When reading about future First-Frat Boy G.W. Bush’s “Please don’t kill me!” routine as he did just that to Karla Faye Tucker, I wondered (again) how many US presidents have personally taken another life. Guv. Dubya wouldn’t count, nor would his dad for his role as C in C during Desert Storm: what I mean is killing as an individual; as father Bush did when he strafed that lifeboat as a naval aviator. Truman can’t qualify by either ordering the A-bomb in WWII, or by yelling “fire” as an artilery officer in WWI. As I go through my limited bios of presidents, I come up with Cleveland as sheriff/hangman in Albany, NY; Jackson the duelist, and maybe Teddy Roosevelt in the Spanish American War. My main curiosity stems from the whoe Alpha-male issue that came up during Monica-gate. If sexual adventurism is a leadership trait, isn’t the willingness, nay, the gut urge to spill blood another?
To her fair works did Nature link / The human soul that through me ran; And much it grieved my heart to think, What man has made of man
“In other news today, the President was arrested for murder. We’ll have more on that tomorrow night, or you could always just turn to another channel…hmm? Oh. Do NOT turn to another channel.”
George Washington, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Jackson, and Ulysses Grant served as infantry officers in combat and presumedly had the opportunity to kill enemy soldiers. James Monroe, John Tyler, and James Buchanon served in the field but I don’t know if they saw actual combat. John Kennedy was a PT boat commander in WWII and saw combat but I don’t know if he personally killed anyone. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford also served in the Navy in WWII but Nixon served on a transport ship and Ford served on an aircraft carrier so it’s unlikely either of them killed any enemies personally.
There were other presidents who served during wartime but I’m assuming any who had a staff job or a high rank was unlikely to have personally killed anyone. (Washington, Jackson, and Grant all served in combat at lower ranks before becoming generals.) So the only president who almost certainly killed in combat appears to be Bush.
I would have assumed that Eisenhower, as a career soldier, would have had the opportunity to kill in combat, but according to this biography I was wrong. He spent the period of the First World War in the US and by the time of World War II was too senior to be in action.
What’s all this about Bush killing someone. Are we talking about the former pres or his son? Who did he kill? Who is Karla Faye Tucker? What do you mean by “father Bush did when he strafed that lifeboat as a naval aviator”?
As someone who’s concerned about having his right-hand man lose the office for you, Bill, you should be a little more up-to-date on his opponents.
We’re talking about the present governor of Texas, Geo. W. Bush, whose present tally of executions totals 111.
I don’t want to start any debates about the death penalty on this thread, but I certainly don’t want a man who’s overseen 20% of the total executions performed since it was reinstated sitting in the Oval Office…
You guys are forgetting Abe Lincoln who served as an officer in the Indian wars. He was certainly in a position to kill personally although I dunno of any source that specifically says he did.
I’d disagree on Truman too. Pointing a cannon at someone and touching it off sounds pretty homicidal to me.
President George Bush was a pilot during WWII and shot down enemy aircraft.
Karla Faye Tucker was a woman in Texas who helped commit a fairly brutal murder and was sentenced to death. While awaiting execution, she underwent a religious conversion and supposedly became very remourseful about her crime. The decision as to whether to commute her sentence to life imprisonment or continue with her execution was a big controversy. Texas Governor (and current presidential candidate) George Bush decided to let her be executed. Later in a moment of tastlessness, he supposedly did an impression of her dying moments.
Lincoln and Truman both served in the field. Lincoln served in the militia during an Indian uprising and Truman served in an artillery unit during WWI. Both men were in a position were they could have seen combat but due to circumstances neither one actually did so.
I apologize to those who replied to my inquiry for not stating my question clearly. The military service records of men who would go on to become president is not relevant; only a fraction of those in uniform ever see combat and, from what I’ve heard, only a fraction of those who do experience combat actually kill any enemy soldiers.
And please let me clarify what I meant regarding killing vs. ordering others to kill. I meant the actual operation of taking another life, without any middlemen. Unless he himself pulled the lanyard in W.W.I, this still disqualifies Harry Truman. However, Grover Cleveland, as I understand, personally spring the trap as he hung two men as sheriff in Buffalo (not Albany), NY.
But, as Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor confirms, Andy Jackson, as a duelist, was the only future president who killed anyone outside the call of duty in its strictest sense. I suppose you could call defending one’s personal honor a form of duty, and, in a frontier environment, perhaps a necessity, but I recall the story where A.J., himself wounded by his opponent’s first shot, re-composed himself deliberately shot his rival in the groin.
So we come up with one homicidal maniac, and 41 others content with copulation and poker. Maybe a higher percentage of killers than in the population at large
To her fair works did Nature link / The human soul that through me ran; And much it grieved my heart to think, What man has made of man
What’s the contradiction here? Isn’t killing the other guy the idea in dueling?
I wouldn’t say Old Hickory was a homicidal maniac; he didn’t kill people for fun, as far as I know. Based on the above example, I’d say he had a pair of big brass ones, though.
DHR
Why must I feel like that/Why must I chase the cat?/Nothin’ but the dog in me.–George Clinton
George Bush the ex-prez admitted in his autobiographing to shooting Japanese sailors in the watre after their ship waqs sinking. This is not only not following orders, it is in direct violation of a military code and is punishable as a war crime.
My view is that this makes GB a murderer, not a warrior.
Of course, winning sides don’t have war criminals, and America would never elect an admitted war criminal to be prez, right?
I don’t think so. I believe the idea is to avenge your honour, and the fear of injury will lead you to not insult another person lightly. My impression is that duels are supposed to end after the first serious wound.
To supplement the matter of Andrew Jacskon here–and I will grant that he had a trigger-temper and often enough acted rashly, to say the least:
The woman he married was Rachel Robards, married at the time–1791–to a very abusive man. She petitioned the Virginia legislature, which granted her the right to sue for a divorce. She and Andrew mistakenly understood this to be a divorce decree, and married in Natchez, MS, in 1791. Within two years after that, however, they found that she was actually still Robards’ wife, so they finalized the divorce procedure and, to eliminate any doubts, had a second marriage ceremony at Jackson’s estate, the Hermitage in TN. Jackson, naturally, didn’t care to be reminded of this–God knows how many times–and would challenged the man attacking Rachel’s honor to a duel, which at that time was apparently legal.
Anyway, Rachel herself was killed by this, by the campaign staff of incumbent President John Quincy Adams in the 1828 campaign. Andy did his damndest to keep this campaign gossip away from her, but it was too widespread. She suffered a nervous breakdown–and she was about 62 at the time–and died on December 28, 1832. Jackson was inaugurated the following March 4; he likely was the saddest man to enter the White House.)
The foregoing should mitigate Jackson’s reputation as a ‘killer.’
“I wouldn’t say Old Hickory was a homicidal maniac; he didn’t kill people for fun, as far as I know. Based on the above example, I’d say he had a pair of big brass ones, though.”
He massacred a shit load of Indians tho. They named Jacksonville Fla after him, cause he freed up so much land. He was also very frail physically, skinny as a stick - no wonder he was so trigger happy.
Also the above mentioned divorce scandal is interesting in that it rivaled any Monica-gate scandal of today. Witnesses came forward to say that they had seen them “in bed” together in a hotel before they were married - others claimed they were just sitting together on the bed. Does any of this hair-splitting sound familiar??
As to GB Sr., nice to know it wasn’t just his conspiring with enemies of the state (Iranians) that might have landed him in the noose. Oh well, too late for that.
“Divorce scandal,” Rob Roy? Did you forget that I said Rachel mistook the ruling the Virginia State Legislature issued her for a divorce decree? Until she and Andrew found otherwise they thought she was legally divorced from Robards. And when they did find out, they had the divorce finalized and effected a second marriage ceremony. Granted I know that, most likely, Nelson Rockefeller abandoned his attempt to be a Presidential candidate (1968) because he had been divorced, but as far as I am concerned the real scandal would be for Rachel to stay married to Robards. And isn’t it interesting that there was no cloud over Robards’ head about this, the way there was over Andrew Jackson’s?
So Rachel mistook the private bill granting permission to divorce for the divorce decree itself? Perfectly understandable. But maybe the scandal came from the fact that Jackson was a lawyer, and indeed sat as a judge.
In other words, Rachel may not have known any better, but Andy Jackson, Esq., should have.
Back in the fencing days typically some kind of arrangement was reached. First hit causing blood, to the death (highly frowned upon in almost all eras of legal dueling), etc.
In the flintlock pistol days, typically the rules were that if you could take your shot you were allowed to. So, it is quite possible for a person to be hit, but superficially and then take their shot in return. To get hit seriously and still take your shot is within the typical rules and certainly show a lot of spunk! In fact, I distinctly remember reading a long time ago, that one duelist would always let the opponent shoot first as they would be likely to miss. Then he could take his time to aim.
Also note, typically, in pistol duels if both parties miss, they reload and start again.
Jackson was inaugurated the following March 4; he likely was the saddest man to enter the White House.)