[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
. 7 So it would appear thatthroughout the Civil War era many local and state communities still strug-gled between public sentiment, which a majority often favored and encour-aged dueling, versus laws that outlawed the practice.This chapter will examine the tension between honor rituals andnineteenth-century mass communication on a micro and macro level.Common historical misperceptions are that anti-dueling laws and the wide-ranging sociopolitical effects of the Civil War caused the demise of duel-ing.This may be true to a point, but dueling in cases of defamation stillpersisted throughout the nineteenth century; therefore it certainly did notend during the Civil War.Furthermore, how did the communicative qual-ities of honor rituals, which were the precursor to any combat under thecode of honor, impede or hasten dueling during the Civil War era? Thischapter will explore these questions and illustrate that even though duel-ing as a popular practice may have begun its decline, it still had a pro-found impact on journalists throughout this time period.By closely examining the arrests and court proceedings that followedthe Daniel-Elmore encounter, an attempt will be made to draw a clearerpicture of how duelists evaded prosecution for the crime in cases of defama-tion.On a micro level, the attitude of Richmond citizens, who resided inthe primary capital of the Confederate government, was important becauseof these citizens leadership role in the South.This begs the next question:as laws made dueling illegal during the Civil War era, were they prima-rily responsible for the end of dueling or did the laws simply drive the hos-tile encounters underground?On a larger level, this chapter will also examine how the changingpatterns of communication, such as the formation of the GovernmentPrinting Office in 1860, might have contributed to changes in ritualisticresponses to defamation.It will also examine one of the period s most con-troversial documents, the Emancipation Proclamation, from a mass com-munication perspective.An attempt will be made to show that Lincoln sintimate knowledge of honor rituals may have influenced the decisions hemade in constructing and articulating the proclamation.Focusing back on the Daniel-Elmore duel, Pollard and Elmore were Six Culture of Honor on Trial During the Civil War 115brought before the Richmond court, each with their attorneys, to answerfor the charges that had been brought against them.The Richmond mayor,on calling the case, explained he had refused on the evening of the arrestto admit Elmore bail, because he learned that he had shot Daniel in aduel, which was considered a felony and necessitated committal.Pollardwas given bail because he was about to participate in a duel with Elmore,not for role he played as second in the Daniel-Elmore exchange.8The court of the Commonwealth then examined three witnesses:George W.Butler, J.Marshall Hanna and Dr.A.E.Peticolas.Wrote theDaily Dispatch:Mr.Butler, on being sworn, stated that he knew nothing of his ownknowledge about the duel. From a conversation with Mr.Elmore, hehad learned that a fight had taken place between Mr.Daniel and himselfwith pistols, and that Mr.Daniel had been struck; but that he did notascertain where or at what hour it came off.Mr.Hanna only knew of the duel from hearsay; learned about seveno clock Tuesday morning that a fight had taken place, and that Mr.Danielwas wounded, but had not seen him since the duel.Dr.Peticolas concluded the examination.He stated, under a protest thathe might implicate himself, that Mr.Daniel was wounded, and that hereceived his wound about two miles, or thereabouts, north of the city, westof the Central railroad, and about fifty yards north of a county road whichruns west from the toll-gate on the Mechanicville road to the Brooke turn-pike.9So in essence, there were three witnesses who would not testify that theywitnessed the duel or gunshots.Peticolas admitted that Daniel had beenwounded but would not mention the specifics of the wound.Perhaps the strategy of Peticolas admitting that he saw Daniel swound, and not keeping silent altogether, was that the duel took placetechnically out of the jurisdiction of the Richmond court.This wasundoubtedly a calculated move because this point was immediately broughtup by the defense counsel, who pointed out that based on the testimonyof the witnesses, the duel had taken place more than a mile beyond cor-porate limits in the county of Henrico.The strategy worked to someextent, as the Richmond mayor determined that the case was out of hisjurisdiction.However, upon making this decision, he essentially tookeveryone in the courtroom in tow to seek out a county magistrate.Theyfinally succeeded in finding Justice Riddick, who happened to be home asthey drove up to his residence.By that time, however, it was too late togo into examination.10Elmore was bailed and scheduled to appear at the county courthouse. 116 Pistols, Politics and the PressPollard s lawyer, P.H.Aylett, requested that his client be released since hisname had not been mentioned in connection with the duel.But the mayorobjected to the editor s release, saying that even though he had an absenceof witnesses to prove it as fact, he had good reason to believe that Elmoreand Pollard were planning to duel.The case was continued, and Pollardwas bailed.11At the hearing the next day, the mayor stated that the correspon-dences which he had read in the Examiner that morning regarding theElmore-Daniel duel were conclusive evidence that Pollard was involved inthe affair.The mayor also declared that he should also be remanded to thecounty magistrate with Elmore and charged with being an accessory to aduel.According to the Daily Dispatch, Aylett strongly protested.Mr.P.H.Aylett, counsel for Mr.Pollard, desired to know whether theMayor pretended to say that newspaper publications were sufficient evi-dence in point of law to base a charge of criminal prosecution uponagainst a party.If such was the rule in that court, it was different from anyother in which he had practiced.On Wednesday, as he considered, therehad been no charge made against his client of any connection with theduel which had already taken place, but he had only been required to enterinto a recognizance to answer the offence of a meeting which it was appre-hended was about to take place with Mr.Elmore.The Mayor had refusedto disclose the name of his informant, and now, on the second day, he notonly did not propose to enter into a hearing of the case, but desired tothrow the onus of the charge upon his client.To hold a gentleman underbonds to answer a crime where there has been no accusation made againsthim, was unprecedented, and, while he (Mr.A.) did not desire to be dis-courteous, he still regarded it as an outrage.He therefore hoped that hisHonor would see the propriety and the justice of discharging Mr.Pollard.12In the end, the mayor disagreed with Pollard s lawyer, maintaining thathe had the right to arrest him based on what was published in the Exam-iner and ordered him to appear before the county justice.In reference tothe allegations against Elmore and Pollard of being about to break thepeace by engaging in a duel, he would drop those charges based on theirstatements denying the incident.13Pollard and Elmore finally appeared before Justices Riddick andLee of Henrico County to answer to their charges.The Daily Dispatchreported that Dr [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • blondiii.htw.pl
  •