|
penny
Rear Admiral
Posts: 1470
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am
|
tlb wrote:penny wrote:Manticore's government is not that dissimilar to that of Great Britain? It is a dead ringer for it! And Great Britain featured dueling. And I can understand why. Only someone from an effete society as such, can have his nose disjointed by a few words to the point of feeling his honor is impugned. In America, kids are taught that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never harm me." In lieu of "Well, I never!" Only in Great Britain can mere words drain the color out of already porcelain skin. 
What nonsense about the USA, the antebellum South was absolutely duel happy. From the NCpedia web page: Dueling was a ritual of violence practiced by gentlemen who followed the so-called code of honor in the antebellum South. A perceived insult to the manliness, integrity, or reputation of a gentleman often led to a duel. The offended party challenged his antagonist in order to protect his "honor" in the eyes of the community.
--- skip ---
The heyday of dueling was after the turn of the century. On 5 Sept. 1802, John Stanly killed former governor Richard Dobbs Spaight behind the Masonic hall in New Bern in one of the most famous duels in state history. Although the legislature outlawed dueling in the wake of Spaight's death, North Carolina society condoned affairs of honor, and the law was not enforced. Political rivalries alone account for at least 27 duels in the state between 1800 and 1860; the combatants included legislators, governors, and U.S. senators. If the complete list of all the principals and seconds who participated in duels in antebellum North Carolina could be compiled, it would include many of the state's most prominent males.
From Wikipedia, "Dueling in the Southern United States": Dueling was a common practice in the U.S. South from the seventeenth century until the end of the American Civil War in 1865. Although the duel largely disappeared in the early nineteenth century in the North, it remained a common practice in the South (as well as the West) until the battlefield experience of the American Civil War changed public opinion and resulted in an irreversible decline for dueling. The markets and governance of the South were not as institutionalized during the nineteenth century compared to the North. Thus, duels presented what seemed like a quicker way of settling disputes outside of the courts. Although many duels were fought to settle disputes over tangible items such as land, unpaid debts, money, or women, more were over intangible ones.
Background
The act of dueling was often condemned by public figures throughout early U.S. history and seen as unnecessarily violent and instigated by trivial matters. For example, to pinch someone's nose was an insult grave enough to challenge to a duel for it symbolized the unmasking of a liar. Contrary to the perception that the act of dueling occurred at the “drop of a hat,” there were real economic forces that drove one to challenge another or accept a duel. However, the concept of “defending one’s honor” was not quite as abstract and idealistic as often imagined – losing “honor” often had pecuniary disadvantages that made defending one's honor a somewhat rational decision, even at risk of being physically harmed or even killed. Dueling to protect one's credit or honor was partly a response to the underdeveloped credit markets of this region and time period.
Personal credit in the South
In the U.S. South, whose economy was mostly agricultural (including plantations) and production cycles were longer-term than those of their manufacturing-oriented Northern counterparts, planters were often highly leveraged and heavily dependent on personal credit to carry them through to the harvesting and sale of their crops. The assets of plantation owners were largely illiquid, their estates holding value in the form of real estate and slaves. Thus, preserving personal credit was highly important to the livelihoods of planters.
Given that Southern credit markets were rather opaque until the early 20th century -– lenders could not readily view an applicant's financial statement—having a reputation as “honorable” was almost essential to obtaining approval for loans. In addition, transaction costs were very high during this period; therefore, perceived personal integrity or character was important to being viewed as likely to honor one's contracts and debts. Thus, the word honor was nearly culturally synonymous with creditworthiness. The long-term economic penalties for having one's reputation ruined included limited access to capital and diminished political influence.
Lending institutions did not punish debtors for participating in duels. A planter might risk a devaluation of his assets as a result of turning down a duel - with the loss of his honor - which would harm the lender as well. In the case that a debtor accepted a duel challenge and lost, the lender could expect an honorable man to honor his debts posthumously by paying back the owed amount with interest as his estate was liquidated.
The post was meant to be facetious. Though I didn't make that clear. Of course the US participated in dueling. That is how the west was won. Though, IMO, it was always more like gunfighting than dueling. It was never as formal and it often devolved into something less sophisticated. Even that famous duel in New Bern is rumored not to have gone down as history recorded it. I grew up near New Bern. At any rate, that post was a shot at the effete society that was, is, Great Britain. As many an American scoffed at the over sold puff of English society. Not I, mind you, but America as a whole was not, is not, smitten by the Queen. But of course, America had to out duel the British for our freedom. At any rate, although words fueled a duel in America as well, "yellow bellied horse stealing varmint," duels were not particularly fought in America over "honor." It was over property, principal, wine, woman and song. .
.
.
The artist formerly known as cthia.
Now I can talk in the third person.
|
