Why Dueling Made Sense transcript

Modern living makes dueling look like antiquated, unreliable, insanity. Grown men agreeing to meet up to throw away their lives over even the smallest disputes. Hamilton versus [music] Burr, for example. But with some context, dueling somehow made sense. Dueling was never a good idea. Let's be honest with ourselves. But we have to remember that 250 years ago, society ran on social laws discarded by modern living. Back then, your word and your honor were of the utmost importance.

At the peak of American dueling in the early to mid-1800s, there was no background check, digital footprint, or credit score tied to your status. But you did have your personal honor. And honor in this case goes beyond the ego or pride. It was the absolute guarantee that you were a gentleman of truth and virtue. If society believed you possessed honor, this meant that you could be trusted to return some money or enter into a contract.

And the inverse is also true. Your honor was demolished if someone publicly labeled you a liar, fraud, or coward. Without honor, you were something less than a nobody, as you weren't to be trusted or dealt with. And to make matters worse, your family name was in serious trouble. So we can see the value of an honor insult here. But I know what you're thinking. History Helms, at what point does insulting a man's honor end up in an organized gun or sword fight?

Can't you just sue or fistfight? Well, two big things. Firstly, no lawsuit could ever restore your honor. And secondly, expected resolutions like a fistfight would only make matters worse for both parties. Those components are the connecting pieces that really do get us to the point of a duel. But before we make sense of that, I want to scratch the itch that I know you have. What was dueling actually like? I'd bet your prediction is far off.

And that's fair, that's okay. As cool as high noon quick draws are, they are indeed Hollywood creations. Likewise, the goal was rarely ever to kill the opponent. In popular media, we often see two bloodlusting fellows looking to catch a body, which is cool for a film, but not realistic. Historical records show that the vast majority of duels ended without anyone dying. In fact, mortality rates in early sword duels in the 16th and 17th centuries were somewhere between 20 and 35%. 18th century pistol duel rates were shockingly low, often between 10 and 20%, and many of these deaths were not instant due to being struck by a bullet, >> [music] >> but instead later on due to infection.

Now, why is this all the case? Because the pistols of the era were notoriously inaccurate smoothbore weapons. Pulling a heavy pistol up and pulling a stiff trigger quickly under life or death circumstances made it really easy to just miss. But more importantly, the entire structure of the duel was designed to prevent death. Think about it. If duels were just lawless death matches, it would have quickly collapsed society into endless blood feuds.

To prevent this, dueling became insanely bureaucratic. Believe it or not, there was even a well-respected rulebook. In 1777, Irish duelists codified the official rules in a document known as the Code Duello. The code laid out a strict hierarchy to honor insults. Firstly, insults, acts of humiliation, or otherwise perceived dishonor must be serious, and the order and degree of the offensive act mattered. According to the book, if Eric, for example, calls History Helms an offensive name, Eric is expected to apologize first, even if whatever absolutely disgusting creative term History Helms hurls in retaliation is significantly worse.

A disagreement or heated speech was egregious, but direct verbal insults, such as calling another a bum or fool, were worse. Even worse than that, though, was a direct questioning to or insult toward another man's honor, like accusing the victim of cheating, cowardice, or lying. Now, I add that dramatized effect on lying because calling someone a liar was instant beef. Code of Honor mentions it several times. You'll like this.

Known as the lie direct, the book says clearly that if the first insult given is an accusation of lying, then the aggressor is required by rule to either apologize immediately, duel for two shots before apologizing, or duel for three shots, then explain himself, or continue dueling until someone is gravely injured or dead. Remember, Eric calling me a liar was a direct insult to my moral character, social standing, and overall credibility.

The longer Eric waited to apologize, the more times he would hypothetically, for the sake of historical understanding, get hit with that fire. The thinking was literally, are you willing to die for that lie? By the way, drop me a like if you learned anything at all so far and hype the video. I really appreciate it. The greatest offense, of course, was physically striking someone, which had its own little flowchart. But, the most fun part of that interaction was the rulebook granting the offender the opportunity to offer the victim his cane to strike the wrongdoer back with while Code of Honor also introduced a crucial buffer system, the seconds.

And this was actually pretty smart. Before any blades were sharpened or guns loaded, each duelist appointed a trusted friend, their second, to manage the dispute. The code mandated a mandatory cooling-off period. You weren't allowed to duel on the spot while you were angry, and seconds would spend usually 24 to 48 hours exchanging formal letters, searching for a subtle way for both men to apologize without losing honor or looking soft.

It was usually the challenged party that got to decide the time, location, and weapons used. And the seconds had the role of agreeing to terms, inspecting weapons, and playing referee. Now, the seconds were strictly instructed not to encourage the fight, but instead to negotiate a peaceful resolution. Although, the rulebook did include specific rules just in case a second started beefing, including the rare, yet epic, double duel.

Very quickly, rule 24 declared that whenever seconds disagreed and wanted to duel each other, all four men would organize themselves in a cross formation and duel at once. Alternatively, and this one humors me quite a bit, after the starters finish up their duel, the seconds would immediately step into the same spot as their principals and duel on the spot, presumably stepping over their injured homie's body. We even know about a 1783 duel in Ireland where four men lined up on two sides for a wild eight-man duel.

Doesn't that sound eventful? Sometimes, after the duel went down, one second would accuse the other party of cheating, like tampering with the firearms, firing early, wearing layered clothing, or wearing [music] a distracting item such as a bright brass button round the hip to distract the opponent's aim. Have you been paying attention? Yeah, that's a significant accusation that would immediately invoke a duel. You see how this works?

Honor, right? Sometimes, the seconds would just simply feel honor-bound by a duty to match their friend's bravery and end up dueling. With all this said though, if negotiations failed and honorable men actually had to stand in the field, simply showing up was 90% of the battle. Once you stood your ground and faced the barrel of a gun, your honor was legally and socially restored. Many duelists deliberately aimed at the ground or fired into the air, a practice called deloping.

This was known as throwing away your shot, kind of like in Hamilton. You seen Hamilton, [music] right? The thing is, if you shot your opponent dead when a simple apology or a shot into the dirt would have satisfied the honor, you >> [music] >> were viewed as the bloodthirsty monster and likely to be ostracized by polite society anyway. Dueling was not uncontrolled violence. It was a strictly regulated game theory mechanism designed to reduce overall street violence, enforce men to settle disputes through negotiation.

Negotiation. The code was built around settlement and satisfaction. If a duelist was struck by his opponent's bullet, the code even required the winner to check up on the injured man's wounds and even offer a polite compliment on his bravery, which I find to be nice. That's That's pleasant, right? Let me know in the comments. Could we resolve some issues today with duels? Could we end the Iran war with a formal duel?

What about gang violence? Can we find peace in the streets by way of formal dueling? You'd be shocked how many well-known figures were involved in dueling. As I'm sure you've heard, Alexander Hamilton ran his mouth delivering some vicious honor insults to political rival Aaron Burr. Burr demanded an apology saying, "Merge on God." If memory serves me, but Hamilton did indeed stand on the business. Burr challenged Hamilton to see if he was tough outside the printing press.

They indeed met in New Jersey, but Hamilton threw away his shot. Honor maintained. He showed up, right? However, Burr wet his goofy off. Hamilton was done and the pastor sang. Presidents weren't exempt from the gentlemanly settlements either. Before becoming president, Abraham Lincoln and his future wife wrote a series of letters in the newspapers absolutely baking a Democratic auditor by the name of James Shields under the pseudonyms Rebecca and Kathleen, respectively, even making fun of his pursuit of women.

Dear girls, it is distressing, but I cannot marry you all. It is not my fault that I am so handsome and so interesting. Which is hilarious, both then and now. So, after getting steamed one too many times, Shields went to the newspaper editor and demanded the identity of these people. So, [music] Lincoln took full responsibility to defend his lady. How sweet. Shields immediately challenged Lincoln to a duel, which our boy accepted.

Now, here's the thing though. As the challenged party, Lincoln got to decide the time, place, and weapons. You remember that? He chose a place in Missouri called Bloody Island. And get this, also selected broadswords as the dueling weapon. Now, James knew that Lincoln was 6'4" just as well as he knew that he was 5'9" himself, but ran the risk anyway. Honor, see? Lincoln exploited this, >> [music] >> placing a wooden plank between them that neither party was allowed to cross.

Then he flexed on his opponent, swinging his sword high enough to cut a branch above Shields' head. Shields actually wet himself right then and there, and the two men called a truce. Okay, he didn't wet himself, but they did indeed truce. The men actually met again during the Civil War when President Lincoln nominated Shields for promotion to major general, giving us a happy ending. But, the final little story does not have a happy little ending.

Andrew Jackson had a few duels himself and several other flat-out street brawls and shootouts. The most fun one though is his duel against Charles Dickinson. No, not Charles Dickins. Don't laugh. The story goes that Rachel, Jackson's wife, was not officially divorced from her previous marriage due to a legal delay and lived with Jackson for a few years, prompting political opponents to label her a lady of the night, to use polite language.

Dickinson also got in on the fun, but when Jackson pulled up, he turned sweet and apologized. But, after a later dispute about a horse race, Dickinson yet again played with Rachel's name. And to make matters worse, he got in the newspaper and called Jackson, and forgive my language, a worthless scoundrel, a poltroon, and a coward. You know, once you whip out the C-word, you've reached the point of no return. Now, if you know anything about Andrew Jackson, you know that he was a madman, a crash out in modern language, and his strategy was also pure insanity.

So, when they met to duel, Jackson flat-out let Dickinson tag him as soon as the command to fire was given. >> Then Andrew Jackson took careful aim and mortally wounded Dickinson. >> He literally ate the shot, clamped his hand over the bleeding wound, then took the wide-open shot, sending Dickinson to the Lord. The bullet, along with several other bullets and fragments, would remain in Jackson's body the rest of his life.

No, man, he was crazy. I really do mean that. But we can't help but wonder, why even let it get this far, to the point of wide-open shots at each other? >> [music] >> They did in fact have functioning courts in the 17th to 19th century America. They also had functioning fists. So, why couldn't two gentlemen simply exercise either of these options to settle an honor dispute? Well, here's the thing. Back then, courts were slow, corrupt, and absurdly expensive.

Back then, early laws on libel and slander were practically nonexistent or incredibly difficult to prove. If History Helms stood in town square and yelled out that Eric, for example, had limp wrists, Eric couldn't just drag History Helms into court for a settlement, and even if he did, by the time both parties saw a judge, the word around town would have settled, and Eric having limp wrists would have basically be a social truth.

If words could ruin a man's life overnight, and the legal system offered no protection, people needed a rapid, definitive way to restore public trust. That being the duel. Let's be clear here. The goal of the duel was not necessarily to prove that you were lied about or insulted, but instead to prove that you were literally willing to put your life on the line to defend your argument in the matter, your word. A little excessive?

Yeah. But if a man is prepared to shoot at and be shot by his rival to prove he's honorable, yeah, we believe him, win, lose, or draw. In game theory, there's this concept of costly signal, an action so expensive, risky, or painful that it is impossible for a faker to copy it. As a practical example, if Eric likes to scam people by pretending to be an honorable gentleman, he will be successful until History Helms, the true honorable gentleman, challenges him to a duel.

This presents the perfect dilemma to maintain social balance. If that old conniving Eric refuses the duel, he is exposed as a coward and will scam no more. But, if he accepts, History Helms may genuinely slime him out, or perhaps wipe his nose, and his lying aw will be no more, as the youth say. Another great example, if Eric owes History Helms a bunch of money and refuses to pay up, History Helms can simply accuse Eric of being a liar and a coward, forcing Eric to either duel Big Helms or lose all of his credit, both social and financial.

Dueling was never a super common practice, [music] like you wouldn't just walk outside and watch one that often, right? Like like real life is just not a movie. But this style of pressure was a relatively common way to force financial settlements without needing a court. This genuine life or death dilemma was at the heart of dueling. It's not that it was the best or even a good idea to settle disputes, but instead that having the threat of a duel as a serious option was a high-stakes filter to keep honor among honorable men only.

So, if dueling was such a logical, functional system [music] for its time, why did it die out? Well, it wasn't because people became reasonable overnight. Instead, our institutions finally caught up to it. As we edge closer to the 20th century, we see the rise of modern banking and credibility by way of bank statements. We see faster, more effective courts, and we see regulated police forces to ruin the fun. Mix peaceful institutions' evaluation of who is honorable with some moral decay, and dueling just has no place.

With many nations, like the US, outlawing the practice by the 1850s. There are a lot of weird little corners of American history that don't get much love. Click either of these and I'll show you some [music] more cool stuff.