"Is Duelling Justifiable?" Composition of
Daniel Forney
for the
Dialectic
Society, August 29, 1804
1
Forney, Daniel, 1784-1847
Page 1
Notwithstanding what
have
has been said in favour of duelling by many
persons of great litterary talents, I cannot be induced to embrace a subject so
repugnant to the dictates of sound reasoning & argumentation. As yet I have
not heard arguments or proofs in the affirmative sufficient to convince me of
the propriety of this abominable & most
2 execrable of all
practices. Gentlemen who have so warmly espoused the cause of dueling must
search out for more forceable & cogent reasons; those which they lay the
most stress upon, & upon which they build the
3 foundation of their
arguments, will bear least inspection & appear most easy to be overturned
and confuted. It is but too much to be lamented, that we suffer prejudice,
superstition, & custom
Page 2
to gain such an
ascendancy & influence over our minds & our actions. Man is naturally
an imitative being not only in action but in mind & sentiment. For this
reason we see the son imbibing the sentiments of a father, a daughter
possessing a predeliction for the accustomed way of a mother, & students
acquiring the principles of their teachers. Thus by degrees the mind is
imperceptedly
4 diverted from its
right channel, it looses every particle of its natural state & often times,
when tinctured by the fascinating wiles of a base wretch usurps sentiments
attended with the most dangerous and pernicious consequences. No person can
justly and impartially discuss or illuminate a question while his mind is
fettered with the shackles of custom,– Therefore let us divest ourselves
of every prejudice that can sway or incline our mind in preference to one side
or the other, let us lay open our hearts to conviction &
Page 3
commit ourselves under the auspicious influence of
sound reasoning & argumentation, laying aside the laws of our country &
the laws of the gospel, as well aware that the promoters of dueling dare not
approach their sacred bar to vindicate their cause.
It has been said, that the laws of our country were inadequate for
the redress of wrongs, were it not for dueling. But instead of being applied
& used for the protection of persons, it is made the creature of his will,
appropriated solely for the purpose of gratifying ambition, for we often find
it arising from the most trivial circumstances, taking place from the
midnight-expedition, or over the bottle or gaiming table. It cannot be argued,
upon the grounds of truth, to have any tendency over the reformation of
manners, for experience
Page 4
daily proves it to have
quite the contrary effect. It is probable this practice might have some
influence over society & manners in a degenerate age, when laws become too
feeble to restrain the actions of men, & cowardice gained
5 the primary seat
in the human breast.
6 But as long as
every heart glows with a generous ambition, so long dueling will be the bane of
society.–
Moreover the boasted advantages, are to restrain any violence or
indecency
7 to the female
sex, and to curb that insolent haughtiness so repugnant to the feelings of
every good & virtuous man. But what are these? Is there one person in this
enlightened body who can say with candour, the fear of a challenge would
restrain him from any violence or indecency
8 to
the fair sex,
provided he was so disposed, or has prevented him from speaking his sentiments
in a free & unreserved manner?
Page 5
No—a more
9 noble & much
more commendable principle actuates, the human breast, self reputation the
fountain of every generous & patriotic action. But grant that any person,
so vile & base as to be guilty of such conduct, who would be so regardless
of his own reputation as to enter the lists with a seducer, a ravisher or a
murderer? I can confidentially answer in the negative.
For the better investigation of this subject, permit me,
my audience to call your attention a few
moments to the rise of duelling I must confess the origin of single combats is
some what obscure; but it is evident from the historic page, they did not
become common in resentment of private or personal injuries until the sixteenth
century.
Francis the
first
&
Charles the
fifth
10 set the
example—like an ele
ctric spark flased
across the
Eastern hemissphere & involved all
Europe in private
quarrels & single combats. Hence every person thought himself intitled to
call upon his adv
i
ersary to make reperation for an affront
11 or injury that
seemed to touch his honour. It is easy to conjecture
Page 6
what would be the effects of the introduction of such an
opinion among men of ferocious & barbarous manners, feirce courage &
lofty sentiments. A contemptuous look, a disrespectfull word, nay even a
haughty
12 stride was
sufficient, was sufficient to occasion a
Challenge
Nevertheless the practice of duelling, has been considered to be
attended with some beneficial consequences.
13 But what these are, the
promoters of duelling leave us to find out—As for myself I have
been so unfortunate as not to discover any of
those excellencies, & am a declared and
an
inveterate enemy to the practice.
But these
advantages are, the promoters of duelling Their boasted advantages are,
as I have had occasion already to observe, to restrain men from transgressing
the rights of one another, & to prevent any indency to the female sex.
These arguments are too futile to be confuted, they only deserve to be
mentioned that they may be dispised. The violations of the laws of the land,
public justice sufficiently punishes the aggressors
14 —And as for
the violations of the rules of decorum & breaking the bounds of modesty
& dencency as it respects
15 the female sex,
the contempt & abhorrence in which he is held by
Page 7
by every good man is sufficient chastisement for
his insolence. It is probable it might have such a tendency when the minds of
men are overwhelmed with
superstition
ignorance &
bigottry & de
debased & poluted with superstition &
bigottry—But when a pure & undefiled religion is rightly
16 appreciated &
understood, the rights of man unfolded to our view with philosphical enquiry
& research, no such practice is necessary to restrain our actions or
meliorate our manners.
I should be truly afflicted, to think that the people of the
United
States have degenerated
17 so much as to
require the
18 fear of a
challenge to urge us to a niceity of conduct towards our fellow
[men]—And that ambition & a love of liberty which
impelled to the late glorious contest have deserted the American breast. But
for the consolation of every true lover of his country, we have no reason to
entertain such a suspecion.
Duelling has already become odious & despicable in the eyes of
every great
Page 8
and good man,
19 but they are
forced by the shackles of custom to participate in this inhuman &
unchristian practice or forfeit their fortitude & bravery. How miserably
interpreted by the promoters of duelling!—Does not experience convince us
it by no means tries the courage of a man, for the most cowardly person may be
induced to fight a duel. A person of great erudition says, he is a man of the
greatest resolution & fortitude who declines the combat, for he has not
only to defend his character from the reproach of cowardice but also to
overcome the prejudicial sentiments of the times
Endnotes:
1.
Dialectic Society Addresses, UA. Despite the title and internal
evidence suggesting that this essay is a debate speech,
Forney
submitted it as a composition on August 30, 1804.
Dialectic
Society minutes record that "The Composition of
Green H.
Campbell on motion of
James
Martin, and that of
Daniel
Forney
on motion of
S. M.
C. Osborn
was filed away" (
4:27, UA). The composition consists of
eight unnumbered pages that once were bound but now are unbound. A second hand
has written "[Aug. 29, 1804]" in the upper right corner of the first
page.
2.
Forney
wrote
must on top of
much.
3. A partially formed character following the makes the word appear as they.
4.
Forney
wrote
e on top of
i before
d.
5.
Forney
wrote
gained on top of
gains.
6.
Forney
wrote
breast on top of
heart.
7.
Forney
wrote
indecency on top of
indency.
8.
Forney
wrote
indecency on top of
indenc.
9.
Forney
wrote
more on top of
most.
10. Francis I (1494-1547), King of
France from
1515 to 1547, publicly challenged
Charles V (1500-1558), Holy Roman Emperor from 1519 to 1556, to a duel during the years
that the two powers were at war. Though the duel never took place, the practice
of dueling gained notoriety in
Europe as a
result.
11.
Forney
wrote "an affront" on top of "injury
that."
12.
Forney
wrote
hyt on top of
unrecovered characters.
13.
Forney
wrote
consequences on top
of
tendencies.
14.
Forney
wrote
ors on top of
ions.
15.
Forney
wrote "as it respects" on top of
towards.
16.
Forney
wrote
tly on top of
ly.
17.
Forney
wrote
degenerated on top of
beco.
18.
Forney
wrote
the on top of
unrecovered characters.
19.
Forney
wrote
man over
men.