Public Opinion on Dueling: The Beasley Sermon
The View from the Pulpit
One of the strongest condemnations of the practice of dueling comes from the pulpit. Despite the separation of church and state in the new Republic, clergymen held considerable sway over their congregations through preaching about morality. Ministers would mount campaigns against dueling, seeing it as being in violation of Christian teachings and ethic, and criticizing the practice as deeply immoral. One rather troubling argument made by ministers was that dueling was a form of suicide, which was considered a grave sin at the time. Inspired by teachings from the Second Great Awakening at the start of the 19th century, life was viewed as a gift from God- intentionally losing that gift through the risk of dueling was therefore against God.[1]
The Beasley Sermon
One notable condemnation of dueling comes from the pastor Frederick Beasley, in a sermon delivered at Christ Church in Baltimore on April 28, 1811. This sermon uses the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ as the main crux of his argument against dueling. Beasley notes that dueling, as a form of murder, is in violation of religious law. He provides exceptions to this rule, such as ‘when one man kills another in self-defense, in a just and lawful war, or in executing the sentence of the civil magistrate’ (9) as well as excusing accidental death ‘without malice and without any intent to injure’ (9). According to Beasley, it is not up to man to enact vengeance upon another but up to God.
Beasley also attacks the link between honor and bravery with the duel. It was common to view refusal to accept a challenge to duel as a sign of weakness, which would result in disgrace; many would engage in a duel out of fear of disgrace just as much as a sense of duty to defend their honor. In his view, a refusal to accept a challenge to duel is not an act of cowardice, but worthy of praise and honor. Beasley views those who reject such challenges as possessing virtue and worth for not wishing to engage in the pointless risk of dueling. Beasley asks his audience what true courage is, questioning if partaking in reckless acts qualifies: ‘Is it the rage of the madman, who rushes upon dangers and death without motive and without advantage?’ (24). Beasley answers his question: “True bravery wants no such feeble props to support it, as those which it can derive from these shameful contests. It consists not in rashly and foolishly sporting away life, but in meeting, with firmness and intrepidity, dangers and death, in the discharge of duty. True courage derives its nutriment from a virtuous heart, and a mind conscious of rectitude’ (24).
[1] Bell, Richard. "The Double Guilt of Dueling: The Stain of Suicide in Anti-Dueling Rhetoric in the Early Republic." Journal of the Early Republic 29, no. 3 (2009): 383-410.