USA > Georgia > The bench and bar of Georgia: memoirs and sketches. With an appendix, containing a court roll from 1790-1857, etc., volume II > Part 6
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54
In determining with respect to the independence of other countries, the United States have never taken the question of right between the
46
BENCH AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
contending parties into consideration. They have deemed it a dictate of duty and policy to decide upon the question as one of fact merely. This was the course pursued with respect to Mexico herself. It was adhered to when analogous events rendered it proper to investigate the question of Texan independence. That inquiry was made with due circumspec- tion, and the result was not arrived at until its probable consequences had been accurately weighed. The possibility of a collision of interests, arising, among other causes, from the alleged superior aptitude of the climate and soil of Texas for the growth of some of the staples of the United States, was not overlooked. A sense of duty and a reverence for consistency, however, it was considered, left this Government no alterna- tive, and it therefore led the way in recognising Texas. A hope was certainly entertained that this act and the motives that conduced to it, even if no other considerations were to have influence, would point out to the Government of Texas the propriety not only of cherishing intimate and amicable relations with this country, but of abstaining from other connections abroad which might be detrimental to the United States. Apart from this, however, it was presumed that Government would enter upon the execution of the intentions intimated by its envoy extraordinary with respect to connections with foreign powers with a full understanding of the just and liberal commercial stipulations existing between the United States and other nations. A pervading principle of those compacts is im- partial treatment of the citizens, vessels, and productions of the parties in their respective territories. As it was not to be believed that the com- mercial allies of the United States would swerve from their engagements, no apprehension was felt that the interests of this country would suffer from the arrangements which Texas might enter into with them.
The question of the annexation of a foreign independent State to the United States has never before been presented to this Government. Since the adoption of their Constitution, two large additions have been made to the domain originally claimed by the United States. In acquiring them, this Government was not actuated by a mere thirst for sway over a broader space. Paramount interests of many members of the Con- federacy, and the permanent well-being of all, imperatively urged upon this Government the necessity of an extension of its jurisdiction over Louisiana and Florida. As peace, however, was our cherished policy, never to be departed from unless honor should be perilled by adhering to it, we patiently endured for a time serious inconveniences and privations, and sought a transfer of those regions by negotiations and not by conquest.
The issue of those negotiations was a conditional cession of these countries to the United States. The circumstance, however, of their being colo- nial possessions of France and Spain, and therefore dependent on the metropolitan Governments, renders those transactions materially different from that which would be presented by the question of the annexation of Texas. The latter is a State with an independent Government, ac- knowledged to be such by the United States, and claiming a territory beyond, though bordering on, the region ceded by France in the treaty of the 30th of April, 1803. Whether the Constitution of the United States contemplated the annexation of such a State, and, if so, in what manner that object is to be effected, are questions, in the opinion of the Presi- dent, it would be inexpedient, under existing circumstances, to agitate.
So long as Texas shall remain at war, while the United States are at
47
JOHN FORSYTH.
peace with her adversary, the proposition of the Texan minister plenipo- tentiary necessarily involves the question of war with that adversary. The United States are bound to Mexico by a treaty of amity and com- merce, which will be scrupulously observed on their part so long as it can be reasonably hoped that Mexico will perform her duties and respect our rights under it. The United States might justly be suspected of a dis- regard of the friendly purposes of the compact, if the overture of General Hunt were to be even reserved for future consideration, as this would imply a disposition on our part to espouse the quarrel of Texas with Mexico,-a disposition wholly at variance with the spirit of the treaty, with the uni- form policy and the obvious welfare of the United States.
The inducements mentioned by General Hunt for the United States to annex Texas to their territory are duly appreciated ; but, powerful and mighty as certainly they are, they are light when opposed in the scale of reason to treaty-obligations and respect for that integrity of character by which the United States have sought to distinguish themselves since the establishment of their right to claim a place in the great family of nations. It is presumed, however, that the motives by which Texas has been governed in making this overture will have equal force in impelling her to preserve, as an independent power, the most liberal commercial relations with the United States. Such a disposition will be cheerfully met in a corresponding spirit by this Government. If the answer which the under- signed has been directed to give to the proposition of General Hunt should unfortunately work such a change in the sentiments of that Government as to induce an attempt to extend commercial relations elsewhere, upon terms prejudicial to the United States, this Government will be consoled by a consciousness of the rectitude of its intentions, and a certainty that, although the hazard of transient losses may be incurred by a rigid ad- herence to just principles, no lasting prosperity can be secured when they are disregarded.
The undersigned avails himself of the occasion to offer General Hunt assurances of his very distinguished consideration.
JOHN FORSYTH.
GENERAL MEMUCAN HUNT, &c.
The rejoinder of General Hunt is dated September 12, 1837. The reasons assigned by the Secretary of State for declining the overture of annexation are reviewed with delicacy and frankness. The fact is referred to, that ex-President Jackson had gone to such length as to offer the Governorship of Texas to the late Governor Hutchins G. Burton, of North Carolina, under the belief that a treaty had been concluded with Mexico, by Mr. Butler, chargé d'affaires, for the cession of the territory of Texas to the United States, and that Spain was then as much at war with Mexico as the latter was with Texas at the time of the proposed negotiation. Various points were touched upon, earnestly combating the views of the Secretary of State alleged as influencing the decision of the President. The following paragraph is copied entire :-
The Hon. Mr. Forsyth will pardon the undersigned for expressing the opinion, which appears to him undeniable, that a sovereign power has as
48
BENCH AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
perfect a right to dispose of the whole of itself and a second power to ac- quire it, as it has to dispose of only part of itself and a second power to acquire that part only ; and that the acquisition of the whole territory of a sovereign power could no more be objected to on the ground of constitu- tional right than the acquisition of a part of that territory only. The material difference alluded to by Mr. Forsyth, between the annexation of independent Texas by her own voluntary act, and the acquisition of the colonial provinces of Louisiana and Florida by the act of their respective Governments, is acknowledged. But the difference is conceived to be altogether in favor of the former, for the reason that the annexation of Texas would be an act of free will and choice on the part of the Govern- ment and people who own and actually occupy the very territory proposed to be transferred, while the latter would seem to have been the result of an arbitrary right on the part of the metropolitan Governments to dispose of the territorial possessions ceded by them, without regard to the wishes of the inhabitants residing thereon.
One more paragraph is here quoted from this document :-
The efforts which the Government of the undersigned is making to open a commercial intercourse with Great Britain and France, it is believed, will succeed. Apart from the disposition of those two powers to avail them- selves of the great advantages which must result to every nation with which Texas may form intimate commercial relations, it is believed that they, as well as the United States, cherish a liberal sympathy for a people who have encountered the most cruel treatment at the hands of Mexico,-a nation which has so little regarded the laws of civilized countries, in prosecuting a savage war of extermination against the citizens of the Government of the undersigned, and that, too, against a people who proudly claim the realms of Britain and France as the homes of their ancestry. And the undersigned expresses a belief that the crowned heads of England and France, and their majesties' ministers, will not be without some feel- ings of gratification when they become apprized of the successful civil and military career (although on a limited scale, it is true) of the descendants of British and French progenitors in Texas. General Houston, the Presi- dent of the Republic, is a native of the United States, but descended from English and Irish parentage. He commanded at San Jacinto, in one of the best battles, it is supposed, which have been fought since the intro- duction of fire-arms. The valiant General Mirabeau Lamar, Vice-Presi- dent of Texas, who commanded the cavalry in the same fight, is likewise a native of the United States, but claims his descent, with pride, from the French. And the undersigned again avows his persuasion that the crowned heads of England and France, and their majesties' ministers, will not be altogether insensible to feelings of sympathy and regard for a people whose Government is headed by individuals boasting their descent from the distinguished races over which their majesties preside.
With this rejoinder all correspondence between the two Govern- ments relative to annexation ceased for the time-being. Mr. For- syth did not live to witness the consummation of the measure within eight years afterward. Gen. Hunt* was more fortunate. He
* Gen. Hunt's name has been mentioned in the newspapers as among the dis- tinguished men of this country who died in the year 1856.
49
JOHN FORSYTH.
had the gratification to see the two national flags united,-Texas merely adding one star more to the galaxy of States represented on the proud emblem of the American Union.
The result of the Presidential election in 1840, displacing Mr. Van Buren and his adherents from power, was deeply mortifying to Mr. Forsyth, who was in all respects identified with the adminis- tration. On the 4th of April, 1841, President Harrison died, amidst all the splendors and attractions of the White House, after one month of the highest authority ; and on the 21st day of October, 1841, the Hon. John Forsyth passed away, at the age of sixty years,-too soon for his country, but long enough to see the empti- ness of ambition and earthly renown.
The demonstrations of respect to his memory were general throughout the Union, regardless of party distinctions. All mourned that a master-mind had been quenched. The grief of personal friends was intense,-for he had many such ; that of his domestic circle could find no expression in words. In his youth, Mr. Forsyth had married a daughter of Josiah Meigs, formerly President of Franklin College. Several children survived him, among whom is the Hon. John Forsyth, the present minister of the United States to reside near the Government of Mexico,-and Julia, wife of the Hon. Alfred Iverson, Senator in Congress from Georgia. Mrs. Forsyth died in Columbus some few years ago, highly respected for her excellent qualities.
Before his death, the Legislature of Georgia had named a county in honor of Mr. Forsyth. The county site of Monroe also bore his name thirty years ago. A monument has been ordered to be erected over his grave at Washington City, at the expense of the State of Georgia. Surely these testimonials from the people whom he had served will ever prove their abiding respect for his cha- racter.
More might be said, and, indeed, something more ought to be said, of his gifts and qualifications as a public speaker. His very looks accomplished a great deal. A glance of the eye, a motion of the finger, a wave of the hand, a curl of the lip, or a twitch of that Roman nose, would kill or cripple at the will of the speaker. All glowed with life. The person of Mr. Forsyth was the most handsome of his sex. Usually great men-men of great intellect, great in action-are not the most beautiful in their features, the most admired by the ladies ; but Mr. Forsyth was an exception. His form was classical,-nose, chin, mouth, forehead, and every thing that contributed to expression. He was neither too light VOL. II .-- 4
.
50
BENCHI AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
nor too heavy for grace of manner. As to his voice, description is impossible. It was like the trumpet, clear and piercing in its tones, and yet soft as the organ. No orator in the United States pos- sessed such a fine command of the keys and modulations whereby the heart is subdued at the will of the orator. His supply of the best words was inexhaustible. In this respect he very much re- sembled Lord Erskine, and was perhaps even his superior,-though, unfortunately for the world, Mr. Forsyth lacked the genuine, all- pervading sympathies which animated the bosom while they con- secrated the labors of Lord Erskine. Had he been less a man of the world, less indoctrinated in the etiquette and levity of courts, less inclined to fashionable life and its heartless formalities, he would have been more of a public benefactor, more deeply entwined in the affections of men. Then he would have risen to the sublime heights of passion in debate, with the fearless, imperial heart of humanity to bear him, with Patrick Henry, into the upper world, to chastise and humble the proud, and exalt virtue in its meek and unobtrusive garb.
But Mr. Forsyth was not equal to this achievement. His instincts were not with the masses of men. He was faithful to his trusts, because it was impossible for him to do a base act. He was also courteous and obliging in his personal relations : still, he had a diplomatie element in which he loved to revel, and which yielded his chief enjoyment. Beyond this, life was measurably insipid ; nor is it certain that the philosophy of Bolingbroke or the morals of Chesterfield contributed to his happiness as a man. But, if Mr. Forsyth had defects, (and he would be more than mortal to be exempt,) let it be remembered that the sun has spots which do not mar his brilliance. It may be centuries before such a man shall again exist,-one so exuberant in chivalry, matchless in debate, and fascinating in society. And here let the reflection be indulged, that the life of Mr. Forsyth was in great jeopardy on one occasion at least, when, resorting to the code of honor, he measured small- swords with his antagonist, (Col. Williams,) who wounded him in the neck. The escape permitted a bright name afterward to appear on the roll of fame.
This memoir could not be more appropriately closed than by a quotation from " The Cabinet,-Past and Present," which originally appeared in a New Orleans paper, from a gentleman* whose pen has often gratified the public :-
* Hon. J. F. H. Claiborne, formerly a Representative in Congress from Mississippi.
51
THOMAS F. FOSTER.
The late John Forsyth was one of the most accomplished men of his time. As an impromptu debater, to bring on an action or to cover a retreat, he never had his superior. He was acute, witty, full of resources, and ever prompt,-impetuous as Murat in a charge, adroit as Soult when flanked and outnumbered. He was haughty in the presence of enemies, affable and winning among friends. His manners were courtly and diplo- matic. In the times of Louis XIV. he would have rivalled the most cele- brated courtiers ; under the dynasty of Napoleon he would have won the baton of France. He never failed to command the confidence of his party ; he never feared any odds arrayed against it, and at one crisis was almost its sole support in the Senate against the most brilliant and for- midable opposition ever organized against an administration. With the ladies he was irresistible.
XVI.
THOMAS F. FOSTER.
THE people of Georgia have been too long and faithfully served by this gentleman to inquire, at this late day, by what title his name appears here. But some account of him not before published may be given, of sufficient interest to induce a perusal.
His father, Col. George Wells Foster, a true gentleman of the old school, removed from Virginia to the State of Georgia about the year 1790. THOMAS FLOURNOY FOSTER, the subject of this memoir, was born in the town of Greensboro, on the 23d day of November, 1796. He received the rudiments of his education at the male academy in Greensboro, first under the tuition of Parson Ray, and afterward under William W. Strain. He thence entered Franklin College, and graduated in 1812. After reading law a while with Matthews Wells, Esq., in his native village, he attended the law-lectures at Litchfield, Connecticut. In 1816 he was ad- mitted to the bar, and opened an office in Greensboro.
His habits of industry and great promptitude soon gained him an extensive practice. No lawyer was more zealous or better pre- pared in his cases, and no one was more faithful to his clients. Such was the estimation in which he was held by the people of Greene county, that they elected him a Representative in the Legis- lature for many years, in which body he was always a leading member. He had ability of a high order, an original, investigating mind, and great fluency in debate, united with a degree of self-con-
52
BENCH AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
fidence which never failed him. With these advantages, success was certain. He was on the principal committees, and in that capacity was a hard-working man, besides doing his full share in almost every discussion which arose. Such was his vigilance and comprehension of measures that nothing escaped him. He was sure to detect fallacies of any kind, and to show no forbearance to error or party bias, come from what quarter it might. Hence he was dreaded for his talents, but respected for his integrity. "The gentleman from Greene" was on the floor, talking more rapidly, and with more hard sense, than any other member could possibly do, and much oftener. He was literally the Speaker of the House ; for the presiding officer to whom that distinction is applied really speaks less-it is his duty to speak less-than any other member.
In regard to the speaking-propensity of Col. Foster the author heard an anecdote thirty years ago, which he begs to relate. A plain citizen from a distant county visited Milledgeville about the commencement of the session of the Legislature, and on his return home a neighbor inquired about the organization, and asked who was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. The artless though sensible reply was, that "a little, frisky, hard-favored, pop- eyed man from Greene was the Speaker ; for he was nearly all the time speaking, while the man which he called Mr. Speaker, high up in a chair, said nothing but, The gentleman from Greene."
If the author had a copy of the House Journals during the ses- sions that Col. Foster served, he would no doubt be able to pre- pare a record showing great intelligence, activity, and patriotism in the measures supported by him, the bills introduced, &c. But that opportunity is not enjoyed ; and all further notice of his career in the Georgia Legislature will be omitted, in order to follow him in a more exalted sphere.
In 1828, Col. Foster was elected a Representative in Congress, and took his seat on the first Monday in December, 1829, with his colleagues, Hon. Charles E. Haynes, Henry G. Lamar, Wiley Thompson, James H. Wayne, and Richard H. Wilde. After suc- cessive re-elections, he continued six years in Congress,-pretty good evidence that his constituents approved his course. The author received from Col. Foster himself, soon after their delivery, copies of most of his speeches, two of which he has before him,- one in regard to the missionaries, and the other on the removal of the deposits. As a specimen of his style and method of argu- mentation, extracts are deemed proper, which will be the more wel- come as showing to younger politicians the doctrines then main-
53
THOMAS F. FOSTER.
tained, of which Georgia has ever afforded an example when prac- tical sovereignty was required to vindicate her rights.
From the speech of Col. Foster, delivered June 11, 1832, the following is extracted :-
Mr. PENDLETON, of New York, presented to the House of Representa- tives a petition from sundry inhabitants of Dutchess county, New York, praying Congress to adopt speedy and effectual measures to enforce the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the missionaries Worcester and Butler, now imprisoned in the penitentiary of Georgia, under a judgment of a Superior Court of that State ; which peti- tion Mr. P. moved to refer to a select committee, with instructions to report a bill containing the following provisions :-
1. That whenever the Supreme Court shall have declared a judgment of a State court, by which a party is in confinement, to be erroneous, and the party is not forthwith set at liberty, any Judge of the Supreme or of a District court shall be authorized to issue an habeas corpus to bring the prisoner before him in order to his discharge.
2. To repeal that part of the Judiciary Act which requires the case to be once remanded to the State court, and to require the Supreme Court at once, and in the first instance, to execute judgment.
Mr. PENDLETON having addressed the House in support of these reso- lutions, Mr. FOSTER, of Georgia, replied as follows :-
MR. SPEAKER :- The memorial presented by the honorable gentleman from New York (Mr. Pendleton) is of precisely a similar character with that of many others which have been addressed to the House during the session, and which have all been referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. It was therefore to have been expected that this would have been disposed of in the same way. But the gentleman is desirous of pursuing a different course, and asks a reference to a special committee, with special instructions to report a bill containing particular provisions. I do not pretend to except to the motion : it was not only the gentleman's right, but, if it was the wish of the memorialists, or was required by the nature of the complaints, it was his duty to submit this proposition. In presenting it, however, he has accompanied it with some remarks which, as a representative of the people of Georgia, I cannot suffer to pass unnoticed.
The honorable gentlemen has thought proper, in support of his motion, to enter into an investigation of the powers of the General Government, and has, I frankly admit, sustained his views by weighty and highly- respectable authorities. I shall imitate his example; and, in controvert- ing his positions, I too will refer to the records of past times, and present for the consideration of the House, facts as well as arguments, drawn from sources entitled to the highest credit.
The gentleman has favored us with his views of the structure of this Government, and of the manner in which the Federal Constitution was formed. He espouses the doctrine which has long been a favorite one with a large party in our country,-that the Constitution was formed by the people of the United States as an aggregate body ; and, to establish his proposition, he resorts to that expression in the preamble to the Constitu- tion, " We, the people," which has been so often referred to for the same purpose. It is worthy of remark that this argument was first advanced by those who were opposed to the adoption of the Constitution. At the
1
54
BENCH AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
time these words were inserted, the conclusion which has since been drawn from them never once occurred to the eminent men who were engaged in the formation of this instrument : but the sagacity and foresight of Patrick Henry suggested that, in after-times, this phrase might be seized on as a pretext by those who were anxious to establish this as a great national government; and subsequent events have but too well verified the accu- racy of the presentiment.
Col. Foster then goes on to examine the proceedings of the Con- vention, amendments proposed, reasons urged by various delegates, the judicial power, its regulation, and the resulting authority of the States to judge in their separate character, each for itself, of in- fractions, &c.,-all evincing very great research, and proving him to be a sound lawyer and mature statesman. After quoting reso- lutions from the Legislatures of Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and New York, Col. FOSTER continues :-
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.