Hey @caroljsroth, I was just listening to your podcast with @JesseKellyDC and I wanted correct some errors concerning the Dickinson/Jackson duel of 1806. I am working on my PhD thesis related to Jackson and host the @AgeofJacksonPod. 1/

The origins of their feud begin not with Rachel Jackson’s honor, but rather over horseracing. Jackson was a horseracing enthusiast, as were most southern gentlemen of the planter class. Cutting a long story short, it comes down to money. 2/
Basically, Dickinson was in on a bet against Jackson’s horse but withdrew and paid the forfeit. The problem is rumors began to fly that Jackson wasn’t thrilled about this, because they apparently wanted to use promissory notes as payment. 3/
Things start to get very testy between the two men are insults are exchanged and circulate around Nashville. Eventfully things get even more public when all this gets published in the newspapers, with the two calling each other cowards more or less. 4/
So, what about Rachel? That’s the funny thing, Rachel is not mentioned in any of the newspapers and in the letters between the men and their associates leading up to the duel. I’m not saying it was not a contributing factor, but it hard to find solid evidence for it. 5/
James Patron, Jackson's first professional biographer points to it, but from what we have in the Papers of Andrew Jackson collections are more about the horse racing drama and the insults being exchanged. 6/
As for how many men Dickinson had fought in a duel, the claim that Dickinson fought 27 duels is completely false as far as I can tell. Much like Jackson’s dueling numbers, my guess is they have been grossly exaggerated by the internet. 7/
It is true that he was a respected marksmen. Check out his letter, pretty cool I think. 8/
And here is Jackson with his infamous large coat to hide his slim frame. The man was incredibly skinny, look how slender his uniform was. 9/
Anyway, sorry for being "that guy" on the internet but I gotta use this knowledge for something. Enjoy and I hope you found this helpful. 10/10.

More from Culture

You May Also Like

Ivor Cummins has been wrong (or lying) almost entirely throughout this pandemic and got paid handsomly for it.

He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...


... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:


Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.

Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9


Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."

I wonder why...

Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x


Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.

Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?