It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Balls Of The Founding Fathers

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Andrew Jackson
en.wikipedia.org...

The controversy surrounding their marriage remained a sore point for Jackson, who deeply resented attacks on his wife's honor. Jackson fought 13 duels, many nominally over his wife's honor. Charles Dickinson, the only man Jackson ever killed in a duel, had been goaded into angering Jackson by Jackson's political opponents. In the duel, fought over a horse-racing debt and an insult to his wife on May 30, 1806, Dickinson shot Jackson in the ribs before Jackson returned the fatal shot; Jackson allowed Dickinson to shoot first, knowing him to be an excellent shot, and as his opponent reloaded, Jackson shot, even as the bullet lodged itself in his chest. The bullet that struck Jackson was so close to his heart that it could never be safely removed. Jackson had been wounded so frequently in duels that it was said he "rattled like a bag of marbles." At times he coughed up blood, and he experienced considerable pain from his wounds for the rest of his life.


Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr
en.wikipedia.org...

The Burr–Hamilton duel was a duel between two prominent American politicians, the former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and sitting Vice President Aaron Burr, on July 11, 1804. At Weehawken in New Jersey Burr shot and mortally wounded Hamilton. Hamilton was carried to the home of William Bayard on the Manhattan shore, where he died at 2:00 p.m. the next day
...
Both men had been involved in duels in the past. Hamilton had been a principal in 10 shot-less duels[clarification needed] prior to his fatal encounter with Burr, including duels with William Gordon (1779), Aedanus Burke (1790), John Francis Mercer (1792–1793), James Nicholson (1795), James Monroe (1797), and Ebenezer Purdy/George Clinton (1804). He also served as a second to John Laurens in a 1779 duel with General Charles Lee and legal client John Auldjo in a 1787 duel with William Pierce.[3] In addition, Hamilton claimed to have had one previous honor dispute with Burr;[4] Burr claimed there were two.[5].


Say what you will, but these guys had balls.

It takes ironman balls to stand there and let someone shoot at you.

I doubt many gang bangers, cops, or even Navy SEALs have the balls to engage in a duel like these guys did.

I think its important to highlight this. It provides us a not often discussed window into how these guys felt about honor, independence, and what it means to be a man.

Of course, I don't advocate we bring back the practice of dueling. But a duel is a consensual agreement between two actors, thus I find no crime in it.





[edit on 2-7-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Andrew Jackson, while one of my favorite presidents, was not a "founding father." He was only 9 years old at the time of the American Revolution.

But, yeah...pedantism aside, deuling certainly wasn't for the faint of heart.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I would support dueling like the founding fathers did it but guns are too accurate now... Either way I would like to see a polotician grow a pair of balls like that. Lets face it, the only thing they have to fight for anymore is money and votes(to get more money) .



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Heck, I say all pollies should duel for their place in the WH..

Then we would have less to worry about.


Wonder who is the better shot, Obama or Bush ??

But look on the bright side, there would only be one left...



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I want to see Nigel Farage vs the EU President - Nigel would be up for it I'm sure - and I am fairly sure he would blow the guys head off.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Of course, I don't advocate we bring back the practice of dueling.



I do.

But I'm old fashioned.

Ever since dueling was outlawed the western Republics have been on a downward slope towards tyranny.

Politicians and statists had to outlaw it to get away with their abuses - see below:


Politician: "I've Raised your taxes. I said I wouldn't, but alas I did!"

Average: "Deciever! I challenge you to a duel. You are a stain on our State's Honour - art thou also a coward?"

Politician: "I would duel you, but I've outlawed the thing. You must seek another recourse; perhaps thou wilt make manufacture of a sign and march in protest?" (laughs in Man's face)



*And so taxes have been continually raised ever since dueling was outlawed... regulations increased, government abuse increased, etc, etc.





[edit on 2-7-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Great reply...

The idea of dying for their decisions may make them decide differently...

And thats how it should be..



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by virgom129
 


And people who aren't willing to give their life won't get involved with politics.

Under such a system, political power would in essence be franchised only to those who are willing to pay the ultimate price.

There'd be no place for statists and that which follows in their wake.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Doesn't it make you wish we could strip all the riches from politicians?

Take away their monetary power and then we'd see what those people are really made of... Nothing!

It's strength of character and courage to stand up for your morals, beliefs, it's loyalty, honor, dedication and discipline we need governing the USA (Nations of the World) and representing the People - NOT the one with the most pork-barrel backers.

peace



[edit on 2-7-2010 by silo13]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It takes balls, and it's also incredibly stupid.

I don't really admire them for killing eachother.

I also wouldn't want to insult them either.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
Doesn't it make you wish we could strip all the riches from politicians?



No. I am not into 'wealth redistribution'.

But our politicians and state employees are overpaid.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Awesome thread and title!

We went from honor and dignity, where you're family's name was worth you're life to broken homes and single parents who want to party.

Back in the day...

"how did you're father die?"

"He died defending my mother from a slanderous crook"

Nowadays...

"I don't know where my father is, mom said he is a deadbeat"

How societies change. It is not by accident.

Two people wanting to settle their differences man to man will both end up in jail now. I think the above shows us that the government has encroached on EVERY facet of our lives. Liberty was more than a word then, not something to cry about to one another how it is being eroded everyday (the irony). They would have marched into the white house whether anyone followed or not.

I wish I had those balls to die for liberty...I do not, I am selfish and want good food, my girlfriend and all the nice things in life. Just being honest.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by SmokeandShadow]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


As another poster stated weapons back when were hardly accurate, especially the handguns.
Nowadays our small pistols are more accurate than their rifles were.
Now if the duel were with fists I’m all in.
Guns should be for defense, hunting and non fatal sporting.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


i agree, except

if they lived today they wouldn't be dueling.

our fire arms are way more powerful and well, no idiot is going to try and duel really, less they wanna die.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


The person challenged gets to chose the weapons.

I doubt they would want to be shot at by an assault rife or a grenade launcher. Such a duel would result in mutually assured destruction.

*But consider that a good and honourable man might consider it worth mutual annihilation to prevent a bad man from doing more evil deeds and harming even more people - where there is no other alternatives to stop him, of course.


[edit on 2-7-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I think honor among men isn't dead quite yet, I have met a few true souls who wouldn't run from a duel today. It sure took a beating during the Civil War though - marching straight into a line of blazing rifle and cannon (Pickett's charge).
For the most part we have changed and not for the better. When you can no longer take a man at his word or make a deal over a handshake then we have lost something greater than we know, our honor.
Indeed, those me of yore had balls. Of course they had real ladies to defend back then too (it's not just men that have changed! : sorry ladies if I have offended you - this is a gross over-generalization).



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
[edit on 2-7-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
what ever happened to a good ole fashion a** whoopin? I'd rather take that rout then shoot it out.

Andrew Jackson was a piece anyway, I'd give him a good ole fashion whoopin for the way he treated the Cherokees.

Nothing honorable about that man



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
what ever happened to a good ole fashion a** whoopin? I'd rather take that rout then shoot it out.

Andrew Jackson was a piece anyway, I'd give him a good ole fashion whoopin for the way he treated the Cherokees.

Nothing honorable about that man


I am opposed to violence. I am a man of logic. I am also a large man, so i work VERY hard to try to keep from intimidating people.

But there are times when logic will not work. For me, that hasn't happened in so long that i cannot remember. Pacifism is very easy for me.


This is a good thread. And i think Exuberant1 makes some outstanding points. Why should men who are not willing to die for what they do be able to send our sons into battle to die? They just don't seem to have any skin in the game.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
An email I received regarding the founding fathers:

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured. Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join