The start of the Civil War would bring a new surge of political violence and duels, including the Murder of Assemblyman John C. So, too, in regard to dueling many valuable lives have been sacrificed in this State under what (I think) has been mis-called the “code of honor.” So long, however, as the majority of the community sanction a resort to this mode of settling difficulties, so long they will continue to occur… The law prohibiting dueling has not been enforced, and therefore remains a dead letter upon the statute-book.” – Milton Latham (“Message from the Governor”, 1860 Assembly Journal, page 59) “It is folly to cumber the statute book with laws which cannot be executed, and therefore, public opinion alone must furnish the remedy. Senate vacancy created by Broderick‘s death in the 1859 duel. It’s worth noting that he would resign five days later after being appointed by the Legislature to fill the U.S. The unenforceability of the Constitution’s ban became so widely noticeable that Governor Latham mentioned it in his Message to the Legislature on his first day in office in 1860. The law proved difficult to enforce, with officeholders frequently traveling to secluded areas to fight for their honor. The the Denver-Gilbert Duel (1852) was held near in a field along the road between Sacramento and Auburn, while the Broderick-Terry Duel (1859) was held near a farm at Lake Merced (south of San Francisco). “Any citizen of this State who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, fight a duel with deadly weapons, or send, or accept a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, either within this State or out of it or who shall act as second, or knowingly aid or assist in any manner those thus offending, shall not be allowed to hold any office of profit, or to enjoy the right of suffrage under this Constitution.” Gwin, 1849 Constitutional ConventionĮventually, the ban of dueling was incorporated into California’s first Constitution as Article XI, Section 2: “I want a man when he fights a duel with a citizen of California, or aids or abets in a duel, to be forever prohibited from holding office here.” – Delegate William M. “If you deprive a citizen of this State from holding any office of trust or profit within the gift of the people, for fighting a duel in defence of his pride or honor, that pride and that sense of honor will seek revenge in some other way if he does not choose to be disenfranchised.” – Delegate John McDougall, 1849 Constitutional Convention
A man should not be disenfranchised because he defends his honor, or the honor of his wife and family…” – Delegate Henry Larkin, 1849 Constitutional ConventionĪlternatively, Gwin and McDougall argued that the ban would divert the desire to fight duels in other directions. I am no apologist for duels, but I believe the people are capable of selecting the men that should represent them, from the highest to the lowest position in this State. “You allow the most corrupt man to hold office but you wish to say, that because an honorable man is compelled to defend his honor and engage in a duel that he cannot hold the office of Constable, or Justice of the Peace, or any other office in this State. There are few men who will not risk their lives when their honor is at stake.” – Delegate Louis Dent, 1849 Constitutional Convention
“No clause that you can introduce in the Constitution will prevent a man from fighting a duel, if it be in defense of his honor. Noting that the formality associated with dueling primarily made it a practice of political elites, delegate William Gwin began to push for the penalty to be (rather than a prison term), a permanent ban on voting or holding elected or appointed office.ĭelegates Louis Dent and Henry Larkin argued against a ban on dueling, arguing that disenfranchising men because of duels did a disservice to the candidates and the voters who might want to elect them. The delegates who met in Monterey in 1849 to draft California’s first constitution debated the need to limit dueling during the convention.
0 kommentar(er)
