The native American., 1840-11-14

murder, also knows, that he who Stays ano-
Their in duel, whether ii be from malice
prepense, or from the very laudable motive
Of gratifying ones friends with the spectacle
Of fight, commits murder. Hence, the du.
elist may be a murderer. Hence, he is a
murderer, when he Stays his antagonist in
single combat. In the eye OF calm and un-
prejudiced reason, he must be regarded in
this light. 1t is matter Of no consequence
by what feeling he is actuated; no matter
whether he fight in the cause of injured in
nocence, or to avenge his own wrongs, he
is murderer. Our language may be consid.
cred strong; we admit il; and we wish it to be
so. When we speak Of crime which the
law defines murder, we shall call it by that
name. When we speak of the perpetrator of
that cri.I ne, we must call him murderer. We
know that duellists may not like to be re-
garded in this light, but so the law regards
them; and as the conductors of public jour
nal, ace go for the supremacy of the law. But,
lie! us now consider dueling in another point
Of view. Let US consider it in connexion
with that Divine law, which all Christians be-
lieve in, and which, if universally observed,
would Danish all enmities, and produce uni
versal concord and harmony. That law is a
law of love. Emanating from Love itself,
we are commanded to bear with each others
in6rmties, to return good for evil, and to love
even our enemies.
Can Christian, then, we would ask, JUS
tify dueling? Can man, bound to love any
one-bound to love and cherish even an enc
my; can such man be the advocate of a
practice which impudently violates the law
of society, and Indignantly tramples upon
the law Of God? No. Christians must be
opposed to dueling. Infdels, indeed, may
support it. Monsters, they would naturally
be in favor of this barbarous system: but, we
repeat that Christians cannot.
In whatever light dneling be considered,
we shall find that it is condemnable. 1t is
at war with Divine Revelation, and violatory
of the laws of man. 1t is, moreover, directly
hostile to the noblest and best feelings of our
nature. Lett us test this, by few questions:
Who is the man that exults in having killed
his antagonist in duell Who is the man
who, when he beholds that antagonist life
less corpse at his feet, that rgoices that he
has done the deed? We have not read, we
have not seen; we have not heard of, such a
monster. No; vengeance ceases at the grave.
Passion, pride, revenge, led to the bloody
deed; but once that deed performed, con-
science re-secures her rights, and will be
heard. Vengeance has been glutted, and pas
sion is appeased; and the awful consideration
of having hurried a human being out Of ex-
istence, rushes with irresistible force upon
the mind. But, this is not all. There may
be circumstances connected with the bloody
deed that render it peculiarly agonizing. Per-
haps the bleeding corpse which lies at the
feet of his antagonist may have been a lius.
band and father; and then he has bereaved
wife of a husband, and children Of their pa
rent; his is the glory; his the noble and hon.
orable achievement of having made widow
and orphans; his is the happiness Of having
converted paradise Of joys into a wilderness
of melancholy and wo. The shrek of ag.
ony is now the music of his ears; and with
the tears of the widow and the orphan he may
wet his bread. But it is unnecessary to pur.
sue this subject any farther. He who be-
lieves in the truth of Divine Revelation, may
indeed fight duel; for amidst the most abun.
dant graces, man is still free; but such man
will neither justify nor palliate the deed he
has done. No; the advocates Of this diaboli.
cal practice can be found only among those
who scott at religion, and yield themselves
up to the sway of their passions.