Remorse After the Duel: Lives Haunted by Dueling
AN American writer lately endeavored to trace the after-history of noted men, who, in accordance with the code of honor of our grandfathers, had met and “killed their man” in a duel. Fifty years ago, no gentleman was expected to find life endurable after he had received an insult, until he had tried to kill the man who had offended him. Some of the anecdotes recently collected show how powerful was the social pressure which drove men to the field, and how terrible, in some cases at least, was the remorse that followed. S. S. Prentiss wrote to a friend that his convictions and moral teachings were all so much opposed to dueling that before going out to meet his antagonist he “did nothing but read the Bible and pray.” Yet so strong was the force of public opinion that he fought several duels. “The horror,” he said, “haunts me so that I cannot sleep, and I totter around in the daytime like an old man.” O’Connell, it is stated, never recovered from the shock of the death of D’Esterre, whom he killed. He never went to church afterwards without wrapping up the “murderous hand,” declaring that he “could not approach his Saviour with the stain in sight.” Paull, who killed Sir Francis Burdette, suffered so much that he became insane, and finally committed suicide. Mr. Graves, who killed Cilley in the famous duel, was an altered man ever after, and with his dying breath protested against the folly and crime of the murderous practice. Now that dueling has fallen into disuse, and is condemned by society, its folly and crime are very apparent to us, and we are apt to be severe in our condemnation of it. Young men wonder at the incredible weakness and wickedness of their grandfathers, that they could be driven to commit deliberate murder merely from the fear of the censure of the fashionable world. Yet how much stronger than they is the lad who goes to the gaming-table or the bar, and slowly murders soul and body because he is afraid to offend the prejudices of society? Or he who, to keep its favor by maintaining a false show of wealth, degrades his conscience, and murders his good name, by gentlemanly theft? —Youth’s Companion. MEN do things which their fathers would have deprecated, and then draw about themselves a flimsy cordon of sophistry, and talk about the advance of humanity and liberal thought, when it is nothing, after all, but a preference for individual license.—Rev. John Hall. ALAS! this time is never the time for self-denial; it is always the next time. Abstinence is so much more pleasant to contemplate upon the other side of indulgence.—Macdonald. THOUGHTLESSNESS is never an excuse for wrong-doing. Our hasty actions disclose, as nothing else does, our habitual feelings.