he invokes the principle of self-preservation, equating individual recourse to dueling with a nations right to defend its liberty through arms. in his view, societal structures of his time often left individuals with no alternative for vindicating their honor or addressing profound personal wrongs. wilson rationalizes dueling as a last resort for individuals who are otherwise powerless to defend themselves. his argument reflects the era's emphasis on personal honor as paramount and sometimes worth risking ones life to uphold. wilson condemns the frequent and trivial use of dueling:  > "the indiscriminate and frequent appeal to arms, to settle trivial disputes and misunderstandings, cannot be too severely censured and deprecated." however, he differentiates between senseless dueling and cases where public opinion or the absence of legal recourse makes it unavoidable. he recognizes the cultural underpinnings of dueling, which he claims are tied to "manly independence" and "a lofty personal pride." this distinction allows wilson to critique the misuse of dueling while preserving its perceived legitimacy in extreme cases. his position reflects the complexity of reconciling personal ethics with entrenched cultural norms. wilson dismisses the idea of passive submission to insult or injury as unrealistic and undesirable:  > "if a man be smote on one cheek in public, and he turns the other, which is also smitten, and he offers no resistance, but blesses him that so despitefully used him... [it is] utterly repugnant to those feelings which nature and education have implanted in the human character." he critiques christian forbearance as inconsistent with human nature and incompatible with societal expectations of his time. he even suggests that enforced forbearance would drive "all that is honorable" out of society.
United States