In Defense of Dueling
A Modest Proposal to Help End Random Violence

Dueling as a method of settling disputes fell into disfavor close to two centuries ago. However, for much of recorded humankind it was a favored — and effective — method of settling disputes and keeping the peace. And, due to the present violent cultural climate in Cleveland (as well as a growing list of other suburban places) perhaps we should take another look at this archaic practice — in spite of the fact some undoubtedly will consider it barbaric.

A bit of history is in order. What eventually became known as dueling came into existence in 590 AD, in the Burgundy region of France under King Gundobad. The good king reasoned that since his subjects were willing to risk their souls by lying under oath during court proceedings, they might as well risk their bodies also. Thus “Trail by Combat,” “The Judgment of God,” and “Trail by Ordeal,” as dueling was variously known over time, came into being. It should be noted by Clevelanders that the murder and mugging rates in Burgundy declined immediately and quite dramatically upon the institution of dueling. In other words, people started giving each other their props when their ass could be put on the line.

The reductions were so impressive that dueling quickly spread to other kingdoms until the Catholic Church, concerned about jurisprudence of the sword challenging the rule of the altar, attempted to outlaw it. The Church passed an edict against dueling in 1041 and threatened to excommunicate any sovereign who allowed the practice to continue in his realm. However, the practice was so effective at bringing about a form of self-imposed order among citizens the Church’s edict went largely ignored.

Not until Henry II of England (1133-1189) attempted to gain favor for his newly instituted “trail by jury,” did a ban on dueling have any real effect. Still, the practice persisted in England until Parliament outlawed it in 1819. Dueling, however, had by then undergone some transformation. During the Middle Ages the practice of hiring “champions” to fight in one’s stead had become popular in certain countries. This meant that the wealthy could crap all over people and not have to worry about retribution. Sound familiar?

The practice of allowing the challenged individual to select the weapons originated in England around the time gunpowder become popular. I suppose the logic behind this new twist went: Why engage in a messy swordfight if you happened to be a good pistol shot? It probably wasn’t long before someone gave the pistol the name of the “Great Equalizer.”

In the mid-18th century, Andrea Alciate, an Italian theoretician and fencing master, codified dueling for the first time, setting down strict standards and rules that duelers were expected to observe. Dueling — like so many other things both good and bad — was imported to America around that time and it eventually mutated in the Wild West phenomenon known as “gun fighting.”

I relate the above material in an attempt to build a platform for what most will no doubt consider a completely uncivilized suggestion: We should bring back dueling. Most parts of the country already allows killing by the state, so why not allow the reinstituting of a practice that has the potential of keeping the peace and preserving social order?

When a man could challenge another man on the Field of Honor, the desire — or need —to do so occurred far less often. People respected each other far more since they had good incentive to do so. Offensive behavior could bring an immediate — and potentially life-threatening — challenge. Come on, I know that some you would just love to walk into your place of employment on Monday morning, bitch-slap your boss and say to them: “Meet me outside, you lily-livered coward. Oh, and bring along a Louisville Slugger.”

Today individuals disrespect each other with near impunity because they feel they have the power to do so with little fear or retribution. Consequently, breaking news of some crazed individual armed with a weapon rushing into a school or office and spraying indiscriminate gunfire will no doubt predominate our headlines again before the year ends ─ the Holidays being a season that pushes borderline personalities into the abyss.

The common-theme reason that inspires many of the acts of violence is found to be an acute feeling of powerlessness and an inability to redress grievances. This was supposedly the reason Asa Coon opened fire in Success High. And when walking time bombs go over the edge they usually harm innocent bystanders as well as their intended targets and tormentors. I am truly amazed that, considering how unequal power is distributed in America (and we’re becoming more and more stratified), some person doesn’t go postal somewhere in America every day.

Could some of the wholesale violence be avoided, would people treat each other differently if they knew could be immediately called out and challenged to defend themselves in a duel? I know it sounds barbaric, but what if reinstituting the practice caused Cleveland to experience as drastic a drop in killings as the folks of the Burgundy region of France experienced over 1400 years ago? While this might not be the perfect solution ... it certainly beats the alternative of people shooting people from ambush, or worse, someone going postal.

From Cool Cleveland contributor Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com (:divend:)