, by challenging 
 the claimant, would not be guilty of greater folly, than 
 
lie who appeals to arms, to disprove a charge implica^ 
 ting his character. Every individual in society, is 
 exposed to the insults and calumnies of the envious 
 and malignant, and the only rational and satisfactory 
 vindication, is an exposition of facts and motives. No 
 duellist has ever yet been successful, either in estab- 
 lishing, or maintaining a reputation for honor and 
 rectitude, by figliting his enemies ; i3or can an instance 
 be mentioned, in which the favour and confidence of 
 the public has been founded on a duel. 
 
 In a disquisition like the present^ it would be inde- 
 corous to seek for illustrations in private anecdotes ; or 
 to cite the examples of particular duellists, in proof of 
 our assertions. All who have been conversant with 
 the history and characters of such of our public men, 
 as have engaged in duels, must have observed that the 
 ^^satisfaction" which they have demanded and receiv- 
 ed, has in no case, amounted to ^^vindication" — that 
 the same charges have been brought against them af- 
 ter the duel, as before, and with equal confidence and 
 boldness ; and that the stains on their reputation, 
 which they had attempted to wash off w ith blood, have 
 invariably been found indelible. 
 
 It has been maintained, that duels prevent personal 
 indignities ; and that insults will not readily be offer- 
 ed to him, who it is known, will resent them. It 
 would indeed be a singular anomaly in human nature, 
 were it true, that the indulgence of revenge, and the 
 practice of violence, had a tendency to promote per- 
 sonal security. He, who is ready to rob his neighbour 
 of life; will not probably feel much compunction, in 
 
24 
 
 assailing bis person, or reputation. If duelling did 
 indeed tend to prevent insults, we might expect that 
 those portions of our country in which duels are most 
 frequent, would he distinguished for the peaceful and 
 forhearing demeanour of their citizens , while others, 
 in which the practice is unknown, woujd he perpetu- 
 ally disturhcd hy brawls and outrages. If however 
 we compare the state of society in IVew-England for 
 instance, with that in some other sections of the union, 
 we shall be disposed to doubt, whether duelling does 
 indeed exercise that soothing influence over human 
 passions which has been ascribed to it. 
 
 In answer to all that has been said, it may be re- 
 plied, that men highly esteemed in society for their 
 virtues and honorable characters, have thought them- 
 selves compelled to engage in duels ; and that it is 
 therefore evident that the m:\lignity and guilt attribu- 
 ted to this practice, must be in a great measure, only 
 imaginary. Truth requires the admission, that men 
 of whom better things might have been expected, have 
 been concerned in duels. VvA let it be remembered, 
 that the criminality of an act, depends not on the char- 
 acter of him who commits it, but on the precepts of 
 Him, who is the judge of all ; and likewise, that the, 
 best of men, are still frail, and liable to be led astray 
 by temptation, and by the violence of their passions. 
 The cause of duelling, will not however derive 
 strength from an investigati^m into the characters of 
 its advocates. If a few men of fair reputations hav& 
 committed this crime, it will not be denied by such as 
 are willing to yield to the testimony of daily observa- 
 
25 
 
 tiou, that tlie great mass of tluellists, are men cif loose 
 morals ; and are chiefly to be found in the class of 
 selfish politicians, debauchees, or gamblers. Duel- 
 lists are pleased to term their combats, ^'aflairs of hon- 
 or/' but unless honor be distinct from moral rectitude, 
 there is reason to believe, that tbe number of honorable 
 duellists, is extremely small. On this point there is 
 probably but little difference in public opinion, and 
 it would be difficult to fiud a man, not even excepting 
 duellists themselves, who would regard the circum- 
 stance of liis friend's having fought a duel, an addi 
 tional inducement for appointing him the guardian of 
 his children, or the executor of his estate. 
 
 If it be admitted that duels have been fought, by 
 men of bigh and deserved reputation, it must also be 
 admitted that this reputation, was neither acquired^ 
 nor preserved by the practice. It is a singular and 
 unhappy mistake, that public opinion renders duelling 
 necessary. It is unfortunately true, that public opin« 
 ion does not so far discountenance it, as to exclude 
 from public confidence, all who practice it ; but it is 
 also true, that no man is esteemed trusted or elevated 
 to office, because he is a duellist ; and he who would 
 enjoy the favour of the public, must offer some other 
 pledges of his character, than that he has hazarded 
 his own life, and attempted that of another. 
 
 We will in conclusion, appeal to the duellist him- 
 self. Some slight and unguarded expression, or some 
 uncourteous action, which if not noticed by himself, 
 would probably be unheeded by others, fires his re- 
 scatment; and prompts him to demand satisfaction: 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 his challenge is accepted, and instead of wreaking liis 
 vengeance on his opponent he falls himself! Is it pos- 
 sible for human folly to exhibit itself in more glaring 
 and disgusting colours ? The assassin if not less guilty, 
 is at least far less foolish. He seeks revenge and ob- 
 tains it, whereas the duellist pursues his object by 
 means v/hich expose himself to precisely the same fate 
 as that, to which he is desirous of consigning his enemy. 
 
 But we will suppose that the duellist is called to the 
 field by an insult of the most aggravated nature — that 
 his aim is true, and that the injury he has received, is 
 effaced in the life's blood of the offender : and now 
 we would ask him, what is the "satisfaction'' he has 
 obtained? His character, so far as its integrity or ve- 
 racity was implicated, remains unchanged, except that 
 it is now stained with blood. He has we admit, evinc- 
 ed a firmness of nerve w hich perhaps had never been 
 questioned, but which however he possesses in com- 
 mon with multitudes of the vilest of his species. He 
 lias exhibited a physical quality, which of itself gives 
 Jiim no claim to the respect and confidence of his fel- 
 low-men. He has indeed gratified his revenge, he has 
 deprived his enemy of life, and all its enjoyments — he 
 has cut short the period of probation allotted to him 
 by his Creator, for securing the felicities, and avoiding 
 the miseries of the eternal world ; and as far as man 
 is permitted to judge, he has sent his immortal soul, 
 to those regions of despair, into which hope never en- 
 ters. He has perhaps entailed poverty and wretched- 
 ness upon an amiable woman, widowed by his hand ; 
 and upon a family of helpless innocents, robbed by 
 
2T 
 
 him, of a fathers tenderness and protection. Yes, his 
 revenge is complete — its superabundant fulness might 
 extort a smile from him, who was a murderer from the 
 besinnins:. But does the duellist find no bitter insire- 
 dients mingled in the delicious cup from which he is 
 quaffing? Alas, the revenge in which he is delighting, 
 has been purchased at a price, in comparison with 
 which, all tiie wealth, and honors, and pleasures of 
 the world, are but as the dust of the balance. When 
 the storm of passion has subsided — wiien the bustle of 
 business, and the excitements of the world shall have 
 given place to sober and retired reflection, Conscience 
 will resume her empire, and her still small voice will 
 appal his soul, by the awful and tremendous truths it 
 will reveal. The wretchedness and desolation of 
 which he has been the author, will rise to his view in 
 all their aggravated horrors ; and in the silent watches 
 of the night, his affrighted imagination will hear his 
 brother's blood crying from the ground to Him, who 
 hath promised to avenge. As the infirmities of age, 
 and the inroads of disease, remind him of his mortal- 
 ity, his thoughts will reluctantly wander beyond the 
 tomb, and a judgment to come, will force itself upon 
 his reflections. Should divine grace soften his heart 
 and enlighten his understanding, deep and bitter will 
 be his penitence, mingled however with hope and con- 
 solation ; but should this mercy be denied him, the 
 agonies of dissolution will be aggravated by the re- 
 proaches of conscience, and a fearful anticipation of 
 the realities of the unseen world ; — and when the last 
 pulse shall have beaten; and the last sigh been heaved^ 
 
28 
 
 his spirit will stand before that Almighty Being, whose 
 favour he had scorned, and whose most solemn in- 
 junctions, he had deliberately transgressed. To this 
 dread tribunal, we will not presume to follow him ; 
 but most earnestly would we entreat every duellist to 
 apply to himself, the momentous question put by the 
 feon of God, ^^ What will it profit a man, if he gain 
 the wh;jle world; and lose his souL^^ 
 
9