Reading Log Week 9: Dare to Duel?

Cecilia Morgan, “‘In search of the phantom misnamed honour’:
Duelling in Upper Canada,” Canadian Historical Review 76:4 (1995).

Stephen Bown, “Pistols at Six O’clock,” Beaver, 79: 3 (Aug/Sept. 1999).

Cecilia Morgan: “In search of the phantom misnamed honour’: Duelling in Upper Canada”

This article is not in favour of duelling

  • states that duelists were very selfish[1]
  • Duelling “‘perverted’ the whole notion of manly ‘honour’”[2]
  • male honour could be seen as a synonym to lawlessness, excessive pride, murder[3]
  • male bodies were seen in fashion, frivolity, sexual license[4]
  • duel presented uncontrolled male sexuality[5]

Strong anti-duelling perspective by the Christian’s

  • true ‘Christian gentlemen’ would shun this behaviour[6]

Strong opinion that duelling was a mans way to hold honour, but this was not the appropriate way to present honour; rather it was the opposite of honourable behavior

  • “physical combat to uphold manly honour was incompatible with the notions of manly virtue”[7]
  • “male physical violence could not be reconciled with male virtue”[8]

(Here the author tries to get her point across strongly and repeats herself twice within the same page.)

  • links dueling to aristocratic behaviour, which could have been a large factor to why people were duelling. Could it have been choice; or were they heavily influenced by the aristocrats? Did they feel like they had to do it, or were they promised gifts that would have persuaded them?
  • “Male physical violence could not be reconciled with male virtue”[9]
  • “Fictitious sense of honour”[10]

(These quotes come from different places within the article therefore we can get a strong sense of the authors perspective on duelling)

Women and family were strongly impacted by this behaviour; it was not only the man’s life being put on the line.

  • “The popular image of duelling may have reduced it to a dispute between two men, standing at dawn in a field with pistols pointed at each other and accompanied only by their seconds and their respective horses, but those who spoke out against duelling believed that the law, the church, and the family also stood at the sides of these ‘man of honour.’”[11]
  • “men’s relations with female family members might have been the ostensible rationale for the duel itself”[12]

(This quote really threw me off… After all the talk about how women were influenced negatively and stories about men deciding not to fight because of their families; this came out of nowhere. Although it does make sense when thinking about family relations during the 1800’s, the author placed this quote at an odd point within the article because it contradicts her claims that men were sensible to the family.)

Why did duelling stop according to Morgan?

  • major influx of British immigrants 1830’s and 1890’s
  • alteration of appropriate behavior for upper-class and bourgeois men
  • Methodists promote code of manner and morality
  • code of honour
  • bourgeois domesticity
  • “For those who abhorred duelling, the meaning of true manhood was linked to non-violence, to adherence to the law of church and state, and , most importantly, to a conception of familial responsibilities”[13]

(This quote is interesting in how it states ‘non-violence’ as a part of man-hood. How was violence recognized? Because violence only continued to occur after this; what’s the difference between killing men in war and killing men in duelling? Are both not sacrificing your life in order to uphold honour; whether it be for your family or country?)

 

 

Stephen Bown: “Pistols at Six O’clock”

The story told makes the topic more understandable and get more in depth to the feeling of how people were impacted by dueling and how it was handled by the courts

  • Again we see a dueling being an action of honour, “only one way for gentlemen to settle a point of honour”[14]
  • Interesting way of putting duelling, “Dueling remained fashionable though technically illegal in Perth”[15]

(This statement was interesting because it spoke of how the people in Perth were “haughty, prideful, vane and in dissipation of the half-pay officers and their ladies [who] minded nothing but dress, visiting and amusement.”[16] This brings off a vibe that the people no longer cared about dueling; it was no longer a worry to them.

  • Although it states that people no longer cared they still took the time out of their day to watch. I found the people who would watch this act to be ironic. Bown states that sheriffs, doctors, First Militia Regiment, and family members watched as the two young law students stood and shot at each other… This blows my mind because you have superior figures as well as loved one just watching two young men break the law and risk their lives.)

Presents a fabulous picture of how women were impacted by this event

  • “Wilson must have had a persistent sense of guilt for his gratuitous and pompous intervention in the life of Elizabeth Hughes which had undoubtedly impaired her opportunities for both teaching and marriage. … her prospects had been ruined and her reputation tarnished by what appeared to be a mere vulgar adolescent brawl.”[17]
  • Despite this the two of them get married and Wilson is not remembered as a murderer but rather is “wealthy and respected”[18]

(The judicial system in the 1800’s does not make any sense but we still see cases like this today; how about Donald Trump and is rape cases? This quote also brings question to Elizabeth’s choice to marrying Wilson, did she have a choice or was she persuaded to do so in order to save his name and reputation?)

  • The juries statement I cannot understand how it was justified: “That the prisoner Wilson was of humble origin and saw his prospects blasted if he submitted to the degradation and was impelled by the usages of society and the slights he had partially felt or foresaw to adopt the only alternative which men of honour thought open to them. That he to the last relied upon an amicable adjustment, went out determined not to fire at the deceased and did so at last in a state of convulsive nervousness and unconsciousness.”

I find there to be a lot of irony within this article, but sadly it was just the day and age. To think a murderer can be set free and be brought to power and remembered greatly is sickening; but as I stated previously has this changed at all in this day and age? We still elect people who have committed crimes that are worse than murder within the jail.

 

[1] Cecilia Morgan, “‘In search of the phantom misnamed honour’:
Duelling in Upper Canada,” Canadian Historical Review 76:4 (1995), pp. 557.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Cecilia Morgan, “‘In search of the phantom misnamed honour’:
Duelling in Upper Canada,” Canadian Historical Review 76:4 (1995), pp. 558.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Cecilia Morgan, “‘In search of the phantom misnamed honour’:
Duelling in Upper Canada,” Canadian Historical Review 76:4 (1995), pp. 558.

[10] Cecilia Morgan, “‘In search of the phantom misnamed honour’:
Duelling in Upper Canada,” Canadian Historical Review 76:4 (1995), pp. 560.

[11] Cecilia Morgan, “‘In search of the phantom misnamed honour’:
Duelling in Upper Canada,” Canadian Historical Review 76:4 (1995), pp. 561.

[12] Cecilia Morgan, “‘In search of the phantom misnamed honour’:
Duelling in Upper Canada,”

[13] Cecilia Morgan, “‘In search of the phantom misnamed honour’:
Duelling in Upper Canada,” Canadian Historical Review 76:4 (1995), pp. 562.

[14] Stephen Bown, “Pistols at Six O’clock,” Beaver, 79: 3 (Aug/Sept. 1999). Para 1.

[15] Stephen Bown, “Pistols at Six O’clock,” Beaver, 79: 3 (Aug/Sept. 1999). Para 5.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Stephen Bown, “Pistols at Six O’clock,” Beaver, 79: 3 (Aug/Sept. 1999).

[18] Stephen Bown, “Pistols at Six O’clock,” Beaver, 79: 3 (Aug/Sept. 1999). Para 22.