The strange story of why Kentucky officials must swear they never fought in a duel

Kentucky is the only state in the country where the swearing-in ceremony of people taking their oath of office routinely elicits giggles from those present.

The cause of those giggles is the Kentucky Constitution, which for nearly two centuries has required officials to swear that they've never fought a duel with deadly weapons or been involved in one in any way.

Of the roughly 300 words in Kentucky's oath of office, a majority are devoted to putting the official on the record about any history of taking 10 paces, turning and firing a bullet at a person who has besmirched their honor.

Despite no known instances of a formal duel taking place in Kentucky since 1867, to this day any public office holder or attorney admitted to the bar must take this oath — which has not existed in any other state for many years.

Here's the strange and violent story of why Kentucky's anti-dueling oath was created — and why it has stuck around.

A history of elite violence

The practice of dueling immigrated to the United States from Europe in the 18th century, becoming commonplace among the elites from late in that century until the Civil War — especially in the South.

The most famous of these took place in 1804, with Vice President Aaron Burr killing former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, but there were also at least 41 documented formal duels fought inside Kentucky or by Kentuckians between 1790 and 1867 — which included prominent elected officials.

Stuart Sanders, the research director of the Kentucky Historical Society who has an upcoming book this fall on dueling in Kentucky, says these duels were mostly fought by the wealthy elites of the upper class who adhered to a "code of honor," using regulated violence to settle disputes regarding anything from money to personal insults.

"The whole concept of dueling was created, ironically enough, to keep it very fair and dispassionate," Sanders said. "The idea was, you're a high tone gentleman, you don't let passion and anger get in your life, so dueling sort of prevents all that from happening in a very kind of controlled environment."

More irony: Henry Clay, one of the most prominent statesmen in Kentucky history who was known as the "Great Compromiser," fought in not one, but two duels. One was in 1809 when he was speaker of Kentucky's House and challenged fellow legislator Humphrey Marshall (over opposing his proposed boycott of British clothing), and the other was in 1826 when he was the U.S. secretary of state, dueling U.S. Sen. John Randolph of Virginia over an insult on the Senate floor.

Clay was wounded and wounded Marshall in the first duel, but Clay and Randolph both missed in their two shots in the second duel.

Other duels in Kentucky involved future President Andrew Jackson — who in 1806 was shot in the chest, but then fatally shot his opponent (over a horse race dispute and traded insults) — and John Rowan, who would go on to be Kentucky's secretary of state, a U.S. senator and a Court of Appeals judge.

In Rowan's 1801 duel against physician James Chambers (over a fight at a card game), they missed the first time, but then Rowan fatally shot Chambers in the second round. Rowan never dueled again as his political career advanced, but he kept a ring containing a lock of Chambers hair.

Sanders assumes there were actually many more than 41 duels fought in Kentucky that were not reported on in the press, as dueling was against the law and they would try to keep the number of witnesses down.

Anti-dueling efforts included adding oath to Kentucky Constitution

By 1800, dueling was already illegal in Kentucky, which could be punishable by a fine. A stricter law was passed in 1812, but that did nothing to deter dueling, as the few people who were prosecuted for the crime were all acquitted.

That would change with Kentucky's new constitution in 1850, which added a section prohibiting anyone who had participated or assisted in a duel from holding a public office, serving in the General Assembly or being a lawyer with the bar. Another section required anyone being sworn into office or to the bar to swear in their oath they had not participated in any way with a duel.

That same oath remains in effect, as it was picked up verbatim in Kentucky's final constitution of 1891.

Noting that members of Kentucky's elite had simply ignored legal prohibitions on dueling up until 1850, Sanders said the constitutional change was an attempt to "dissuade the sort of people with political ambitions," and curb violence "by appealing to their vanity and their desire to have political office."

What is Kentucky's anti-dueling oath?

The anti-dueling oath of Kentucky's 1850 constitution, which remained in the 1891 constitution and is still in effect, is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law;

And I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

Why has Kentucky's anti-dueling oath stuck around?

When Kentucky held its constitutional convention in 1891, there had not been a documented duel in the state for 24 years — which had largely died off after the widescale death of the Civil War — yet they still chose to include the anti-dueling oath.

Sanders said there were still serious concerns about violence among legislators in that decade, as many still carried guns with them into the Capitol and violence among that well-armed class "was still pretty prevalent in Kentucky at that time" — citing the specific example of short-lived Gov. William Goebel.

In 1895, Goebel, then a state senator, traded shots and killed political rival John Sandford in what he said was self-defense — after Goebel published an editorial accusing him of corruption ... and having gonorrhea.

Goebel was acquitted, but in 1900, just after being his party's gubernatorial nominee in a heavily contested general election, he was shot by an unknown assassin on the Capitol grounds. Despite winning fewer votes than his opponent, Goebel was sworn in as governor the next day on his bed, where he died three days later.

For the next century after the 1891 convention, there wasn't much of an effort to amend the constitution to take out the anti-dueling oath, as other southern states such Mississippi and Louisiana had done.

Two years after state Rep. Ricky Lee Cox challenged a newspaper editor to a duel in a 1998 published letter (which he said was a joke, but still created a constitutional question), a bill was filed to amend the constitution to take out the references to duels in the oath of office, but it did not move.

A decade later, former state Rep. Darryl Owens made another serious push to strike these lines from the constitution, saying the references to duels turned what should be solemn swearing-in ceremonies into embarrassing spectacles of giggles, as well as perpetuating the stereotype of Kentucky as a backward state.

Marijuana, guns, TikTok: Hundreds of new laws took effect July 1. Here's what you need to know

In the 2010 session, Owens' bill passed a House committee, but that's as far as it went, and critics said it was important to preserve this unique part of Kentucky history. This was the last time such a bill was filed in the General Assembly.

Part of the difficult hurdle of removing such language in the oath is the difficulty in amending Kentucky's constitution, as a bill to do so must pass with 60% of the vote in each chamber, and then be selected as one of the four maximum voter referendums to be included on the ballot in the general election. If voters approve of the proposal, the constitution is then amended.

Though they were apparently joking (we think), several elected officials in Kentucky in recent years have said they would challenge their critics to a duel, were it not for the constitutional provision.

Sen. Rand Paul said the state constitution prevented him from dueling those who pointed out instances of plagiarism in speeches, an article and a book.

So too did state Sen. Stephen Meredith, who said the constitution blocked him from challenging Courier Journal editorial cartoonist Marc Murphy and Kentucky Sports Radio host Matt Jones over their criticism of one of his failed bills.

Reach reporter Joe Sonka at jsonka@courierjournal.com and follow him on Twitter at @joesonka.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY NETWORK: Why Kentucky's oath of office includes language about dueling