Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1815-11-18

aud supcrsi;sOds age tliat the governor OF the u
inverse would nterpose by q special act of pro-
violence and give the victory to the injured party.
While such AZ opinion prevailed il gave a plausi-
bic color TO the proceedings and it may at least
be said that they acted consistently with their
own principles. Buthow great is our astonish-
ment ,ohear that mankind could ever he so weak,
as TO apprehend that He who rliieth in the hea-
vens, would interpose such appeals and mani.
fest his justice in such an extraordinary man.
nsr.
At the present day mankind have become so
enlightened, and have such correct viewsrespect-
ing the WAYS ofprovidence, that lone believe the
Diety will specially interpose in duel and sane
ton the irnpious appeal to his justice by de-
csion Of the combat in favor of the injured par
~.
How extreme then must be our surprise that
The custom of duelling should be continued with
out even an erroneous popular. opinion to sup
port IT, IL was to have been hoped that when
men discerned the impiety of such an appeal to
the justice of heaven they would have abandoned
the accountable practice. 1t is painful to re-
mark that virtue and pety did not always en-
crease in proportion to the encrease of know
ledge
II is now universally understood that the issue
OF the combat depends not on the Justice of the
case, but on variety ofaccidental circumstances
or to the superior skill bravery and GOODNESS of
the combatart--and that the Injured party run an
lite. What strange mode of settling disputes to
be adopted by those who claim to belong to the
higher rank in society. mode where guilt and
Innocence are placed on the same footing and
stand an equal chance of beng punished or pro-
tected.
In what light then is tile conduct Of the duel.
jst to be viewed When he has sustained an af:
mont, or an injury, instead of attempting to OBJ
tam PREPARATION by convincing the offender of the
improperly OF his conduct, or bearing with patti
ence the wrong, like good citizen, he appeals
90 arms, deterrnned to wash away the insult with
his blood at the risk of his own life. Though he
gives INN the chance otan equal combat, vet as
bis intent is to take his life let him disguise the
act with whatever specious preteXt he can II rs
nothms less than wilful, and deliberate murder
How horrible Is il that men can be found possessed
oftemPsr, SO cruel and malignant, that for .
mere affront,or INJURY, they can proceed in cold
blood to take the life of fellow creature How
opposite this TO theprecepts of the gospel To
love not only our neighbor but our enemy--to
forgive inJurles-to do good to them that hate us
us, and pray for them that d,spitefully use us,
are the prominent doctrines inculcated and enforc
cd by the saviour of the world
How excellently are they calculated to promote
the welfare OF those for whom he died How
diTinely did his own example illustrate his pre-
cePts One ofthe last acts ofhis life was to rray I'm
the forgiveness Of his murderer But the d;iel
ilst IN con empt of the example and the precep, :
ct hrs Saviour, INDUCES his revenge to the utmost
extent and instead of forgiYing his enemy can be
satshed only by his blood. Such character
should be held by Christians in the utmost adj
horrence and de. estatation- He ought TO be ex
Guided from society, and treated an enemy of the
human race yet SO strangely have the sent
lnents Of mankind been perverted, that the due,
istwho has shed the blood of his friend or neigh.
nor, for some tri6ing aiifont, becomes the ob;ec,
OF popular applause tor his courage and bravery
n III Iocl l.
murder, is, m the language of those who call
themselves Christians, softened down to the gen
lie appreciation ofdn a6clir efhOa0r.
1t man in a fit of passion and revenge.
iail upon another and kill him, all agree in
the justice of condemning him to cxpiate
his crime Oh the galIows. But if gentle
man invite his antagonist to the field, and
takes his life in single combat, he is pro-
claimed hero. What peryersity of opi.
Mon. Its strange that all do not agree
that both deserve the same fate. Why
shall. the man who on receiving an affront
or INJURY, without ceremony takes the life
ct his antagonist, be condemned TO die by
the hands OF the common executioner,
when ne who brides his passions till he
gan pass through the formality of aduel
to she'd his blood, ~ not only to 90 unpuu.
1shetl, but is to be honoured aud respected
Tor HIS crime
II mas been said that the law does not
afford tine means ofreparati0n for every ia
jury that may be sustained, and that duel
ling - necessary to supply the defect but
Tor ali wrongs essential for the good Of Sc
ciety to be restrained, the law has furnish
ed ample remedy. Though there may be
instances Of affronts to the honour ofcen-
tlemen, where it would seem reasonable
that some mode of obtaining satisfaction
should be prescribed, yet it is certain that
duel instead of redressing usually ag-
grayates the injury. II is therefore a
mode of settling disputes which ought ne
yer to be resorted to even i'll court of no.
nour.
Daelliug has also been attempted to be
Vindicated on the ground that il tended to
preserve civiIity aud decorum In society.
as liability to be challenged TO a duel
would render individuals more cautious
IN giving afironts. However plausible this
may appear in theory, in practice the ef-
feet will be found to be directly the re-
verse. The protested duelIist, who has
a propensity to quarrel, who by long
practice has become an adept in the
science, and familiarized with scenes of
blood, so as to take delight in them, viii.
be careless in giving alfrOnts. nd caoIe-ev.