Originally Posted by Caltex

I felt some historical inaccuracies are needed of correction.

Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton did indeed fight in a duel on the plains of Weehawken according to the code duello, but they were not founders of the constitutional rights such as free speech, nor are those men deserving of the title "founding father".

Alexander Hamilton was a viciously anti-Democratic elitist, who probably intended to overthrow the United States government and fashion himself in the image on Napoleon had it not been for John Adams dissolution of Hamilton's standing Army before it could even be formed. Hamilton was never in favor of the Bill of Rights (see The Federalist #84), was never an advocate of free speech. and used his post as Treasury Secretary to advantage his banker friends. The fact that he is on our $10 Bill is a disgrace.

Aaron Burr was a hot headed traitor to this nation, charged with treason four times, but never convicted because the evidence was not available at the time (it is now). Burr intended to lease land from Spain, then use it as a base to conquer and take much of the land from America obtained in the Louisiana purchase. Burr was no founding father, His highest office of Vice President was only obtained because he could deliver to Jefferson electoral votes in New York (because of family ties) necessary for Jefferson to assume the office.

The real founding fathers and other early leaders, the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (The primary writer of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights), John Adams were all opposed to the code duello, and were advocates of Free speech. (The exception being John Adams and the alien and sedition acts, which he reluctantly signed and immediately regretted. One must remember at this time Presidents were reluctant to issue a veto even if they disagreed with the bill fearing it to be undemocratic.) The founding fathers did not kill each other over free speech. A few of their lesser contemporaries did.

Violence is not the answer for mature people in solving quarrels. Using ones mind and voice is a far more effective method than punching someone. Violence should be reserved for defensive purposes, such as in the situation where one feels their security is threatened.

Originally Posted by PBS History - The American Experience

In America, duels were fought by men from all walks of life. But many of America's most important citizens defended their honor on the dueling grounds. Button Gwinnet, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, was shot down by General Lachlan McIntosh in a duel. Commodore Stephen Decatur of the United States Navy, an experienced duelist, died at the hands of another commodore, James Barron. And Abraham Lincoln narrowly averted a battle with swords by apologizing to an Illinois state official he had ridiculed in a local newspaper.

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

I felt the need to point out that the information included in the rebuttal based solely on the primary and most well-known example I listed is flawed in and that it is not historically accurate of the time period. Here's an actual source for you.

The American Experience | The Duel | Dueling, American Style

Dueling. It was a challenge of honor in the colonies and had been practiced in western nations since long before that. Read through some of that. There were no enforced ordinances against dueling until later in the era of the newly founded United States because they obviously didn't embrace and accept the principles you seem to think were so widely accepted.



An isolated instance? Flawed history? I think not. It was a commonly accepted principle and practiced "tradition" of defending the honor of one's name and to say it was otherwise is simply untrue.

Originally Posted by TheHat

I
BUThere is my problem with the whole situation: This was at school. A place where reading, writing, and math is suppose to be taught. Yet here we have actual taxpayer funded school time, being dedicated to some event that takes away from learning. How come you can have a Day of Silence for gays, but you cant have a Day of Prayer? Anybody see the double standard here? Prayer is silent, so how come people are ok with being silent and reflecting upon gay people, yet throw a hissy fit when someone wants to say a prayer?

Originally Posted by colourislast

Where were the authority figures? Why was it your responsibility to punish the kid? You could not have reported this incident instead of taking action yourself? I think you should have received a much harsher punishment.

Originally Posted by colourislast

As for the day of silence, sounds like it turned into a day of suppressing free speech. Even if it is bile and venom that is being spouted, free speech still covers idiocy. If it did not, we would not have presidential debates.

Originally Posted by colourislast

How can you expect people to learn to debate and express themselves civilly if you don’t handle responses in a civil manner yourself? His inability to express himself in a civil manner was probably the most effective way of discrediting his point. Your way made it so he could take you down with him.

Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe

You might have a point if we had the right to free speech in public schools...