Posted on 04/10/2017 12:50:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Are we close to seeing a return of formal dueling at ten paces in Oregon in the next few years? That’s the fun interpretation when you see a headline such as this one in the Associated Press. “Oregon voters may decide to toss constitutional ban on duels.” I’m not immune to the occasion fit of pining for the colonial days, but that sounds a tad bit extreme even to me. But as with most such stories, it turns out to be (mostly) clickbait to the great disappointment of many, I’m sure.
Should ongoing discussions in Salem materialize, voters would see a question on their general-election ballots asking if a 172-year-old ban on dueling by public officials — as in, the old-fashioned way of resolving fights — should be erased from the Oregon Constitution.
The constitutional ban in question is Article II, Section 9, which says anyone who offers, accepts, knowingly participates in a “challenge to fight a duel … or who shall agree to go out of the State to fight a duel, shall be ineligible to any office of trust, or profit.” (this is exact language from the constitution)
The article was signed into law just 30 minutes after its drafting by the second provisional legislature in 1845, almost 15 years before Oregon’s statehood, when squabbles were still often resolved by duel even decades after Hamilton’s death on the opposite side of the country.
It might sound appealing to solve legislative gridlock by having the disagreeing parties face a choice of either finding consensus or stepping outside with with a pair of Glocks, but it remains unpractical. First of all, the ban didn’t just apply to the legislature, but to all citizens. This could lead to, er… problems. But none of those worries actually apply anyway. As the bill’s author points out, simply lifting one ban in the state constitution doesn’t make other laws against gunning people down go away.
Sadly, the reality is that this is just one aspect of an effort to clean up the constitution by removing archaic and unnecessary rules. Given the partial list of items which are under examination that might not be the worst idea in the world. If any of the codicils of their state constitution are actually out of step with current law and accepted behavior, why not, right? But perhaps they shouldn’t be rushing into this so quickly. The voters have the right to modify the constitution as they wish, but do they really need to? The ban on dueling isn’t hurting anything. It’s just redundant. The only other targets for removal which they mention specifically deal with things such as how members of the Assembly are allowed to use their stationery. So? Perhaps the state’s founders were concerned over costs to the public purse or undue influence of legislators publishing pamphlets or something. Is that so bad? The constitution also apparently makes reference to slavery and familial titles, but unless it actual mandates that slavery be legal, most of that would just be antiquated language which doesn’t apply today anyway.
Do you really want to rush forward and throw out the works of the original authors? It’s there for a reason (or at least it was at one point) and it’s part of your history and traditions. If I were a citizen of the state I would take a long, hard look at this package just to make sure the legislators aren’t trying to pull a fast one and get rid of some rules which make them more accountable. But if they involve a dunking pond or an iron maiden it might be a tad too far.
Authorize only Japanese Broad Sword Dueling
In a duel, both sides get a like weapon. Much more equal than Sharia Law.
Pillows would be comical and a waste of time.........
First they get to through baked newspaper flour grenades.
A bit over a decade ago, Chris Matthews invited Michelle Malkin onto his show and abused her verbally. The next day, Zell Miller appeared on the show and upbraided Matthews for his ungentlemanly treatment of a lady. Zell told Matthews that in an earlier era, he would have challenged him to a duel. Matthews looked rather nervous after that.
I suggest that we take the New Jersey state park in Weehauken where Burr shot Hamilton and turn it into the National Dueling Grounds. Politicians could settle their differences with each other and with political pundits. ESPN would cover it under the category of Marksmanship. It would have a salutary affect on our national discourse.
Can we pick “brackets”?
“I prefer that D.C. take up this practice as replacement for the time consuming filibuster.”
I agree, but make it mandatory. And for tie votes in the Senate, don’t let the Vice President vote to break the tie unless both duel participants are killed.
I see what you did there.
My 4th great grandfather was killed in a duel, but it had some unusual circumstances - it makes for an interesting but tragic part of the family history. The seconds loaded the pistols with powder & wadding so neither of the two dueling was injured .... the crowd (in on the joke) got a big laugh out of it. My 4th great grandfather was “unsatisfied” (20-20 hindsight - he should have left well enough alone), so they tried again - the account in the paper of what happened next was as follows:
The pistols were loaded as before excepting more wadding. The combatants took their stand this time at twenty paces; they threw up for the first fire, and Mr. PB won it; after discharging his pistol, he immediately turned about and run. Mr. H (provided the pistols), thinking there could be no harm done, with powder, called out to Mr. JB to pursue and make him beg his life; he accordingly run and soon came up with Mr. PB, seized him by the arm, and bringing the pistol in contact with his body, discharged the contents into
his side, part of the wadding penetrated into the lungs, the remainder was driven along the outside of the ribs and lodged by the back bone.
Mr. PB survived only 24 hours. He has left a wife and six children to lament his untimely end.
There can only be one.
Pic-one.
Liberal killing liberals as a matter of law ,,,,, I approve .
That’s one of those things you’d think you’d laugh about some day but somehow that day never really arrives. Good story.
Avast! Have at thee!
CC
Like the old joke ending:
911: “Are you sure he’s dead?”
Caller: “Just a moment...” [BLAM] “Yup.
Dueling didn’t have to be to the death. With swords, it wasn’t uncommon to just duel until first blood was drawn. There were even dueling swords with no edge, and a stopper about half an inch up the tip, so it couldn’t easily overpenetrate.
Yes, you could still have your eye poked out.
Dueling societies in Prussia (and later the German Empire) existed at many of the major universities. The goal was to get your “fashionable scar” not to kill people.
Swords; Highlander reference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.