#13 – The Duel
1. The practice of dueling might lead some to believe that the early national period was a more violent time than we live in. Is that accurate? Why did most duelists survive their duel encounters?
Although the practice of dueling may make it appear as though the national period was an unusually violent time, this inference is not accurate. At this time, dueling was meant to be an honorable way to settle questions of honor. Typically, it was not supposed to be a way to kill someone in cold blood. The practice of dueling obviously dangerous, but most of the time, it was not fatal. In his essay about the duel, Joseph Ellis clearly states that “in most duels of that time, neither party was likely to be hurt badly, if at all”…show more content… Plus, organized duels always followed a strict set of rules, the code duello, to ensure that the fight was fair and honorable. Furthermore, it is important to understand that duelers usually did not actually want to murder their opponent. Usually, duelers merely wished to “graze or wound their antagonist superficially”, so “popular targets were the hips and legs” For example, when Aaron Burr challenged Alexander Hamilton to their famous duel, it was not because Burr wished to kill him. Burr felt like Hamilton had been libeling him, and Hamilton accepted because if he didn’t want to “lose the respect of those political colleagues on whom his reputation depended” (Oates 199). Also, chances are that going into the duel, neither side wanted to end their opponent's life. Before the duel, Hamilton said he would “reserve and throw away my first fire” (Oates 192). Burr said that at the duel “one doctor was sufficient, then added ‘even that unnecessary’”. These comments, combined with Burr’s surprised reaction to Hamilton’s death, indicates that both sides of the duel did not truly want their opponent to die. This duel, like most duels was simply meant to settle a
