duels in late eighteenth-century Germany, or for that matter any musical
contest, such as the Eskimo song duel, do not qualify as true duels. Differ-
ently equipped champions from different military forces, such as David and
Goliath (First Book of Samuel, Old Testament), probably should also not
be considered duelists, whereas similarly equipped Zulu warriors carrying
shields and throwing spears who have stepped forward from their ranks to
challenge each other can perhaps be considered duelists. It is harder,
though, to decide whether military snipers with scoped rifles hunting each
other in Vietnam or fighter pilots in that war or in earlier wars are duelists.
Perhaps they should not be considered such because no rules are fol-
lowed—ambushing whether in the jungle or from behind clouds being the
primary tactic—rather than because of minor differences in weapons.
Duels are staged, not for the public, but before select witnesses, assis-
tants (called in English seconds), and physicians. News of a duel, however,
becomes public when word spreads of a wounding or fatality. Although du-
els are almost always between individuals, there is the possibility that they
could be between teams. American popular literature and its movies
abound with gunfights. Are these duels? When the Earp brothers met the
Clanton and McLaury brothers for a gunfight at the OK Corral, was this a
duel? Probably not, because witnesses and the other members of the typical
duelist’s entourage were not invited. Later, both Morgan and Virgil Earp
were ambushed in separate encounters, with Morgan killed and Virgil crip-
pled. Wyatt later killed the presumed assailants, probably in ambushes.
Although equal rank is not given as a defining attribute by Webster’s,
nearly all scholars who have studied the duel emphasize that duelists are
from the same social class. If a lower-class person issues a challenge to an
upper-class person, it is ignored and seen as presumptuous. The custom of
dueling has died out in the English-speaking world, but when it was preva-
lent, it was considered bad form to challenge royalty, representatives of the
Crown such as royal governors, and clergy. Indeed, it was treason to con-
template the death of the king or one of his family members. If the chal-
lenge came from a social equal, it might be hard to ignore. If the upper-class
person chose not to ignore the lower-class person’s challenge or insults, he
might assault him with a cane or horsewhip.
The notion that gentlemen caned or horsewhipped men of lesser so-
cial status had symbolic significance. Any person hit with a cane or lashed
with a whip was being told in a very rough and public way that he did not
rank as high as his attacker; hence the importance of the choice of weapons
by southern senator Preston Brooks for his merciless attack on New En-
gland senator Charles Sumner in Washington in 1856.
Sumner, in a speech, had used such words as “harlot,” “pirate,” “fal-
sifier,” “assassin,” and “swindler” to describe elderly South Carolina sen-98 Dueling