Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 The duel was held in 1806 between Jackson and Charles Dickinson, a lawyer with whom Jackson had quarreled for trivial reasons. The first shot was fired by Dickinson and hit Jackson in the chest; when it was time to fire in his turn, the future president's gun misfired: according to the rules of the duel, Jackson could not have fired a second shot in succession, but he decided to violate the rules and killed his opponent. Because the bullet had hit him very close to his heart, Jackson was unable to remove it from the wound, which caused him lifelong chest pain. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 1 hour ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said: The duel was held in 1806 between Jackson and Charles Dickinson, a lawyer with whom Jackson had quarreled for trivial reasons. The first shot was fired by Dickinson and hit Jackson in the chest; when it was time to fire in his turn, the future president's gun misfired: according to the rules of the duel, Jackson could not have fired a second shot in succession, but he decided to violate the rules and killed his opponent. Because the bullet had hit him very close to his heart, Jackson was unable to remove it from the wound, which caused him lifelong chest pain. He must have reloaded awfully quick! These were single shot pistols!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpo Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 How does one fire a second shot when the first shot does not fire? How does one fire a second shot with a single shot firearm? Did he recock it and try again? In 1806 it would have to be a flintlock, so he didn't have a dud cap. The powder in the pan must have not caught. I suppose he could have opened the frizzen, dumped the powder from the pan, reloaded the pan with fresh powder and tried again. But why would he have a priming flask with him? This makes very little sense. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 24 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said: He must have reloaded awfully quick! These were single shot pistols!! 22 minutes ago, Alpo said: How does one fire a second shot when the first shot does not fire? How does one fire a second shot with a single shot firearm? Did he recock it and try again? In 1806 it would have to be a flintlock, so he didn't have a dud cap. The powder in the pan must have not caught. I suppose he could have opened the frizzen, dumped the powder from the pan, reloaded the pan with fresh powder and tried again. But why would he have a priming flask with him? This makes very little sense. Here ya go: From Wikipedia Dickinson fired first, hitting Jackson in the chest. Incredibly, Jackson not only survived, merely wounded, but aimed his pistol and returned fire. Under the rules of dueling, Dickinson had to remain still as Jackson took his shot. Jackson's pistol stopped at half cock, so he drew back the hammer and aimed again, this time hitting Dickinson in the chest. Dickinson bled to death as a result of his wound.[3]: 142 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickinson_(attorney_and_duelist) 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 17 minutes ago, Pat Riot said: Here ya go: From Wikipedia Dickinson fired first, hitting Jackson in the chest. Incredibly, Jackson not only survived, merely wounded, but aimed his pistol and returned fire. Under the rules of dueling, Dickinson had to remain still as Jackson took his shot. Jackson's pistol stopped at half cock, so he drew back the hammer and aimed again, this time hitting Dickinson in the chest. Dickinson bled to death as a result of his wound.[3]: 142 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickinson_(attorney_and_duelist) Well now that makes more sense! Thanks Pat!🙂 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypress Sun Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 (edited) The very last time that the US paid off it's National debt and was debt free was under Jackson's presidency. A flawed man in some ways but the lack of balls wasn't one of them. Edited July 15 by Cypress Sun 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozark Huckleberry Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said: The very last time that the US paid off it's National debt and was debt free was under Jackson's presidency. A flawed man in some ways but the lack of balls wasn't one of them. Kind of a out-of-context accolade that would be worthy of today's political campaigns. The national debt was largely paid down by large government land sales. Jackson deliberately ended the national banking system and transferred national finances to state banks, which in turn encouraged speculation in land and development (e.g. -- the aforementioned 'large government land sales'). When speculation fueled by the poorly-supervised state banks printing their own currency cranked up inflation, Jackson tried to limit it by requiring the U.S. government to only accept specie (gold or silver) as payment. People caused runs on the banks when they demanded their deposits back so they could buy silver and gold, but the banks had printed too much. As a result, many state banks failed, wiping out the finances of many depositors. Throw in falling cotton prices, a failed wheat crop, and you have the Panic of 1837 -- luckily for Jackson, he had left office just before the economic collapse that saw a 30-50% drop in wages, and up to 25% unemployment over the course of several years. It's a very simplified explanation of what happened, but the point was -- Jackson might have been good at some things, but national economics wasn't one of 'em. Edited July 15 by Ozark Huckleberry 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypress Sun Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 9 minutes ago, Ozark Huckleberry said: Kind of a out-of-context accolade that would be worthy of today's political campaigns. Nice back door insult...but you know what they say about opinions.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 3 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said: He must have reloaded awfully quick! These were single shot pistols!! Don't you own more than one pistol? Your comment isn't valid and is poorly thought out. The one who lives, wins...and can argue the legality or any other concern later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 (edited) 4 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said: Don't you own more than one pistol? Your comment isn't valid and is poorly thought out. The one who lives, wins...and can argue the legality or any other concern later. They only had one pistol each! Your comment was wrong! Go back and read Pat Riot’s comment about what happened! Edited July 15 by Rye Miles #13621 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozark Huckleberry Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 14 hours ago, Cypress Sun said: Nice back door insult...but you know what they say about opinions.... Hey, you know -- you're right. That came across harsh, and it shouldn't have been. Sorry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TN Mongo, SASS #61450 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 I taught Advanced Placement U.S. History (kids got college credits) for 20 years. Jackson was one of my favorite topics. Jackson's issues with the Bank of the U.S. were more political than about the economy. Nicholas Biddle, who was the head of the bank, and Henry Clay (Jackson's chief political rival) were using the recharter of the bank to hurt Jackson in the upcoming Presidential election. He hated both of them so by removing government funds from the bank, he damaged both Biddle and Clay. I'm sure he didn't think through the possible fallout caused by the death of the bank and the instability of "wildcat" banks. Other sources on his dueling exploits mentioned that he wore oversize clothing on his 6' 2" 140 pound frame, while dueling, to confuse opponents point of aim. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Lizard Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 If not happy with duel...Lets dig them and have them do it over..... Texas Lizard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.