Missouri Legal Last Will And Testament Form For A Married Person With No Children: Fill & Download for Free

Actress Jennifer Lawrence poses for photographers upon arrival at the premiere of the film 'Red Sparrow' in London, Monday, Feb. 19, 2018. (Photo by Joel C Ryan/Invision/AP)By John Serba | [email protected] Oscars are nigh, and with it, one of the strongest batches of best actress nominees in recent memory: Saoirse Ronan (“Lady Bird”), Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water”), Margot Robbie (“I, Tonya”), Meryl Streep (“The Post”) and Frances McDormand (“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”). In acknowledgment and celebration of that, here’s a ranked list of the 25 best working actresses in Hollywood – and 15 runners-up for good measure.25. Penelope CruzShe emerged as a teenager in “Jamon Jamon” and Oscar-winning Spanish dramedy “Belle Epoque,” then quickly became director Pedro Almodovar’s muse: “All About My Mother,” “Broken Embraces” and “Volver.” Ohhhhhh, “Volver” – I pause to slowly exhale, because she’s a femme-tornado here, and while the story involves ghosts casually mingling with the living, the most supernatural thing in the movie must be Cruz’s performance, which is candid, bold and seductive. She was shoehorned into American films with middling success, although turns in “Blow,” “All the Pretty Horses” and, especially, “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” stand out. One of her future roles is in “Love Child,” directed by Todd Solondz, a pairing of filmmaker and actress that raises one eyebrow, and then the other eyebrow, and just might be Cruz’s return to form.24. Sally HawkinsIf not for “The Shape of Water,” Hawkins might be an outsider looking in at this list. I’m not sure who else could play a mute woman who falls in love with an amphibious man-fish, and not make it feel alienating to the audience. Such a thing requires almost superhuman warmth, empathy and humanity, to emphasize the love from within a strange thing – and we are strange things, sitting in the audience, feeling her own heartache and unspoken tragedy. She emerged previously in “Happy-Go-Lucky,” playing a flighty free spirit taking driving lessons from a tightly wound Eddie Marsan; she’s the most lovable, sympathetic dingbat I’ve ever experienced in film, an example of character immersion of significant distinction. She’s also the best lightly kooky mom ever in the “Paddington” movies, which delightfully dovetail with her effortless tonal presence.23. Helena Bonham CarterAn auspicious debut it was, as the cherubic and witty Lucy Honeychurch in “A Room with a View,” rendering the film the most lively and lovely of all buttoned-up British period pieces. From there, it was Henry James (“The Wings of the Dove”) and Shakespeare (“Hamlet”) and E.M. Forster (“Howards End”) and Chuck Palahniuk (“Fight Club”), and one of these marks a shift. Hm. Which could it be?Carter’s Marla in “Fight Club” scuzzed up a career of prim propriety, and it was delectable, ugly and gloriously warped. It ushered in the second half of her career, rife with oddities, primarily as the most interesting performances in husband Tim Burton’s films, be they good or bad: “Sweeney Todd,” “Big Fish,” “Dark Shadows,” “Alice in Wonderland,” even “Planet of the Apes,” where she was the standout among so much monkeying around. She’s also the “Harry Potter” Character Most Deserving a Spinoff Movie or Three, the tantalizingly deranged Bellatrix Lestrange. I love HBC without measure, and anticipate another eccentric performance in the upcoming “Ocean’s 8.”22. Octavia SpencerSpencer is the mistress of the weed-whacker one-liner, able to cut down whatever’s in front of her with razor precision. When her eyes widen, it’s either in wonder, or foreshadowing a withering takedown. Her most famous KO came when she delivered that pie full of you-know-what to Bryce Dallas Howard in “The Help,” and walked off with an Oscar, ending a long career of bit roles here and there. She’s exceptional in “Fruitvale Station” and “Snowpiercer,” and is brilliant as a weary, but resilient NASA computer programmer in “Hidden Figures.” Most recently, with “The Shape of Water,” she showed us that a comic-relief role doesn’t need to be thankless, and in fact can be absolutely necessary. She’s one of the funniest people in film, and makes it look so effortless.21. Rachel WeiszMost know Weisz from two “Mummy” movies, and possibly for winning an Oscar thanks to a gripping performance in “The Constant Gardener.” But she’s quietly put together an impressively diverse filmography: “About a Boy,” “Runaway Jury,” “The Fountain,” “The Brothers Bloom”; recently, she’s provided significant supporting turns in overlooked films such as “The Light Between Oceans” and “Youth,” and deftly walked the line between dramatic heartbreak and oddball comedy in “The Lobster.” Her work is terribly underrated. Is it too late to give her a Dern-ish role in the next “Star Wars”?20. Jessica ChastainOf all actresses emerging in the last decade, Chastain is one of the best at finding the sweet spot between prestige work and mainstream accessibility. Supporting work in “The Debt,” “Take Shelter” and “The Tree of Life” established her talent, preceding her Oscar-nominated role in “The Help,” in which she showed nuance when the film literally put poop in the pie. Since then, she anchored “Zero Dark Thirty” with her credibility, and wasn’t given her due for the unfairly scorned “Crimson Peak.” And her confidence and detailed character work shined in 2017’s “Molly’s Game,” supported by a rich Aaron Sorkin script.19. Sigourney WeaverShe was, is, and always will be Ripley, an all-time-great cinema icon of feminine toughness. If you are a massive, hissing, slime-drooling queen creature with a little mouth inside your bigger mouth, you will not get between Sigourney and her surrogate daughter. You will eat the cold and unforgiving void, you b----. Of course, there’s also “Ghostbusters,” “Working Girl,” “Gorillas in the Mist,” “The Ice Storm,” “Galaxy Quest” and probably a dozen other career highlights (let’s say “Avatar” is one, considering she’s currently shooting foursequels). She’s also a recent recipient of a Great Performance in a Movie Nobody Saw award, playing a tough-love grandmother who softens under the weight of her daughter’s cancer treatments in “A Monster Calls.”18. Charlize TheronShe won an Oscar playing a real-life serial killer in “Monster,” and simmered with righteous feminist fury in “Mad Max: Fury Road.” But Theron’s best performance is so terribly overlooked, all of you who skipped it – too many of you – should be incarcerated: “Young Adult.” Her characterization of a delusional woman trying to worm her way back into the life of her now-married-with-children ex-boyfriend is so exquisitely modulated, it breaks our hearts and makes us laugh at precisely the same time. And let’s not overlook the gritty “North Country,” or a kickass cold-steel action turn in “Atomic Blonde,” or her recurring role on TV’s “Arrested Development” (all together now: “Mr. F!”), which is one of the funniest things of the 21stcentury, on any screen, big or small.17. Emily BluntAs the embattled personal assistant to a viciously Streeping Meryl Streep in “The Devil Wears Prada,” Blunt was a revelation, vicious but vulnerable, the movie’s unheralded champion. Yes, I said that, and I mean it, and I’ll stand by it. She was the best thing by far in sci-fi films “The Adjustment Bureau” and “Looper,” as well as the musical “Into the Woods.” She overshadows Tom Cruise’s charisma playing a tough-as-nails superheroic alien-eradicator in “Edge of Tomorrow.” She shows a knack for light comedy in “The Five-Year Engagement.”She’s a naive FBI agent in a shadowy black-ops unit in “Sicario,” providing a wide-eyed avenue for our own confusion and frustration with what happens outside the gaze of mainstream international law enforcement. She’s also sneakily brilliant in the soapy trash of “The Girl on the Train,” where she lets loose and gets wild and intense, and renders a very dumb movie quite riveting at times. Next, Blunt will play Mary Poppins in a sequel we didn’t really ask for, until we found out Blunt is playing Mary Poppins, and now, hey, maybe we want it.16. Laura Linney“You Can Count On Me”: it’s Linney’s greatest performance among many great performances, as well as a mantra for her career. “The Truman Show” was her true breakthrough, and she’s extraordinary in “Kinsey,” “The Squid and the Whale,” “The Savages” and “Mystic River,” which showcase an actress of vibrant character. She makes less-memorable projects more so – “Nocturnal Animals,” “Hyde Park on Hudson” and, curiously, amusingly, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows,” in which she doesn’t deliver her lines with a straight face, and it’s the perfectly timed elbow in the ribs we need to remind us we’re watching a movie about turtles that are also teenagers that happen to be ninjas.But back to “You Can Count On Me,” in which her single mother’s viciously kempt life is upended by the arrival of her just as viciously unkempt brother played by Mark Ruffalo, who goes toe-to-toe with Kinney in nuance and commitment to character – the film proves she’s a talent to be treasured.15. Helen MirrenShe sure seems born to play the effing Queen, or color the sprawling ensemble in a fastidious period drama like “Gosford Park,” or anchor countless Shakespeare adaptations. But I love how a silly thing like “RED” gets damn serious when Helen Mirren shows up neatly coiffed in a designer dress and hauling around a machine gun the size of Florida. “The Debt,” “The Last Station,” “The Queen”; “Calendar Girls,” “Trumbo,” “Hitchcock,” and, sure, why not, “The Fate of the Furious” – she brings dramatic heft to all of it. She really is great as the effing Queen, which scored her an Oscar, and I love her as The Wife in “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover,” the sympathetic face of one of the scariest and most grotesque films I’ve ever seen. P.S. Don’t judge her because she was in “Caligula.”14. Greta GerwigFew people in movies are funnier than Gerwig, who balances elevated wit with an almost-tactile emotional realism. “Frances Ha,” “Mistress America” and “20thCentury Women” are Gerwig at her best; her work in “Greenberg” and “Maggie’s Plan” is almost as brilliant. And her distinctive affectations are all over writing/directing effort “Lady Bird,” even though she’s behind the camera. If she ever sells out to play a superhero, I’ll eat the moon on a low-fat Ritz cracker.13. Julianne MooreI first noticed her in 1993’s “Short Cuts,” and not just because she’s the focal point of an utterly fearless nude scene. It’s frankly shocking Moore didn’t win an Oscar for more than two decades after that, in 2015 for playing an academic afflicted with Alzheimer’s in “Still Alice” – she could’ve, should’ve, won several times before, for two Todd Haynes films, “Safe” and “Far From Heaven,” her greatest, most empathetic and complex performances. Or for playing a veteran porn star in “Boogie Nights,” or for Annette Bening’s foil in “The Kids are All Right,” or for enduring supporting turns in “Children of Men” or “The Hours” or “Magnolia” or “A Single Man.” Moore’s career is surely among Hollywood’s most prolific – she sure seems game for any challenge, be it silly or substantial – and even in lesser films such as “Crazy, Stupid, Love.”, “The Shipping News” or “Chloe,” she provides a credible dramatic foundation for the rest of the cast.Oh, and she’s also Maude Lebowski in “The Big Lebowski,” in which she exercises her great comedic and satirical chops. It’s not the kind of character who inspires the gifting of statuettes, but for the rest of the wide, open world outside that bubble, it’s probably her greatest performance.12. Laura DernDern wedged her way into my heart as the wonderfully loony Bonnie-type to Nicolas Cage’s Clyde-type in “Wild at Heart” – and never left. Few could so seamlessly merge from David Lynch to “Jurassic Park” like she did, a testament to her versatility. She’s just as wild in Alexander Payne’s satirical shredder “Citizen Ruth” (which you probably haven’t seen – time to correct that). A relatively quiet period in the 2000s preceded a recent flurry of strong roles in “The Fault in Our Stars,” “Certain Women,” “Wilson” and an obscurity called “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” And her recent TV work in “Twin Peaks” and “Big Little Lies” is as strong as anything she did for the big screen.11. Michelle WilliamsHit TV series “Dawson’s Creek” made her famous, but it never reflected her true interest. So Williams never looked back, challenging herself with roles in which she radiated truth and sincerity. The biggest was “Brokeback Mountain,” the first of her four Oscar nominations; the second was “Blue Valentine,” the third was “My Week with Marilyn” and the fourth, “Manchester by the Sea.” (Yes, her Marilyn Monroe is absolutely magnetic.) Her resume only gets richer from there: her work with director Kelly Reichardt yielded great authenticity in “Wendy and Lucy,” “Meek’s Cutoff” and “Certain Women.” For my money, her work in Sarah Polley’s “Take This Waltz” is her most endearing and complex. She has softened for the occasional mainstream picture, lending grace to otherwise graceless stuff such as “The Greatest Showman” and “Oz the Great and Powerful.”10. Saoirse RonanExhibit A: “Atonement”; at 13, she found the place between childhood and adolescence that’s often a cliché in movies, but made it intense and a little haunted. Exhibit B: “Brooklyn”; in a movie that’s smart, sweet, funny and quietly assertive, she’s all of these things at once, effortlessly so, and creates a lovely, lovely character. Exhibit C: “Lady Bird,” the funniest coming-of-age comedy in a long time (OK, 2016’s “The Edge of Seventeen” is just as funny), stars her as high-school senior who’s awkward and rebellious in all the least obvious ways, and her timing for comedy and capacity for pathos are astonishing. I can’t come up with arguments why she shouldn’t win/have won Oscars for all these. She’s also brilliant in “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” fiercely committed in “Hanna” and charismatic in the otherwise maligned “The Lovely Bones.” She’s 24. What have you done lately?9. Amy AdamsA dozen years since she stole our hearts in “Junebug” and landed her first Oscar nomination, Adams has added four more Academy nods: “American Hustle,” “The Master,” “The Fighter,” “Doubt.” I’ll correct the glaring inadequacies in that track record by giving her the Oscar for “The Master” – she’s terrifying as the true person of power in that story – and adding nominations for “Arrival,” one of the most glaring snubs of the last decade, and “Enchanted,” in which she’s a delightfully un-self-aware Disney princess naif. Few of her generation are so talented.8. Lupita Nyong'oHer breakthrough was unforgettable: As Patsey, the horribly abused slave in “12 Years a Slave,” she ripped our hearts out, and won probably the most deserving Oscar of the last decade. Too many overlooked her extraordinary turn in “Queen of Katwe” as an impoverished mother protecting her children on the streets of Uganda – a role that deserved an Oscar. And she recently proved her mettle in mainstream fare with a significant role in “Black Panther,” one of the most important, credible and thematically complex blockbusters in recent memory. Nyong'o has made the most of every moment she's on screen. Few have such a bright career ahead.7. Jennifer LawrenceFrankly, her most high-profile stuff is the least of Lawrence’s work, and she’s still pretty great – the “X-Men” movies criminally underuse her, and she made sure we still cared what happened to Katniss in “The Hunger Games,” even when the final two movies fell apart around her. She very much deserved becoming everyone’s favorite actress after earning an Oscar nod for “Winter’s Bone,” and winning one for “Silver Linings Playbook.” Her “science oven” bit in “American Hustle” is one of the funniest scenes of the last decade. And she recently challenged herself mightily in the love-it-or-hate-it psychological horror nightmare “Mother!” (note: I loved it, and she had a lot to do with me loving it).6. Viola DavisDavis is one of the new greats, a powerhouse channeling righteous sincerity into her roles. She toiled thanklessly for years before she stole scenes out from under Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Doubt.” Then she was the earnest heart of “The Help.” Both earned her Oscar nods, but she wouldn’t win until “Fences” cast her as the long-suffering wife of Denzel Washington’s impossible, philandering garbage man – a performance blending exasperation and love like few others. She’s currently attached to a Harriet Tubman biography, which isn’t even in production yet; can we buy our tickets now anyway?5. Frances McDormand“Fargo":I could stop right there and move on and you’d all nod your heads in agreement. It’s the single greatest performance by any living creature in the last half-century of film, and if that seems like hyperbole, think again. My police work on this case is indelible there, Lou. Her other work with the Coen Bros. (she’s married to Joel) is smaller, supporting, and nearly as brilliant: “The Man Who Wasn’t There,” “Hail, Caesar!,” “Burn After Reading,” “Raising Arizona” and, of course, “Blood Simple.” Outside that hallowed canon are significant turns in “Mississippi Burning,” “Laurel Canyon,” “Short Cuts,” “Wonder Boys,” “Almost Famous,” “Moonrise Kingdom” and TV’s “Olive Kitteredge” (I know, it’s the small screen, but the miniseries is essentially four short films, meticulously directed by Lisa Cholodenko). And her utterly dominant performance in “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” is a poignant portrait of grief and anger for our times.4. Tilda SwintonWhether it’s a mega-budget studio tentpole or an arthouse indie, Swinton makes any movie she’s in at least 32 percent weirder. That’s a fact supported by science and things. Well, in the last decade, at least. Also early in her career, before she was internationally famous, although the projects themselves were also weird.It’s during that last decade, since she won an Oscar for playing a very, very quietly sociopathic corporate suit in “Michael Clayton,” that she’s really let the strange loose: The garishly garbed and made-up head of a future-world food manufacturer – and her twin! – in “Okja.” Or grandiose grotesques in “The Grand Budapest Hotel” and “Snowpiercer,” the latter showcasing her scene-stealing at its funniest, craziest and most committed.And yet, her sincerity is on its own performative plane too, as the mother of a budding young psychopath in “We Need to Talk about Kevin,” as a Bowiesque androgynous rock star vacationing with troublesome old friends in “A Bigger Splash,” and as an unfulfilled showpiece wife and mother in “I Am Love” (the latter two directed by Luca Guadagnino); these are her three most significant works. She’s even commanding as the White Witch in “The Chronicles of Narnia” and as a magickal guru in “Doctor Strange.” Next, she’ll star in Guadagnino’s “Suspiria” remake. The role ultimately doesn’t matter for Swinton – she’s unpredictable and enthralling regardless. We should look forward to her future works with great interest.3. Meryl StreepOf course we love Streep. Who doesn’t love Streep? The Academy loves Streep – she has 21 Oscar nominations, give or take several hundred, and three wins, give or take a dozen. “Kramer vs. Kramer,” “Sophie’s Choice,” “The Deer Hunter,” “Out of Africa,” “The River Wild,” “The Bridges of Madison County.” I know a list of titles isn’t a sentence, but they are when they’re Streep movies.Her best films to my eye are “Postcards from the Edge” and “Adaptation.” Her most recent nomination, “The Post,” is her best work of the past 15 years. Even her voiceover work in “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is dialed in tight for comedy. And don’t ever, ever forget: the dingo took her baby.Streep is often guilty of something I call Streeping, in which she plays big and goes over the top, frequently with crazy, finely tuned accents: “The Devil Wears Prada,” “Julie and Julia,” “Doubt,” “August: Osage County,” “Florence Foster Jenkins.” Then again, tell me she still isn’t great when she’s Streeping, which is simultaneously infuriating and entertaining and kind of bewildering in its multifaceted display of talent. There is no one like Streep, and there will never be another one like Streep.2. Kate WinsletFour of Winslet’s first five roles are as follows: “Sense and Sensibility” (Austen), “Jude” (Hardy), “Hamlet” (Shakespeare) and “Heavenly Creatures,” in which she plays an obsessive, murderous teen. Then came “Titanic,” in which she found a way to make us fall in love with her despite being required to recite James Cameron’s cornball dialogue. Her subsequent work in the few years after the boat sank was offbeat, must-see stuff despite their ambition sometimes outsizing the final product: “Hideous Kinky,” “Holy Smoke,” “Quills,” “Iris.”Then she made “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” her greatest performance and role, funny and heartbreaking, idiosyncratic and so, so humane. She anchors the tragedy in “Finding Neverland,” hones incisive satire in “Little Children,” is luminescent in glossy comedy “The Holiday.” She goes deep and dark in “The Reader” (which earned her an Oscar, on her sixth nomination), and finds a different shade of deep and dark in “Revolutionary Road.” Todd Haynes’ TV miniseries “Mildred Pierce” is five-and-a-half remarkable hours of Emmy, SAG and Golden Globe-winning Winslet work. She loses herself in character in “Steve Jobs” and brandishes a mean needle in “The Dressmaker.”All of this speaks for itself, doesn’t it?1. Cate BlanchettHow many tours-de-force can a person have? One can’t imagine any other actress commanding the screen in “Carol,” “Blue Jasmine,” “Elizabeth” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” like Blanchett. She gave new shades of nastiness and complexity to the evil stepmother in 2015’s “Cinderella.” She’s ruthless as the villain in underrated action movie “Hanna.” She’s the most riveting of all iterations of Bob Dylan in “I’m Not There.” She does much, much more than an impression of Katherine Hepburn in “The Aviator.” She brings an eerie, ethereal presence to the “Lord of the Rings” and “Hobbit” films as the elf queen Galadriel. She’s extraordinary as the foil to Judi Dench in “Notes on a Scandal.” I even enjoyed her turn as a nasty Nazi in “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” and as a scenery-chewing villain in “Thor: Raganarok” – silly movies made better by her presence. I could go on. It’s hard to argue that she isn’t the best in the business.The next 15:Annette BeningYou no doubt didn’t see “20thCentury Women.” Hardly anyone did. Go watch it, and tell me Bening doesn’t make it look easy. While you’re at it, revisit “The Kids are All Right.” And “The Grifters.” And recognize how she takes a relatively thankless role in “Open Range” and makes it deeper, richer. Don’t forget, her vicious self is still the best thing about “American Beauty,” which otherwise hasn’t aged well.Mary J. BligeThe superstar soul singer has a limited acting resume – a Tyler Perry movie, a small part in “Rock of Ages,” a handful of TV bit parts – but blossomed mightily in “Mudbound,” earning an Oscar nomination. More Mary in movies, please.Sandra BullockBullock is a warm, agreeable screen presence even in a career full of formulaic films (“A Time to Kill,” “The Proposal,” etc.). Recently, she tackled her most challenging role in “Gravity,” and was never funnier than in “The Heat” – two projects that boosted her credibility. Anchoring the upcoming “Ocean’s 8” seems like a perfect fit.Judi DenchIf you want some command presence, Dench is your go-to star. Her Oscar was earned with only eight minutes of screen time as Queen Elizabeth in “Shakespeare in Love,” which speaks significantly of her ability to make the most of only a few lines. I prefer her rich, complex work in “Philomena,” which is a rare leading role for Dench – she’s likely the greatest character actress, memorable in so many supporting parts in so many movies, it’s impossible to list them all, from “A Room With a View” to the recent remake of “Murder on the Orient Express,” with many stops along the way as M in the James Bond franchise.Salma HayekHer passion project, playing artist Frida Kahlo in “Frida,” is a tremendous work. Early roles in “Desperado” and “From Dusk Till Dawn” are terrific, and has shown a recent knack for stealing scenes in comedies (“The Hitman’s Bodyguard,” and she was uproariously funny on TV’s “30 Rock”).Taraji P. HensonShe’s not an above-the-title superstar, although she should be – her grace and quiet charisma guaranteed “Hidden Figures” was a creative success, and she’s unforgettable in “Hustle and Flow.” She earned an Oscar nod for strong supporting work in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” It seems as if Henson hasn’t earned the acclaim she deserves.Scarlett JohanssonJohansson is such a movie star in the classical sense, it’s easy to forget how great an actress she was, so early in her career: “Lost in Translation,” “Girl with the Pearl Earring,” “Ghost World,” “The Man Who Wasn’t There.” “Match Point” and “Vicky Christina Barcelona” only boosted her credibility. Of course, now she’s the superhero Black Widow, which overshadows everything, including her greatest work: as a terrifying, man-eating alien in “Under the Skin,” and as the voice – just the voice! – of an artificially intelligent computer in “Her.”Brie LarsonShe won a well-deserved Oscar for some grueling, intense work in “Room,” but the microbudget indie “Short Term 12” is so alive, so real, thanks to her performance. Other highlights? She’s funny in “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” and buoyant in “21 Jump Street” and hopefully will bring significant femme cred to the Marvel Cinematic Universe when she headlines “Captain Marvel.”Carey MulliganShe knocked us out as a nightclub songstress in “Shame,” was viciously funny in “Inside Llewyn Davis,” was a vital, warm presence in “Drive” and carried great dramatic weight in “Never Let Me Go” and “Mudbound.” But “An Education” is her triumph, her turn as a teen dating an older gentleman in 1960s London landing her an Oscar nomination – which should have been an Oscar win.Natalie Portman“Black Swan” – hold on – yes – I just checked – it’s still terrifying. It’s destined to be her creative high point, eclipsing her extraordinary work in “Closer” and “V for Vendetta,” and as a youngster in “Beautiful Girls” and “Leon: The Professional.” Her projects have been uneven the past several years, although her take on Jackie Kennedy in “Jackie” and some gritty work in “Annihilation” show an upward trend.Margot RobbieShe was a wrecking ball in “The Wolf of Wall Street,” which is as audacious a breakthrough as any star has ever enjoyed. She turned cracked corn into popcorn as Jane in “The Legend of Tarzan,” was far stronger than her material in “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot," and was formidable in "Suicide Squad" despite every other aspect of the movie being a fright. And of course, she’s an Oscar nominee now, taking a vivid, trashy turn in “I, Tonya,” and anyone who can make Tonya Harding sympathetic is a person of significant talent.Emma StoneStone is a bright, bright talent, never looking back after being effervescent in a small role in “Superbad.” Playing Billie Jean King in “Battle of the Sexes” might be her heftiest role yet, she anchored “The Help” and, of course, won an easy Oscar for “La La Land.” But “Easy A” is her best, a true lost gem.Marisa TomeiTomei might not be on this list if I hadn’t recently re-watched “My Cousin Vinny,” which made her the least-respected Oscar winner ever. Truth: she’s wonderful in the movie, so effortlessly funny and vibrant, doing everything we don’t expect her to do. She’s also great in “The Wrestler” – her grittiest, richest role – “Slums of Beverly Hills,” “Cyrus,” “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” and “The Lincoln Lawyer.” She has a surprisingly strong body of work.Naomi Watts“Mulholland Drive” was an unforgettable breakthrough for Watts, who would later gain mainstream fame for the horror hit “The Ring.” But film aficionados recognize how she never backs down from a difficult role: “21 Grams,” “King Kong,” “Eastern Promises,” “The Impossible.”Reese WitherspoonFew movie stars enjoy roles perfectly suited to their skill sets, but Witherspoon has at least three: June Carter Cash in “Walk the Line,” Elle Woods in “Legally Blonde” and her funniest and most finely tuned character to date, Tracy Flick in “Election.” The unforgettable, indefatigable Tracy Flick. The utmost Tracy Flick. You get the picture. Also, I’d be doing her a disservice by not mentioning “Wild” or “Mud” or “Pleasantville,” which exhibit the range she so rarely gets recognized for.Honorable mention: Daisy RidleyA strong argument can be made that Ridley is the pivot point for the most astronomically important, pop-culturally relevant franchise in the current cinema: “Murder on the Orient Express.” Joking! But seriously, the new “Star Wars” trilogy hinges on us investing ourselves in the story of Rey, the badass scavenger who becomes a badass Jedi, a character Ridley endows with the conviction and sincerity – and occasional on-point comedic timing – crucial to the movies’ success. So far, so good for her career. Her only other significant part so far was an underwritten supporting turn in “Orient,” so we’ll see if she has the right stuff when she tackles Shakespeare later this year in “Ophelia” – she has the titular role!

DUELING IN EARLY AMERICAViolence as Part of Regime ChangeIt is a dictum of history that, “all revolutions devour their own children.” Any cursory study of the topic appears to bear out this claim. Certainly a pattern of violence notoriously appeared in the French Revolution of the late eighteenth-century, and this pattern was repeated in the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution that followed in the twentieth century. It is logical if regrettable that during a period of major upheaval when a long-standing government has been overturned, and the old channels of power and its expression have been destroyed, that a period of experimental violence would follow as disparate factions grab for dominance and settle old debts. But in America, at least, there was no Reign of Terror; there was no corresponding period of organized domestic violence among our burgeoning political factions.Thomas Jefferson famously said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” But he was remarkably chary with his own. He also supported the bloody excesses of the French Revolution long after his contemporaries had backed away in horror. So here in America, while we clearly had the rhetoric, not so the widespread or politically targeted bloodshed.There are undoubtedly several reasons for this. For one thing, we had a unique viewpoint regarding our politicians and politics. In the beginning, belonging to a party or a faction was actually considered to be just plain wrong. Factions were presumed to be corrupt. Therefore engaging in “politics” was evil, and being called a “politician” was a mortal insult. Men of good conscience and ability were expected to think independently for themselves, be guided by their principles, and then act for the common welfare. Our Constitution was actually written and our government formed with absolutely no conception of political parties. By the same token, for most of our history it was considered wrong to campaign for the presidency. The applicable maxim was, “The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.” Only in the openly venal 20th century did our presidential candidates begin to openly campaign for the job.George Washington never considered himself to be a member of any political party, and he would have been deeply outraged by anyone who suggested otherwise. Today historians classify him as a Federalist because of his beliefs and policies. This general abhorrence of politics and distaste for political faction would certainly have had a dampening effect on the passions of the earliest participants in our political system. But while keeping politics personal might have solved some problems, it would have exacerbated others. In a time when the abstraction of political parties was avoided, or at least viewed with suspicion, a proportionately greater burden would have been borne by the individual. It would have proved difficult, if not impossible, to separate one’s personal persona from a civic persona, or personal honor from a public reputation. What mechanisms existed in the early republic to resolve these challenges to belief and character? The answer was just one—the private duel.History of DuelingDueling had certainly existed in the Colonies long before the War of Independence, and was always the preferred method for gentlemen to settle affairs of honor. In fact, dueling came to our shores along with the pilgrims. The first recorded American duel took place in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1621, between Edward Leicester and Edward Doty, both of whom were actually servants rather than gentlemen. In this particular instance the weapons were swords and both parties were only mildly injured.The rules for dueling were fairly simple, and a code duello with 25 rules was established in Ireland in the 1770s, and widely used here. The injured party chose a “second” to act as a go-between. The second delivered the challenge to the “injurer,” who could apologize at any time and end the matter. Alternatively, the injurer could accept the challenge, in which case he got to pick the weapons, the time, place, and conditions for the duel. His second would meet with the injured party’s second to arrange the details.In America, the dueling weapon of choice was most often the smooth-bore flintlock pistol. Since these weapons were highly inaccurate and prone to misfire, this meant that the chances of anyone being killed were usually pretty slim. Duels were usually not fought to the death. With swords, “first blood” was often considered to be enough to satisfy honor, while with guns a single inconclusive volley was often judged sufficient to end the matter. On the other hand, a severe blow to one’s honor might demand a more drastic outcome, with as many as five volleys or more. And in those days there was an omnipresent threat of septicemia and even a minor wound could prove fatal—so there was inevitably a genuine degree of risk.Famous DuelersAfter the American War of Independence, political, as well as private duels became relatively commonplace. A politician’s personal honor was inseparable from his political reputation, so public attacks, no matter how partisan, often demanded redress upon the field of honor. Samuel Johnson expressed it well: “A man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house.” Many of our most famous political and historical figures fought duels. For example, a signer of the Declaration of Independence named Button Gwinnet was killed in a duel with General Lachlan McIntosh. Three framers of our Constitution were killed in duels—Gwinnet, Richard Dobbs Spaight, and Alexander Hamilton. Dueling was common enough in these early days for both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin to feel compelled to publicly condemn the practice.A famous duel occurred in 1802 between DeWitt Clinton (see below) and John Swartwout, a close friend of Aaron Burr’s.Clinton was challenged by Swartwout, who claimed he had tried to cast aspersions on his good friend Burr. The duel was fought with pistols and went on for five rounds. Swartwout was shot twice, once in the ankle and once in the thigh, but he refused to quit unless Clinton would sign an apology. It ended when Clinton simply refused to shoot any more holes into the wounded man. Swartwout survived and was one of Burr’s seconds in his later duel with Alexander Hamilton. Clinton went on to become the Mayor of New York City and a famous Governor of New York State.Hamilton and BurrThe prototypical American political duel took place on July 11, 1804 between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton has come down to us as the good guy, while Burr is portrayed as the villain of the piece, but the actual details are well worth a closer look. For starters, both participants had a staggering amount in common. At least one historian has suggested that they each viewed the other as his “evil twin,” and the idea bears serious consideration. Both Hamilton and Burr were short, slight, and good looking, and both flattered themselves to be ladies’ men, although Burr undoubtedly had better cause. Both had genuinely distinguished careers as army officers in the War of Independence, both saw more than their share of front line action, and both had served as aides-de-camp to General George Washington. Hamilton stayed in this position for four years, becoming one of Washington’s most trusted advisors, while Burr apparently didn’t get along with the great man and only lasted for two weeks.After the war the two were friends—each had a successful practice as a lawyer in New York City. They moved in the same circles, attended the same parties, dined together, and even occasionally worked the same cases—sometimes in consultation, and sometimes as opposing counsels. In the end it was politics that came between them, with Hamilton founding the Federalist Party, and Burr becoming a prominent Republican. Both were budding financiers—Hamilton founded the Bank of New York, while Burr founded the Bank of the Manhattan Company, which later became the Chase Manhattan Bank. Both men were ambitious over-achievers. Hamilton rose as high as becoming the first Secretary of the Treasury and later was briefly appointed as the commanding general of the United States Army. Burr’s military career peaked as a lieutenant colonel in the Continental Army and he was the third Vice President of the United States.They first fell afoul of each other in 1791, when Burr (see above), then attorney-general of the state of New York, defeated Philip Schuyler, Hamilton’s father-in-law and became the Senator from the same state. In the presidential election of 1800, when Burr was tied with Jefferson in the Electoral College vote, Hamilton intervened. He threw all of his influence against Burr, even though it meant that the House of Representatives then elected Thomas Jefferson as president. Hamilton was the head and founder of the Federalist Party at the time. Since Jefferson was his life-long rival and the head of the opposing Republican Party, Hamilton’s reason for challenging Burr was clearly personal.Even with Hamilton’s help, it took a whopping 36 ballots for Jefferson to defeat Burr for the presidency. When Jefferson did gain the office, Burr became vice president, but Jefferson never trusted him again. Realizing that his future as a Republican was now dim, Burr tried to redeem his political fortunes by running for the governorship of New York. He was resoundingly beaten by a complete unknown, largely due to a smear campaign launched by Hamilton. Burr’s patience was already wearing thin when he was informed that Hamilton (see below) had expressed a “despicable” opinion of him. This, by the standards of the day, was unforgivable.Burr wrote repeatedly to Hamilton asking for an explanation of this remark. It was well understood by all that a failure to produce a satisfactory explanation or an apology would result in a duel. No one was more aware of the consequences than Hamilton—just three years earlier his son Philip was killed in a duel while defending his father’s reputation. Still, Hamilton responded to Burr’s increasingly urgent requests with several rounds of lawyerly hairsplitting and weasely prevarication. His reaction is a bit mystifying, even to this day. If he wasn’t prepared to explicitly repeat his insult, and he clearly wasn’t, then he could quite easily have deflected all consequences merely by suggesting that he had spoken in error. But he did neither. In the end Burr had no choice but to challenge his rival to a duel. At that time, there was simply no other mechanism for equitably resolving this conflict, and it would surely have been fatal to Burr’s status to allow such a blatant insult to stand.In 1804, dueling in New York was enough of a problem to have already been outlawed—the punishment for a conviction on the charge was severe—death. But it still occurred so often that the woodsy plateau of Weehawken, just across the Hudson was a regular meeting place for gentlemen to settle each other’s “hash,” along with their differences. At least eighteen duels are known to have occurred there. New Jersey had also outlawed the practice, but didn’t prosecute the crime quite as aggressively as her sister state across the Hudson.Whatever Hamilton’s true intentions, his chicanery now becomes quite Machiavellian. The night before the duel he penned a verbose statement descrying the practice of dueling and denying any intention of actually shooting Burr. But everything he did subsequently seems to contradict this testament. As the challenged party, Hamilton had the right to choose the weapons. At dawn the next morning, he showed up with a particularly large-barreled and lethal set of matched pistols. These particular pistols, crafted by a famous gunsmith named Wogden, had already exercised a powerful effect on the lives of the two principals. Five years earlier they were used in a duel between Burr and one of Hamilton’s brothers-in-law, and miraculously Burr’s only injury on that occasion was to have one of the buttons on his coat was shot off. But make no mistake, these pistols were thoroughly lethal.These were also precisely the same pistols used in Philip Hamilton’s fatal duel, which also had taken place at Weehawken. Additionally, these pistols, which still exist, each had a secret and optional hair trigger setting. Exerting the necessary ten pounds or more of pressure on a trigger could easily cause a pistol to wiggle in one’s hand—spoiling the aim. But a hair-trigger eliminated problem Since this setting was unknown to Burr, Hamilton would have retained a considerable advantage over his opponent. The pistols were actually the property of John Barker Church, Hamilton’s close friend and brother-in-law, and one of Hamilton’s sons were named after him. But Church was also a business partner of both Hamilton’s and Burr’s. Lastly, Burr had actually engaged in another duel with Church four years before, but on that occasion no one had been injured and they had used pistols supplied by Burr, since he had been the challenged party.In keeping with the customs of dueling, each participant brought an official “second” to the event. Burr’s second was his long-time close associate William Van Ness and they were accompanied by Samuel Swartwout, another Burr intimate. Van Ness, an attorney and prominent Republican, had worked hard back in 1800, in a vain attempt to swing the presidential vote in the House for Burr instead of Jefferson. In 1803 Van Ness actually wrote a book defending his friend from the charges of his enemies. Future president Martin Van Buren later served in his law office.Swartwout was another close ally of Burr’s in the New York State political scene, and he was also involved in Burr’s later notorious adventures. Like Burr, he too would be arrested for treason, but the charges were quickly dropped. Swartwout later became a close associate of President Andrew Jackson, who appointed him to the position of Collector of the Port of New York. But he is best known to history for his participation in what became known as the Swartwout-Hoyt Scandal. Swartwout supposedly embezzled something in the neighborhood of $2 million and fled to Europe, replaced as Collector by one Jesse Hoyt. Several years later it came to light that Hoyt too, was possessed of sticky digits. This episode became the origin of an old expression which has since fallen into disuse—any person who stole federal funds and fled to another country in the hopes of evading extradition was said to have, “Swartwouted out.”Hamilton’s second was Judge Nathaniel Pendleton and they were accompanied by Dr. David Hosack. Pendleton was a Revolutionary War veteran and prominent attorney who had been appointed to a federal judgeship by George Washington. Hosack, a native New Yorker was a renowned physician, as well as a leading educator and botanist. Ominously, the good doctor had also ministered to Hamilton’s son Philip, when he was fatally injured three years earlier in a duel at precisely the same spot.Burr’s party arrived on the scene around 6:30 am, and they busied themselves with removing underbrush from the field of fire. Hamilton and his companions appeared about 7:00 am, carrying the fateful pistols with them as was Hamilton’s right as the challenged party. Peculiarly, and adding to the confusion later, at the duel’s climax these seconds turned their backs on the principals and did not actually watch the exchange of fire. All participants were concerned by the legal niceties of the event and if called upon to testify they wished to be able to truthfully claim that they had seen nothing. And it’s surely no coincidence that of the six participants, three were lawyers and one a judge.Just before the two adversaries squared off, Hamilton carefully pulled on a pair of spectacles—obviously unnecessary if he planned to miss. Hamilton also carefully balanced the pistol in his hand and repeatedly sighted along the barrel—more strange behavior if there was no violence in his heart. Also, there was a well known and commonly used tactic of the day for saving face and throwing away a shot rather than shooting at your opponent. It was called deloping, and required the duelist to hold his pistol pointed to the side in an obvious manner. If a duelist telegraphed his intentions in this way, his opponent was honor bound to do the same. By all witness accounts, Hamilton never chose to delope.In the event, two shots were definitely fired, separated only by a second or two. The first shot seems to have been Hamilton’s. He fired high and severed a branch above Burr’s head. Burr apparently took an extra second to aim and his shot caught Hamilton in the lower abdomen. Hamilton immediately dropped his pistol and crumpled to the ground. Burr appeared to be horror stricken by the result and in concern started to approach his fallen adversary, but he was then hustled away by William Van Ness. When Dr. Hosack drew near him, Hamilton whispered, “This is a mortal wound, doctor,” before fainting away. When Hamilton regained consciousness, he told Hosack to be careful as his pistol was still loaded and added that “Pendleton knows I did not mean to fire at him.” This suggests that Hamilton may have been his own victim. Due to the hair trigger he had set, he might have discharged his weapon somehow without realizing what he had done. But under the circumstances, Hamilton’s written and verbal statements must be viewed with enormous suspicion.Burr was always convinced that Hamilton had done his best to destroy his career and then to kill him, and many historians share the opinion that Hamilton’s written statement was merely a malicious attempt to ruin Burr in the event that Hamilton lost the duel. If so, Hamilton succeeded. Burr’s bullet not only killed his hated rival, but also dealt a death blow to his own political ambitions. The stricken Hamilton was rowed back across the river and taken to the home of a friend in Greenwich Village, where he died the following day.Burr was charged with Hamilton’s murder in both New York and New Jersey, but was never brought to trial. After briefly fleeing the unexpected uproar with a trip to South Carolina, Burr returned to finish his term as Vice President with probity and dignity. Even his enemies reportedly cried at his farewell speech. But despite these crocodile tears, his political career was over.Burr Treason TrialSeveral years later Burr was tried for treason at President Jefferson’s insistence. Burr was apparently trying to retrieve his fortunes by engaging in military adventurism in either Mexico or the Southwest. He may have had the goal of forming an independent state, or of carving out a principality and then returning to the U.S. in triumph. (If so, then he was ahead of the curve—in the future other defeated politicians would move West in an effort to reinvent themselves and revitalize their ambitions—Sam Houston and Davy Crockett come to mind.) Whatever Burr’s intentions, there was never any genuine evidence against him and accordingly, despite Jefferson’s best and quite partisan efforts, he was acquitted. But the older Burr (see below) was never able to regain the former eminence he enjoyed in his younger years. His reputation would have been served better if he had died dramatically with Hamilton. He returned to New York to practice law and slowly sank into gray obscurity.Andy Jackson, Frontier DuelistWhatever his repute as a statesman, in his lifetime Andrew Jackson was well known as a hot-tempered and vengeful man—quick to take offense, and quick too, to resort to violence. In addition to the fact that in that day political passions tended to run high, Jackson’s personal life was a considerable source of aggrievement to him. The delight of his existence was his wife, Rachel, née Donelson, and the loving couple was joined together in marriage in 1791. The problem was that at that moment Rachel was still married to her first husband, and so she was technically guilty of bigamy. Apologists posit that communications were quite imperfect in rough and tumble frontier Tennessee, and that Rachel had sincerely believed that her divorce was complete when the papers had merely been filed. But there is also evidence that she cohabited with Andrew and titled herself as “Mrs. Jackson” even before the wedding took place. In any event, proprieties being what they were, a nasty little scandal ensued. A second marriage ceremony was conducted in 1794, after Rachel’s divorce was finalized. Despite the belated resolution, this affair provided a permanent chink in the armor of this cranky and belligerent politician. And it was impossible that an imbroglio as juicy as this would not be used repeatedly by Jackson’s adversaries.Only two are well documented, but “Old Hickory” claimed to have fought the prodigious total of fourteen duels over his career. Considering a character as preternaturally touchy as his, this gory aggregate offers no serious strain to credulity. Jackson had been wounded so frequently in these brouhahas that in later life it was said that he “rattled like a bag of marbles.” While politicians usually fought duels with the goal of protecting their reputations, this tactic could also backfire. In 1806, the young Andrew Jackson fought such a duel with Charles Dickinson. Dickinson had published an attack on Jackson (Rachel again), and Jackson had typically responded by issuing a challenge to a duel. The outcome would be notorious and the effects long-lasting.Jackson’s pistol failed to go off while Dickinson’s bullet wounded his adversary. Under the code duello, this exchange should have ended the matter, but Jackson was incensed. He cold-bloodedly pulled back the flintlock and fired again, this time striking his opponent dead. By the rules governing “affairs of honor” this was pretty close to outright murder. Dickenson’s bullet had lodged close enough to Jackson’s heart that doctors refused to remove it. For the rest of his life it occasionally caused “Old hickory” to cough up blood. Another lasting result was the damage that the Dickinson duel did to Jackson’s reputation. Contemporary judgments were somewhat arbitrary, but in this instance Jackson was commonly felt to have crossed the line of gentlemanly conduct. But overall, and unlike Burr, Jackson’s penchant for violence and his many exercises in defense of his honor enhanced rather than hurt his standing. Andrew Jackson is the only American president known to have killed another man in a duel. And on the very last day of his presidency, the cantankerous Tennessean expressed but two regrets, that he “had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun.”By the time of the Burr-Hamilton duel, the custom was already falling seriously out of favor in the North. A number of anti-dueling organizations had formed, and ministers and public officials were regularly speaking out against it. Prosecution had become vigorous. But the practice was much more resilient in the South. Interestingly, the majority of Southern duels were fought by politicians and lawyers. Legislators, judges, and even governors used dueling to sort out their disagreements, and politicians regularly continued their “debates” on the dueling ground. South of the Mason-Dixon Line, a man who refused a duel was punished by being “posted”—a notification of his cowardice was either printed in a local newspaper or hung up in a local place.John Randolph, Jefferson’s Eccentric CousinOne of the most interesting politicians of the early republic who also dabbled in dueling was John Randolph of Roanoke. A scion of one of Virginia’s leading families, Randolph was a first cousin to President Thomas Jefferson, and the nephew of Edmund Randolph, the first Attorney General of the United States and the second Secretary of State. Tall and lanky, as a young man John was good looking, but an unusual disease described as a form of “tuberculosis” left him smooth cheeked, high voiced, and probably sexually impotent. He spent most of his career as a gadfly Congressman, although he also served one term as a U.S. Senator.Randolph was an eccentric character, famous for his “flashy” dress, often showing up in the House booted and spurred and swishing a riding crop. Wherever he went he would often appear surrounded by his slaves and a frolicsome pack of hunting dogs. He was always a notable speaker, and at his best he could be a highly effective orator—he would become famous for his invective. When an opponent in the House had the temerity to imply that he was sexually incapable, he responded in an aristocratic Southern drawl, “You pride yourself upon an animal faculty, in respect to which the negro is your equal and the jackass infinitely your superior.” In criticizing the appointment of a politician he felt unqualified to the position of Secretary of the Treasury he commented, “Never were abilities so much below mediocrity so well rewarded; no, not when Caligula’s horse was made Consul.”As would be expected of such a volatile character, living in such times, Randolph fought his share of duels, often with little cause. While attending college as a young man, dueling was considered to be an essential part of a Southern gentleman’s education. Randolph had a dispute with a fellow Virginian student over nothing more weighty than the pronunciation of a word. Still, they fought a duel to settle the matter and Randolph shot his opponent, who luckily survived.Under the code of dueling, the greatest insult of all was to refuse a challenge on the grounds that your antagonist was too far beneath you to merit a response. In 1807 Randolph refused to duel with the notorious General James Wilkinson, the commanding officer of the U.S. Army. The irate Wilkinson responded by “posting” Randolph for cowardice. Randolph, who had seemingly spoken ill of Wilkinson, held his object in such contempt that he felt he owed him no explanation—Wilkinson possessed no honor to be tarnished. He coldly replied, “I cannot descend to your level.” The posting by Wilkinson was entirely ineffective in damaging Randolph’s reputation. The general was a particularly shady character who had been revealed to a paid agent in the employ of the Spanish government and who had also conspired with Aaron Burr in the latter’s aborted scheme for conquest in the Southwest.One of the major issues in Randolph’s political career was a notorious swindle called the Yazoo Land Fraud. Even when he chose not to duel, his passions ran high. He had a violent argument over this issue with an individual named Wright, whom he clearly felt to be wrong. In a quaint letter he asks one of his seconds to arrange the affair without bloodshed. “I threw a tumbler at him, which hit him in the head. He returned, and, while my friends very kindly pinioned me, struck me twice in the face. You will oblige me by settling matters with him, or his friend, as soon as may be, in such a way as you know calculated to give me ease.”Despite his bellicosity, Randolph actually had decidedly mixed feelings towards dueling. He thought the mechanism was used too often and too lightly, but that ultimately the practice was a necessary evil. In another letter he said, “Abolish dueling and you encourage bullies as well in number as in degree, and lay every gentleman at the mercy of a cowardly pack of scoundrels. In fine, my good friend, the Yahoo must be kept down, by religion, sentiment, manners if you can—but he must be kept down.”Late in his career, long painful illnesses seemed to have taken a toll on Randolph’s mental stability and his enemies had occasion to accuse him of insanity. In this period he had a serious falling out with the famous Henry Clay, who challenged Randolph to a duel in 1826. Randolph immediately accepted. At the event he was oddly attired in a long dressing gown, which Clay managed to put two bullet holes in, while Randolph himself managed to perforate Clay’s own coat. Meeting in mid-field, Randolph remarked to Clay that he now owed him a coat. The “Great Compromiser” responded, “I am glad the debt is no greater.” With honor served, the two quickly restored their former cordial relationship. Among Randolph’s many friends were Francis Scott Key, composer of our National Anthem, and Thomas Hart Benton, the famous Congressman and Senator from Missouri. Coincidentally, Benton, a seminal figure in early nineteenth-century American politics was also a violent and touchy man, famous for his own duels. We’ll come back to him.Commodore Decatur, Naval DuelistProbably the most popular dueling site in America was located at Bladensburg, Maryland. Dueling was strictly illegal in the new capital of Washington, D. C., and the laws were strictly enforced. But for a time Maryland offered no such encumbrances and Bladensburg was just across the Potomac. One of the most famous Americans to duel there was the renowned Commodore Stephen Decatur, a sterling figure and one of the very greatest heroes of the United States Navy. Dueling was amazingly commonplace in early nineteenth century navy as Decatur’s life illustrates.One particular story of Decatur’s first voyage as a midshipman aboard the frigate U.S.S. United States bears telling. The ship was on duty in the Mediterranean Sea, and Decatur had become close friends with another midshipman named Richard Somers. One day he and Somers playfully mocked each other, but overhearing, the other midshipmen aboard demanded that Somers challenge Decatur for his supposed insult. Instead, Somers challenged all of the messmates and requested Decatur to serve as his second. Decatur tried to assuage the situation, but Somers was adamant. In a scene reminiscent of The Three Musketeers, Somers challenged all of the ship’s complement of midshipmen, arranging to meet each officer at subsequent hours.In his duel with the first midshipman, Somers was wounded in the left arm. In his second duel he was “pinked” in the thigh and fainted from the blood loss. Decatur offered to take his place, but the defiant Somers refused. Firing from a sitting position he still managed to wound his third opponent, whereupon the other officers acknowledged his courage and the affair ended. In light of subsequent events, it’s fascinating to note that Decatur’s training officer at the time was First Lieutenant James Barron, ten years his senior. Describing their close relationship, Decatur was to say, “I was more indebted to him than my own father.”Decatur fought his own first duel in Philadelphia in 1799, while a young lieutenant, still stationed aboard the United States. This time the Chief Mate of a British Indiaman made the mistake of making a number of derogatory remarks about Decatur and the American navy. When the man refused to apologize, Decatur challenged him to a duel. The young lieutenant was a crack shot and he contented himself with wounding his adversary in the hip.In 1801 the First Barbary War began, when Jefferson opted to send a U.S. naval force to do battle with the Barbary States rather than to continue to pay tribute to them. In 1804, Decatur distinguished himself in this conflict by taking the captured Philadelphia in Tripoli harbor and setting fire to the ship, depriving the pirates of her use. For his feat, Decatur became the youngest man in American naval history to hold the rank of captain. He fought heroically in further fleet actions and the following year the Bashaw of Tripoli surrendered. The dashing Decatur married young Susan Wheeler, the daughter of the mayor of the naval town of Norfolk, Virginia. She was a great beauty and quite vivacious—her earlier suitors had included Jerome Bonaparte, the younger brother of Napoleon, and that ubiquitous roué, Aaron Burr.In 1807, the notorious Chesapeake-Leopard Affair took place, an international incident which would eventually lead to Decatur’s final duel. In June of that year the frigate U.S.S. Chesapeake set sail under the command of Commodore James Barron and headed for the Mediterranean Sea. Shortly afterwards they were accosted by the British frigate, H.M.S. Leopard, whose captain demanded to search the American ship for British naval deserters. Barron properly refused and shockingly, without warning the Leopard opened fire, savaging the Chesapeake, killing three of her crewmembers and wounding eighteen others. Have just left port, the Chesapeake was unprepared for battle and could not return fire. Barron struck his ship’s colors and was forced to allow the British to board him. The Chesapeake eventually limped back to port with two crippled masts and twenty-two shot holes peppering her oaken sides.As a consequence, Commodore Barron was court-martialed and Decatur was ordered to serve on the board. Barron was disgraced—the court found him guilty of “unpreparedness,” and he was barred from command for a period of five years. As a final insult, the navy appointed Decatur to command the refitted Chesapeake. By the time the War of 1812 broke out, Decatur was now captain of the 44 gun frigate U.S.S. United States. In a famous battle he defeated and captured the British frigate H.M.S. Macedonia. Decatur also served with distinction in the Second Barbary War of 1815.In October of 1818, Decatur was asked to serve as a “second” in a duel between his good friend Oliver Hazard Perry, another renowned hero of the War of 1812, and Marine Captain John Heath. Heath fired and missed, while Perry declined to shoot. The seconds performed their part in smoothing things over, both parties agreed that honor had been satisfied, and the affair ended without casualty. But Decatur’s next duel would not end so felicitously.In 1820 Commodore James Barron challenged Decatur over remarks the latter had made regarding the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair of thirteen years earlier. Barron had just returned to the U.S. after a number of years in “exile” in Copenhagen, and was now seeking reinstatement in the navy. Decatur, among other officers, blocked this return to duty, and so Barron chose to call him out. At this point in time dueling between naval officers was so prevalent that it was actually causing a serious shortage of qualified personnel. In Decatur’s case, the dangers of the duel were magnified by the sinister element of betrayal.Barron’s second was Captain Jesse Elliott, a pugnacious fellow well known to dislike Decatur. But Decatur’s second was his erstwhile friend, Commodore William Bainbridge. Decatur was too generous of nature to realize it, but the older Bainbridge was jealous of his fame and not inclined to do him any favors. Under the code of dueling, the first duty of the principals’ seconds is to resolve the affair peacefully, if this is in any way possible. Not only did Elliott and Bainbridge make no serious effort to do this, but the details they arranged virtually guaranteed that the encounter would be lethal.The combatants met at Bladensburg on March 22nd, at a popular dueling venue known locally as “The Valley of Chance.” They faced off at the extremely close range of only eight paces. Both men fired simultaneously, and not unexpectedly, both were badly wounded. Decatur tried vainly to staunch his wound and said, “Oh, Lord, I am a dead man.” Lying in a puddle of blood Barron told him that he forgave him from the bottom of his heart. As his opponent was carried away, he cried out, “God bless you, Decatur.”Decatur died at 10:30 that night in his elegant mansion on Lafayette Square, near to the White House. Barron was lucky enough to eventually recover from his wounds. Decatur’s funeral became a national event, with President James Madison prominent among the mourners. Afterwards, the reprehensible conduct of the seconds became known and Decatur’s widow spent many years vainly pursuing justice for “the assassins.” At his death the naval paragon was only forty-one. Barron would eventually be reinstated, but he was never to command a ship again.Senator Thomas Hart BentonThomas Hart Benton was born in 1782, and in his long life he served five terms as the powerful Senator from Missouri, and he was also the leading exponent of westward expansion—the policy that would become known as “Manifest Destiny.” But Hart’s beginnings were a bit more checkered. In 1799, while studying law at the University of North Carolina he was expelled after admitting that he had stolen money from his fellow students. Those same students jeered him as he left the campus and he responded colorfully by saying, “I am leaving here now but damn you, you will hear from me again.” He eventually moved his family to Tennessee, completed his legal studies, and became a state senator. There he attracted the attention of Andrew Jackson.During the War of 1812, Benton received a commission as a lieutenant colonel and became General Jackson’s aide-de-camp. But both Benton and Jackson were famed for their belligerence, and only a year later there was seriously bad blood between the two. This resulted in a nasty fracas which contemporaries quaintly described as a “tavern brawl,” but which today would undoubtedly be classified as a “fire fight.” In any event, it never came close to rising to the civilized level of a duel. On September 4, 1813, Thomas Benton and his brother Jesse arrived in Nashville, Tennessee and went to the City Hotel. Each of the brothers was carrying two pistols. Immediately afterwards, Jackson also entered Nashville, accompanied by John Coffee and a young man named Stockley Hays, who had been with Aaron Burr on the latter’s infamous expedition to the Southwest. All were heavily armed. The action that followed was confused, but this is roughly what took place.Jackson and Coffee approached the hotel’s porch where Benton was standing, and the general brandished a whip, shouting, “Now, defend yourself you damned rascal!” Jackson drew a pistol but was shot from behind by Jesse Benton. Thomas Benton fired twice more at Jackson as he toppled over. John Coffee took a shot at Benton and missing, tried to grapple with him. Benton staggered and fell backwards down a flight of stairs. Stockley Hays tried to skewer Jesse Benton with a sword cane, but the point caught on a button and the narrow blade snapped. Jesse then attempted to shoot Hays but his pistol misfired. When the smoke cleared, Jackson’s left shoulder had been shattered by a bullet and the wound was serious enough to have nearly required an amputation. But when doctors attempted to perform the operation, the steely “Old Hickory” replied, “I’ll keep my arm.”In 1815, Benton moved to the new Missouri Territory. Describing himself, he once said, “I never quarrel, sir, but I do fight, sir, and when I fight, sir, a funeral follows, sir.” Two years later he proved the truth of this. In 1817 he engaged in a bona fide duel with an opposing attorney named Charles Lucas. They first clashed in court, calling each other liars. At a later date Lucas accused Benton of being ineligible to vote, and the colonel had responded by dismissing Lucas as a “puppy.” Lucas then formally challenged Benton to a duel. The practice was already illegal, so they met on a sandbar in the middle of the Mississippi River between Illinois and Missouri. It was called “Bloody Island” because of the many duels it had hosted.They fought with pistols at thirty paces, but the first volley was ineffective. Their arguing continued and they met again the following month. On that occasion, only nine feet apart, Benton fired first and fatally wounded Charles Lucas. Benton went on to have a highly impressive career as one of the senators from the new state of Missouri. He and Jackson managed to put their personal differences aside and became political allies. Benton’s steadfast championing of the gold standard earned him the nickname of “Old Bullion.” He pushed tirelessly for westward expansion and was the author of the first Homestead Act. John C. Frémont, “the Pathfinder,” became his son-in-law. He was also an advocate of the intercontinental railroad and the new invention of the telegraph. One of his most famous utterances was, “Benton and the people, Benton and Democracy are one and the same sir, synonymous terms, sir…” On his deathbed, nearly forty years after the event, Benton regretted the killing of Lucas.Abe LincolnOne of the most unlikely duelists of early America was a gangly fellow from Illinois, named Abraham Lincoln, who was actually challenged to a sword fight by a state official named James Shields. Lincoln had adopted a number of pseudonyms and under them published a series of satirical letters mocking Shields. But in this case, as in so many others, a woman would be central to the quarrel. Doubtless inspired by her beau’s wit, young Mary Todd and a friend wrote several more letters which unfortunately strayed across the boundary from satire to outright insult. Shields blamed Lincoln for all of this and immediately challenged the “Rail Splitter.” Unwilling to be disgraced and anxious to impress his betrothed, Lincoln accepted.As the challenged party it was Lincoln’s privilege to choose both the weapons and conditions for the duel. Accordingly he selected cavalry broadswords and in hopes of limiting the damage he dictated that the contest be held in a large pit, with a board separating the two combatants. On September 22, 1842 the two met to settle the affair. Lincoln deliberately occupied himself by slashing off branches from a high tree limb. Noticing how much longer the lanky Lincoln’s arms were than his own, Shields began to have second thoughts. Lincoln’s seconds did their part by using every blandishment to soothe Shields. Lincoln explained that he had not actually penned all of the letters and apologized for the entire misunderstanding. Shields accepted and became a prominent U.S. Senator. Lincoln, too, reportedly went on to a career in politics.Dueling Winds DownUltimately, it was the Civil War that marked a precipitous decline in dueling, particularly in the South where it had still been prevalent. Evidently this national bloodbath served to cool the warm passions and perpetual quest for gentlemanly honor that were for so long hallmarks of the American Southland. Certainly by the 1870s social standards had changed and political and personal honor were no longer identical. By that point there were other, more peaceful mechanisms in place for defending one’s good name and reputation.By contrast, in Europe the practice of dueling still thrived until they had their own epiphany after the apocalypse of the first World War. But during the early days of our republic, when the nation’s growing pains might so easily have turned to excess and resulted in politically directed bloodshed on a wide-spread scale, dueling seems to have absorbed this excess energy and vitriol and served to make the American scene a safer and more stable place. And it will likely remain the mootest of points whether today’s politicians are more genteel than their counterparts of old, or just totally lacking in even pretensions to honor.