Duels! American Style...

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
1,756
I found this concept of dueling in America. I see a many famous people fought and died in duels and won a fare many too. The article goes over a few famous duels in American history. Lincoln was in a duel with a man who became a general for the union in the civil war. It a good read about a different time...

LINK: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/duel-104161025/

Snip... George Washington was almost in a duel but the beer prevailed...

The story, as Parson Weems tells it, is that in 1754 a strapping young militia officer named George Washington argued with a smaller man, one William Payne, who made up for the disparity in size by knocking Washington down with a stick. It was the kind of affront that, among a certain class of Virginia gentlemen, almost invariably called for a duel. That must have been what Payne was expecting when Washington summoned him to a tavern the following day. Instead, he found the colonel at a table with a decanter of wine and two glasses. Washington apologized for the quarrel, and the two men shook hands. Whether or not this actually happened—and some biographers believe that it did—is almost beside the point. Weems’ intention was to reveal Washington as he imagined him: a figure of profound self-assurance capable of keeping an overheated argument from turning into something far worse.

Snip... The French and balloons...

In France, dueling had an even stronger hold, but by the 19th century, duels there were seldom fatal, since most involved swordplay, and drawing blood usually sufficed to give honor its due. (Perhaps as a way of relieving ennui, the French weren’t averse to pushing the envelope in matters of form. In 1808, two Frenchmen fought in balloons over Paris; one was shot down and killed with his second. Thirty-five years later, two others tried to settle their differences by skulling each other with billiard balls.)

Snip... it always the Southerns...

In the United States, dueling’s heyday began at around the time of the Revolution and lasted the better part of a century. The custom’s true home was the antebellum South. Duels, after all, were fought in defense of what the law would not defend—a gentleman’s sense of personal honor—and nowhere were gentlemen more exquisitely sensitive on that point than in the future Confederacy. As self-styled aristocrats, and frequently slaveholders, they enjoyed what one Southern writer describes as a “habit of command” and an expectation of deference. To the touchiest among them, virtually any annoyance could be construed as grounds for a meeting at gunpoint, and though laws against dueling were passed in several Southern states, the statutes were ineffective. Arrests were infrequent; judges and juries were loath to convict.

Snip... civil war ended dueling...

But time was on the side of the critics. By the end of the Civil War, the code of honor had lost much of its force, possibly because the country had seen enough bloodshed to last several lifetimes. Dueling was, after all, an expression of caste—the ruling gentry deigned to fight only its social nearequals— and the caste whose conceits it had spoken to had been fatally injured by the disastrous war it had chosen. Violence thrived; murder was alive and well. But for those who survived to lead the New South, dying for chivalry’s sake no longer appealed. Even among old dueling warriors, the ritual came to seem like something antique. Looking back on life’s foolishness, one South Carolina general, seriously wounded in a duel in his youth, was asked to recall the occasion. “Well I never did clearly understand what it was about,” he replied, “but you know it was a time when all gentlemen fought.”

Below here is a list of duels in American history....

United States[edit]
  • May 16, 1777: Button Gwinnett, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, dueled his political opponent Lachlan McIntosh; both were wounded, and Gwinnett died three days later.
  • December 24, 1778: John Laurens dueled fellow Continental Army officer General Charles Lee. Lee was wounded and Laurens was unharmed. Lee had previously participated in a duel while working as a mercenary in Poland in 1765, in which he was wounded and his opponent killed.
  • November 24, 1801: Philip Hamilton, son of former U.S. Secretary of Treasury, dueled George I. Eacker; Hamilton was killed.
  • July 11, 1804: U.S. Vice President Aaron Burr, while in office, dueled former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton; Hamilton was killed.Main article: Burr–Hamilton duel
  • May 30, 1806: Andrew Jackson and Charles Dickinson. Dickinson was killed and Jackson wounded. Upon his election to the Presidency in 1829, Jackson became the only U.S. President to have killed a man in a duel.
  • August 12, 1817: Thomas Hart Benton and Charles Lucas, attorneys on opposite sides of a court battle, dueled on the famous Bloody Island after Lucas challenged Benton's right to vote and Benton accused Lucas of being a "puppy"; Lucas was shot in the throat and Benton shot in the leg, upon which Benton released Lucas from his obligation.
  • September 27, 1817: Benton and Lucas rematch, again on Bloody Island; Benton challenged Lucas after Lucas said the first fight at 30 feet (9.1 m) was unfair because Benton was a better shot. Benton killed Lucas at nine feet and was unhurt.
  • March 22, 1820: Stephen Decatur and James Barron. Decatur was killed.
  • June 30, 1823: Joshua Barton and Thomas C. Rector on Bloody Island. Barton's brother, Senator David Barton, sought to block the reappointment of Rector's brother, William Rector, to the position of Surveyor General for Missouri, Illinois, and Arkansas. Barton was killed and Rector unhurt.
  • April 26, 1826: Henry Clay and John Randolph of Roanoke at Pimmit Run, Virginia. Both men were unhurt.[2]
  • September 22, 1826: U.S. Representative Sam Houston of Tennessee severely wounded General William A. White in a pistol duel near Franklin, Kentucky, over the patronage political appointment of the Nashville Postmaster.[3]
  • September 19, 1827: A duel between Samuel Levi Wells III and Dr. Thomas Harris Maddox turned into a brawl involving notable figures such as Jim Bowie.Main article: Sandbar Fight
  • January 25, 1828: George W. Crawford, then attorney general for the state of Georgia, killed Georgia state legislator member Thomas E. Burnside (Ambrose Burnside's uncle) in a duel, answering Crawford's challenge over published defamation of Crawford's father which Burnside had written.Main article: George W. Crawford § The code duello
  • August 26, 1831: Thomas Biddle and Missouri Congressman Spencer Darwin Pettis on Bloody Island. Biddle challenged Pettis for comments about Biddle's brother, who was president of the United States bank. Both men were mortally wounded after firing from five feet.
  • August 10, 1832: Savannah physician Philip Minis shot and killed Georgia state legislatorJames Stark, after which Minis claimed that a valid duel had occurred. Minis also claimed his right to self-defense, saying he had not agreed to the duel and that he shot Stark to save his own life. Minis was found not guilty by a jury. While it is not clearly eligible to be on this list, the deceased had claimed his shooting and threatening fell under the law of duels, which is legally giving permission for his opponent to take shelter in the law of duels.
    Main article: Stark–Minis duel
  • September 25, 1832: James Westcott and Thomas Baltzell; Baltzell unhurt, Westcott injured but survived to become a U.S. Senator.[4]
  • February 5, 1837: Texan brigadier general Albert Sidney Johnston was shot in a duel over military position with Felix Huston.
  • February 24, 1838: U.S. Representative from Kentucky William Jordan Graves killed U.S. Representative from Maine Jonathan Cilley in a pistol duel. Afterwards, Congress passed a law making it illegal to issue or accept a duel challenge in Washington, D.C.[5]
  • December 12, 1839: Florida Militia Brigadier General Leigh Read and Colonel Augustus A. Alston, a Whig Party leader, with rifles at 15 paces. Read had been challenged twice by Alston, an overconfident duelist, and unexpectedly killed Alston.[6] Tallahassee Mayor Francis Eppes, also Thomas Jefferson's grandson, was elected in large part to put down dueling and other lawlessness in the territory.
  • September 22, 1842: Abraham Lincoln, at the time an Illinois state legislator, accepted a challenge to a duel by Illinois state auditor James Shields. Lincoln apparently had published an inflammatory letter in a Springfield newspaper, the Sangamo Journal, that poked fun at Shields. Taking offense, Shields demanded "satisfaction" and the incident escalated with the two parties meeting on a Missouri island called Bloody Island, near Alton, Illinois, for the duel. Just prior to engaging in combat, the two participants' seconds intervened and were able to convince the two men to cease hostilities, on the grounds that Lincoln had not written the letters.[7]
  • July 26, 1847: Albert Pike and John Selden Roane. The duel was declared a draw, with no injuries.
  • June 1, 1853: U.S. Senator William McKendree Gwin and U.S. Congressman J. W. McCorkle. No injuries.
  • August 26, 1856: Benjamin Gratz Brown and Thomas C. Reynolds on Bloody Island, in what would be called the "Duel of the Governors". Brown was then the abolitionist editor of the St. Louis Democrat and Reynolds a pro-slavery St. Louis district attorney. Brown was shot in the leg, which caused him to limp for the rest of his life, while Reynolds was unhurt. Brown would later become the Union-sanctioned Governor of Missouri and Reynolds a Confederate Governor of Missouri.
  • September 13, 1859: U.S. Senator David C. Broderick and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California David S. Terry. Broderick was killed.
    Main article: Broderick–Terry duel
  • September 6, 1863: Brig. Gen. Lucius Marshall Walker, the nephew of President James K. Polk, and General John Sapington Marmaduke, the future Governor of Missouri, dueled over differences on the Confederate battlefield at the battles of Helena and Reed's Bridge in Arkansas. The duel took place at 6 am near the north bank of the Arkansas River, just outside Little Rock (now within eyesight of the Clinton Presidential Library). Both men missed their first shots, but Marmaduke mortally wounded Walker with his second shot. Walker died the next day.
  • July 21, 1865: "Wild Bill" Hickok and Davis Tutt, in Springfield, Missouri. Hickok had lost a pocket watch to Tutt in a card game, and when he demanded its return, Tutt refused. Tutt was shot and killed. The confrontation is often remembered as the first instance of two gunmen participating in a quick-draw duel.[8]Main article: Wild Bill Hickok – Davis Tutt shootout
  • July 22, 1867: John Bull killed Langford Peel in a quick-draw duel in Salt Lake City, Utah. Peel challenged Bull after the two argued about their business, an argument which culminated in Peel slapping Bull. Bull reasoned that he did not have a gun, but Peel told him to get his own and come back. Peel waited in the saloon for an hour but left, not knowing that Bull had not refused his offer but was simply late. After meeting again in another saloon, the two drew their weapons and Bull gunned down Peel.
  • March 9, 1877: Gamblers Jim Levy and Charlie Harrison, in a saloon in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Levy challenged Harrison to take it outside, Harrison agreed, and the two squared off in the street. Western novelist James Reasoner claimed in a recent issue of Esquire that this was "the most 'Hollywood' showdown". During the duel, Harrison shot wild, while Levy took more careful aim and shot Harrison.[9] Levy had previously participated in another quick-draw duel with gunfighter Michael Casey, who challenged him in an alleyway in Pioche, Nevada.
  • March 22, 1882: Wyatt Earp killed an outlaw named Florentino "Indian Charlie" Cruz in a duel in the Dragoon Mountains of southeastern Arizona. Although the actual events are still debated by historians, Earp left his own account claiming that after capturing Cruz, Earp told Cruz to face him and draw his weapon. Earp ended up gunning down Cruz.[10]
  • June 7, 1882: Louisiana State Treasurer Edward A. Burke was seriously wounded by C. Harrison Parker, editor of the New Orleans Daily Picayune, in a duel with pistols. After Parker published unflattering remarks about Burke, Burke challenged him to a duel.[11]
  • February 8, 1887: Jim Courtright was killed by Luke Short during a quick-draw duel in Fort Worth, Texas.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
1,044
Duels were very complex sometimes, especially in the South. The Forrest/Gould Affair, for instance. It was a duel. (There were five duels involving Forrest during the CW. He had something of a temper...)
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
1,756
There were five duels involving Forrest during the CW. He had something of a temper...)
Your Forrest was a psychopath.... five duels seems to prove it... anyone with empathy would not fight five duels...
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
866
Your Forrest was a psychopath.... five duels seems to prove it... anyone with empathy would not fight five duels...
Forrest was hardly a psychopath. He displayed empathy on many occasions and had genuine feelings for friends and family. Dueling in the south was a great deal about peer pressure and machismo. The social mores required that a man not put up with perceived insults and the code of machismo required him to display cold courage. Double sociological whammy.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
1,756
Forrest was hardly a psychopath.
Fine I will redefine him as a sociopath most likely a Type A sociopath able to make some social bonds... He kill five people if he was normal he would have avoided most of them. If I remember rightly he started all of them, which proves my point. I bet he rationalized the duels and deaths as the victims fault, not his.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
866
Fine I will redefine him as a sociopath most likely a Type A sociopath able to make some social bonds... He kill five people if he was normal he would have avoided most of them. If I remember rightly he started all of them, which proves my point. I bet he rationalized the duels and deaths as the victims fault, not his.
Whatever. He doesn't fit the definition of a sociopath either. He is just a classic example of an alpha male who sees insults that may no actually have been insults, gets offended easily and believes in handling his issues physically rather than by argument. That's all.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
1,044
Forrest wasn't a psychopath but he could be mistaken for one once he got his blood up. His face turned brick red, eyes blazed, his body actually seemed to get bigger and he had more strength than was normal. Don't make him mad...you wouldn't like him if he got mad... He grew up in a culture where a boy had better learn to fight, and to be smart about it. He rarely picked a fight but had no problem finishing one. He knew his weapons, knew his techniques - survival, in his case, was the reason for this. As more wealth came into the frontier, the Mississippi gambling culture took hold. It was exciting and quite dangerous - Forrest was a gambler, and a good one. Big stakes, too. Best keep a gun in your belt and a knife in your boot.

Five duels may sound like a lot but it wasn't - Jefferson C Davis, Marmaduke, Mosby, Hindman....the list goes on and on with people from both sides shootin' at each other. Forrest's first near-duel was with Van Dorn. Forrest figured if his men bled on the stuff they captured, they could keep it - he wasn't turning over captured goods and supplies. Van Dorn was no diplomat and was a hothead, he straight up called Forrest a thief. Oh, sh!t was probably the next thing came out of Van Dorn's mouth because Forrest stood up and half drew his sword, which made Van Dorn grab his. It was Forrest who got control first - he said it wouldn't do for the men to see their officers fighting!

The short version of what happened between General Forrest and Lieutenant Wills Gould in Columbia is still too long for here! Gould lost Forrest's prized Bull Pups to Streight at the Battle of Day's Gap and Forrest had an explosion - Gould was immediately transferred out, right on the field. That was public humiliation, calling him a coward, made him mad and his girl friend was in town. Nothing less than somebody's death would satisfy honor! Well...it wasn't Forrest's... Lt Gould waited until they were alone and he knew Forrest was unarmed, then he pulled his pistol out of the pocket of his duster...or tried to! It hung up on the lip of the pocket and Forrest grabbed it - he was shot in...well, the butt. Which definitely beat getting shot in the gut! He killed Gould with a four-inch pocket knife he opened with his teeth.

The next one was after the legendary and much gossiped about meeting before the Battle of Franklin. All sorts of accounts of what happened at that meeting, but Forrest stormed out onto the porch and said he would whip Hood within an inch of his life if he was a whole man - which was a challenge. Might be the reason Forrest was later sent off...somewhere else!

Next two were young officers wanting to take on the famous Old Rebel at the end of the war. Forrest ignored both these challenges from the young men, dismissing them for what they were - old bull, young bull. As he remarked to an aide, "I know I can kill that boy but I will never forgive myself if I do."
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
866
He kill five people if he was normal he would have avoided most of them
IIRC he passed on well over half of the challenges he received. Forrest rarely initiated a duel.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
1,044
The only duel I can think of that Forrest initiated was when he challenged Minor Meriwether. He was on the staff of several Confederate generals during the war, including Forrest, and became a business partner in Forrest's railroad ventures. What brought the challenge on was Meriwether was also an alderman of the city of Memphis, which had heavily invested in Forrest's railroad bonds. Meriwether quit his partnership in the business and told Forrest he intended to advise Memphis to dissolve itself as a city in order to avoid paying off the bonds - which meant total financial ruin for Forrest. To say he felt stabbed in the back is an understatement! "One of us will not leave the room alive!" Forrest said - which was a challenge to a duel. Anybody else it might not have been taken all that seriously - but this was Forrest. Everybody took it seriously! The door to Forrest's house was like a barn door in a hurricane with all the people going in and out trying to talk him out of it. Meriwether's wife stitched a sheath into the neck of his shirt so he could carry a bowie knife in it, and when the meeting was held she had a derringer in her purse and Meriwether put a pistol on the podium before he began to speak. Even their kid (7) was on the floor with a knife! Forrest attended the meeting but did nothing. The city dissolved itself. A few months later he filed for bankruptcy and his finances never recovered. Eventually he made up with Meriwether, who was with him when he died and recorded his last words.
 

O' Be Joyful

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,590
Reaction score
1,443
September 22, 1842: Abraham Lincoln, at the time an Illinois state legislator, accepted a challenge to a duel by Illinois state auditor James Shields. Lincoln apparently had published an inflammatory letter in a Springfield newspaper, the Sangamo Journal, that poked fun at Shields. Taking offense, Shields demanded "satisfaction" and the incident escalated with the two parties meeting on a Missouri island called Bloody Island, near Alton, Illinois, for the duel. Just prior to engaging in combat, the two participants' seconds intervened and were able to convince the two men to cease hostilities, on the grounds that Lincoln had not written the letters.[7]
(snip)

Lincoln was friendly with the editor of the Sangamo Journal, Simeon Francis, and Francis allowed him to write the letter under the penname “Rebecca.” As “Rebecca,” Lincoln attacked Shields for his politics and for his personal foibles. Assuming the character of an Illinois farmer, Lincoln wrote:

“'I've been tugging ever since harvest getting out wheat and hauling it to the river, to raise State Bank paper enough to pay my tax this year, and a little school debt I owe; and now just as I've got it…, lo and behold, I find a set of fellows calling themselves officers of State, have forbidden to receive State paper at all; and so here it is, dead on my hands.'”

Lincoln went on to taunt Shields’ pursuit of women:

"His very features, in the ecstatic agony of his soul, spoke audibly and distinctly–'Dear girls, it is distressing, but I cannot marry you all. Too well I know how much you suffer; but do, do remember, it is not my fault that I am so handsome and so interesting.'"

Lincoln showed the letter to Mary Todd--the couple had only recently gotten back together after Lincoln had called off their earlier engagement--and she found it delightful. A few days later, without Lincoln's knowledge, Mary Todd submitted her own critique to the Journal under the pen name "Cathleen."

Shields did not take kindly to the letters and demanded that Francis reveal Rebecca's true identity – to which Francis obliged.

Upon receiving this information, Shields demanded a retraction from Lincoln. On September 19 at the Tremont County Courthouse, Shields had a handwritten note delivered to Lincoln which read: “I have become the object of slander, vituperation and personal abuse. Only a full retraction may prevent consequences which no one will regret more than myself.”

Lincoln refused to retract his remarks. He returned Shields's letter with the request that Shields rewrite it in a more "gentlemanly" fashion.

Instead, Shields challenged Lincoln to a duel. It would be held in Missouri, where dueling was still legal.

Since Lincoln was challenged by Shields he had the privilege of choosing the weapon of the duel. He chose cavalry broadswords "of the largest size." "I didn't want the d—-d fellow to kill me, which I think he would have done if we had selected pistols," he later explained. For his own part, he did not want to kill Shields, but "felt sure [he] could disarm him" with a blade. At six feet, four inches tall, Lincoln planned to use his height to his advantage against Shields, who stood at a mere five feet, nine inches tall.

The day of the duel, September 22, arrived and the combatants met at Bloody Island, Missouri to face death or victory. As the two men faced each other, with a plank between them that neither was allowed to cross, Lincoln swung his sword high above Shields to cut through a nearby tree branch. This act demonstrated the immensity of Lincoln’s reach and strength and was enough to show Shields that he was at a fatal disadvantage. With the encouragement of bystanders, the two men called a truce.


 
Last edited:

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
1,756
Here is a western tale... https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/famous-duels-from-american-history/

Finally, we end in a duel that neither came to fruition nor is invested with any great historical significance. But it is quite funny.
While living in Virginia City, Nevada, sharp-witted satirist Mark Twain was up to his usual pot stirring, writing such outrageous editorials for The Territorial Enterprise that locals dubbed him “The Incorrigible.” When Twain wrote a piece erroneously accusing a rival paper, The Virginia City Union, of reneging on a promised pledge to charity, the publisher of the paper, James Laird, made such a stink over the false accusation that Twain challenged him to a duel. Twain’s second, Steve Gillis, took Twain to practice his shooting, only to find that the man’s pen was truly mightier than his pistol; Twain couldn’t hit the side of a barn. Filled with fear, Twain collapsed. As Laird and his men were making their way over, Gillis grabbed a bird, shot his head off, and stood admiring the corpse. Laird’s second asked, “Who did that?” and Gillis responded that Twain had shot the bird’s head off from a good distance and was capable of doing it with every shot. Then he gravely intoned, “You don’t want to fight that man. It’s just like suicide. You better settle this thing, now.” The creative ploy worked, and the men reconciled. Tom Sawyer would have been proud.
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,592
Reaction score
1,102
The short version of what happened between General Forrest and Lieutenant Wills Gould in Columbia is still too long for here! Gould lost Forrest's prized Bull Pups to Streight at the Battle of Day's Gap and Forrest had an explosion - Gould was immediately transferred out, right on the field. That was public humiliation, calling him a coward, made him mad and his girl friend was in town. Nothing less than somebody's death would satisfy honor! Well...it wasn't Forrest's... Lt Gould waited until they were alone and he knew Forrest was unarmed, then he pulled his pistol out of the pocket of his duster...or tried to! It hung up on the lip of the pocket and Forrest grabbed it - he was shot in...well, the butt. Which definitely beat getting shot in the gut! He killed Gould with a four-inch pocket knife he opened with his teeth.
that's not a duel but a botched murder attempt
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
1,044
that's not a duel but a botched murder attempt
That's what I always thought! The honor code in the South was interesting - it required, among other things, that a man defend his family, which included verbal insults. That's how Preston Brooks came to beat Charles Sumner bloody on the US Senate floor...after trapping him between a bolted down desk and the wall with no means to defend himself. He used a walking cane, which was heavy, and also happened to be a 'humiliating' way to be beat on as that was a method for disciplining slaves...who couldn't fight back either. Somehow the Brooks family honor was saved and restored by this brutal act and Brooks received hundreds of canes in case he needed to break somebody else's skull. (Sumner never fully recovered, by the way.)

Strange as it seems, that episode is considered a duel. It seems that since the formal art of dueling was outlawed, an odd twist to it happened. It was ok to shoot an unarmed person in the back to restore yours or your family's honor! This is what happened when Jefferson C Davis shot and killed Bull Nelson - he knew Nelson was unarmed and he knew he couldn't take him in a fight on his best day anyway. But - honor had to be restored as the man had called him a 'puppy'. Davis' problem was he was from the North, not the South - there remained a cloud over him for all of his military career. He wouldn't have had one if the war hadn't broken out before he could be tried.

The Forrest/Gould Affair was a duel because it was a matter of honor. Lt Gould felt his manhood had been impugned and there was only one remedy for that. He knew he couldn't take Forrest in a face to face fight, but the method he chose would have satisfied the code. An insult to my courage is an insult to my whole family and I will not allow it to stand unanswered! Another item that makes this a duel and not a murder attempt (although that's sure what it was) is just before Gould pulled his gun he announced, "One of us will not leave here alive!" That was the challenge and Forrest immediately knew the duel was on.

Now, the Hamilton-Burr duel was strictly illegal but it followed all the formalities required of an affair of honor. Witnesses, seconds, a doctor handy, rules to follow, face to face. Hamilton just didn't expect Burr to shoot him dead!
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
1,044
He and his son both died in duels - both instigated by Hamilton.
Same place, too!

I think Burr may have been surprised he killed Hamilton - he may not have known the pistol he chose had a hair trigger.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
1,756
Same place, too!
well over half
This sounds like the Forrest I know...

LINK: https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/sociopathic-personality

Sociopaths are typically described as conscience-less. They are extremely shallow, selfish, self-centered, boastful, antagonistic, and unable to bond with others or to form lasting romantic relationships. They also tend to be extreme risk-takers who are unable to refuse temptation of any sort. Sociopaths view other people as vehicles for their own gain, and they fail to recognize their own negative characteristics. Sociopaths are generally adept at rationalizing their behavior and asserting (and believing) that they are victims of the ill will of others, and that they are good people put in bad circumstances. Sociopaths often report difficult childhoods: single parent homes, extreme poverty, neighborhood or family violence, lack of parental supervision, early separation from family, or rearing in foster homes, state-run group homes, or institution-like settings.

Here is. Forrest again... https://www.karmak.org/archive/2003/01/sociopat.htm

Sociopaths are very egocentric individuals that lack a sense of personal responsibility and morality. They may be impulsive, manipulative, reckless, quarrelsome, and consistent liars. Sociopaths are usually unable to sustain relationships and have a total lack of remorse for their actions. The sociopath may also be very prone to aggressive, hostile, and sometimes violent behavior. This aggression may or may not lead to criminal behavior and often takes the form of domestic violence. Along with these other actions, sociopaths often engage in self-destructive behavior such as alcoholism or addiction to drugs. This, of course, usually worsens many aspects of the sociopathic behavior. Despite these previous symptoms, the sociopath may be an excellent actor, always appearing charming, calm, and collected. They usually have a normal or above normal intelligence level and good verbal fluency. It is these qualities that sometimes place the sociopath in leadership positions within their social groups and often make it hard to spot their "black side".

An estimated 3% of all adult males have this sociopathic disorder. (The antisocial personality disorder is uncommon among women.) Only a small fraction of this percentage actually develop into violent criminals. Most sociopathic individuals are able to control their disorder within the boundaries of social tolerability (Silver & Yudofsky, 1992; Sabbatini, 1998).
They are considered only 'socially obnoxious' or hateful personalities, and every one of us knows of someone who fits the description. Corrupt and callous politicians, social or career fast climbers, authoritarian leaders, abusing and aggressive persons, etc., are among them. A common characteristic is that they engage systematically in deception and manipulation of others for personal gain. In fact, many successful and adapted non-violent sociopaths can be found in our society. An NIMH epidemiologic study reported that only 47% of those who met the SPD criteria had a significant arrest record. The most relevant events for these persons occur in the area of job problems, domestic violence, traffic offenses, and severe marital difficulties. (Sabbatini, 1998, p.2-3)
Here is this one... forrest again...

What are the symptoms of high-functioning sociopathy?

Not all high-functioning ASPD symptoms are evident. Many can become more apparent after true intentions or agendas are revealed.
Symptoms and characteristics include:

  • Superior intelligence. Those who are high functioning are often incredibly smart, with very high IQs which can help them read, manipulate, and control scenarios.
  • Lack of empathy. People with ASPD don’t comprehend other people’s emotions. Therefore, they don’t appreciate or anticipate the consequences of their actions.
  • Calculating behaviors. People with this type of sociopathy are driven and determined. A strong self-love (narcissism) and sense of grandiosity may be their catalyst.
  • Secretive tendencies. High-functioning individuals may keep everything close to the vest. They rarely reveal private information or thoughts unless it’s to manipulate another person.
  • Charm. Despite generally not enjoying being around people, a high-functioning person displays impeccable social skills.
  • Sensitivity. People with high-functioning ASPD can be defensive. They may be quick to anger when they perceive they don’t have someone’s approval. That’s because they often feed off admiration from others.
  • Addictive behaviors. It’s not uncommon for a person with a high-functioning personality disorder to experience addiction. Compulsive behaviors and reactions can lead to issues with gambling, sex, alcohol, and drugs.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
1,756
well over half
not a duel
I always thought!
Here is a link to Sociopath tests to see if you are a sociopath sadly I am not. I barely made a score... I figure our Forrest experts can take these tests and answer the question as if they were Forrest and see what the score is.... All the test are short and the questions are interesting... The last test is super short like a per test...

LINK: https://www.mind-diagnostics.org/sociopath-test

LINK: https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/LSRP.php

LINK: https://psychcentral.com/quizzes/psychopathy-quiz/
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
1,044
That's very interesting, 5fish. Can't see anything that even vaguely fits Forrest!
 

O' Be Joyful

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,590
Reaction score
1,443
If Forrest was a sociopath so as well were many during the time.

I hold no love for Forrest, but he was largely a singular personality whom was at the very least interesting as Hell--but I don't want to Go There.
 
Top