Chatham County GaArchives History .....Savannah Duels - Chapter IX 1923
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ga/gafiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Joy Fisher http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00001.html#0000031 October 25, 2004, 7:47 pm

CHAPTER IX. 

AN ERA OF NUMEROUS HOSTILE MEETINGS.

SAVANNAH'S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BURR-HAMILTON DUEL AND ITS RESULT—FORMER
SAVANNAHIAN, ONCE CONSIDERED FOR SECRETARY OF STATE, SECOND TO ALEXANDER
HAMILTON—SENTER SLAIN BY JOHN RUTLEDGE—TWO YOUNG MEN MEET DEATH AT ONE ANOTHER'S
HANDS—POSTING ENEMIES AT THE VENDUE HOUSE OR IN THE NEWSPAPERS—GRAND JURY
PRESENTMENTS WITHOUT EFFECT—SOUTHERN STATES MOVE TO CHECK DUELLING.

Living in the atmosphere they did, Savannahians naturally showed a tolerant and
indulgent spirit toward duellists elsewhere. This was illustrated in the
Burr-Hamilton duel.

    Burr had visited Savannah, had kinspeople and many political acquaintances
here. When he became Vice-president with Jefferson as President, instead of
Jefferson as Vice-president with Burr as his chief, by the intervention of
divine providence working through the instrumentality of Alexander Hamilton, as
good Democratic Republicans later came to believe, Burr was popular with his
party in Savannah.

    When he came here in 1802 Burr was the honored guest of the municipality.
Private lodgings were provided for him and his suite, but the Vice-president
preferred to be the guest of his niece, Mrs. Montmollin, at her home, still
standing on West Oglethorpe avenue.

    The Republicans were in control of the city administration. They had elected
Mitchell as Mayor, in July, 1801, and were in the first flush of their
municipal, state and national victories. An address was prepared in which the
City Council set forth that of Burr's "Republican virtues" it had "long
entertained the most exalted opinion." "In common with the friends of liberty
this corporation rejoiced on the ever memorable fourth of March, 1801, which
gave to America Jefferson as president and yourself as vice-president—auspicious
day for the freedom of this now happy land. They most sincerely wish, sir, that
the virtuous principles of the present administration may be perpetuated to
succeeding generations."

    As Burr declined to make a written reply to this address it was withdrawn
and Council called on him in a body and presented its verbal congratulations.
Describing the "festival" given in his honor by the Savannah citizens, the
"Columbian Museum" said: "The brilliancy of the entertainment, the number and
respectability of the company, and the harmony which universally prevailed, have
never been exceeded, perhaps never equalled here on any former occasion." Yet
this was months after the charge had been made that Burr had conspired with the
Federalists to defeat Jefferson and secure the presidency for himself, and that
political office and political support had been freely promised to that end.

    When Burr killed Hamilton two years later, in the duel of July 1, 1804, it
would be more than erroneous to say the prevailing sentiment in Savannah was
that of shocked horror. True, the fragments of the old Federalist party
expressed indignation, but the mass of the people were no doubt indifferent, if
not callous. They had seen their own local Republican leaders calling out the
Federalists. The duel had been conducted in accordance with the regulations.
Hamilton had an equal chance with Burr. Hamilton was the victim. That was
Hamilton's misfortune. Hamilton had figured as a second in the duel between John
Laurens and Gen. Charles Lee, had challenged Commodore Nichols, had almost
forced a duel on James Monroe which Burr, as Monroe's friend, had amicably
adjusted. And his death had removed the ablest man in the Federalist party, the
one man who might have held the rank and file together and welded them into a
powerful political force once more. Jeffersonian Republicans in Savannah, as
elsewhere, may be considered as breathing easier when Hamilton fell on the
heights of Weehawken.

    Bitter though the political tone of Savannah was, not a public man here ever
assailed the memory of the slain statesman with the venomous virulence of the
old Federalist leader and recent president of the United States, John Adams, a
vitriolic hater if there ever was one, who referred to Hamilton as "A caitiff
come to a bad end", and held that "Fifteen years of continued slander against
Burr provoked a call to the Field of Honor, as they call it, and sent him,
pardoned I hope in his last moments, to his long home by a Pistol Bullet through
his spine." When one recalls that only two years before this Hamilton's son had
likewise been slain in a duel, the two tragedies that sorrowed the one home
bring into clearer light the Adams' lack of the "milk of human kindness".

    The tendency to-day, though, is to do more equal justice to both men, to
regard Burr as something else than an arch-devil and Hamilton as not entirely
akin to an archangel. Beveridge sums up perhaps as well as any one the opinion
of many, "That Hamilton's pursuit of Burr was lifelong and increasingly
venomous. It seems incredible that a man so transcendently great as
Hamilton—easily the foremost creative mind in American statesmanship—should have
succumbed to personal animosities such as he displayed toward John Adams and
toward Aaron Burr."

    Burr came south soon after the duel. In the Savannah papers one gets a
glimpse of him now and then:

    "The Vice-president, Col. Burr, is now within this state, at the plantation
of Major Pierce Butler, on the island of St. Simon's about sixty miles to the
southward. He came there by a small schooner from Philadelphia."

    "The Vice-president has been residing on St. Simon's for some time, owing to
a badness of weather which forbids his traveling. Before coming to Savannah
however, he had visited our southern counties for the first time in his life,
and proceeded as far as the St. Mary's river. He was received at St. Mary's with
a Republican salute of seventeen guns, and generally in his travels received
every attention from Republicans it was in their power to pay."

    In the early days of October he reached Savannah. In an editorial
announcement on October 5 the "Republican" said:

    "The Vice-president has received the most respectful attention from the
Republicans of this city and has been waited on by all our public characters."

    This was three months after the duel with Hamilton, about which full details
were published at the time in the Savannah papers.

    Finally, in the "Republican" of October 9, 1804, is this item:

    "Col. Burr set out from the city on his way to the seat of government on
Friday last. We understand his early departure was owing to a desire of taking
his seat in the senate at the opening of the session."

    The Burr-Hamilton duel is the one American duel that all know about. One
looks in vain in the Savannah papers for adverse editorial comment. The fact
that he slew Hamilton one may well conceive was a relatively small factor in
Burr's downfall. The seed for his political ruin had been laid in the
unprincipled ambition that led to the maneuvers to overturn Jefferson, the
leader ever toasted by the Savannah Republicans as "The Man of the People". The
local organ of the party in after years stressed the charge that four members of
Congress "had been offered any gratification they might wish for themselves or
their friends if they would vote for Mr. Burr for president in preference to Mr.
Jefferson."

    And Jefferson did not forgive or forget.

    There is one feature of the Hamilton-Burr duel, though, that few are aware of.

    Hamilton's second was a former Georgian, a Savannahian to whom almost came
the honor of filling the office of Secretary of State in President George
Washington's cabinet.

    There are dramatic pages in the life of Nathaniel Pendleton, as in the lives
of many notable early Savannahians, that are well worth recalling.

    Born in Virginia in 1756, he became an ardent patriot. espoused the American
cause in its inception, fought bravely in its armies, served for a time on Gen.
Greene's staff, and for gallant conduct at Eutaw Springs received the thanks of
Congress.

    With Greene and Wayne and others who had served in Georgia and appreciated
the opportunities here offered, Pendleton located at Savannah when the British
evacuated in 1782, and soon began the practice of the law. Such a leading
position had he assumed at the bar, as a citizen and in the General Assembly,
that in 1787 the Assembly elected him Chief Justice. He declined to act and
Henry Osborne was elected. Pendleton was elected as Osborne's successor in
January, 1789, and was the last man to hold the office of Chief Justice of
Georgia under the Constitution of 1777.

    Pendleton was a man of considerable persuasive power as an orator. One
incident of the forceful use of this1 talent is told by Governor Gilmer.

    It appears that a few years after the Revolution a horse was stolen from
Gen. Elijah Clark. Horse stealing at that time was a whit worse than murder.
Clark had a trifling fellow in the neighborhood arrested and had him charged
with the offense before the grand jury at the next Superior Court.

    "The testimony was insufficient for finding a true bill and the prisoner was
discharged. Gen. Clark, not doubting his' guilt, took the discharged man into
his own custody, marched him to a convenient place, followed by the posse
comitatus, judge and jury, and was about hanging him to some limb when Judge
Pendleton made so eloquent an address in favor of law and order that he
succeeded in doing by words what he could not through the officers of the Court."

    It was from Pendleton's residence on the Bay, between Whitaker and Barnard,
that the funeral of Gen. Greene took place.

    When the convention met at Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the Federal
Constitution Pendleton was one of Georgia's six representatives. For months; it
will be recalled, Washington presided over the deliberations, in which Alexander
Hamilton took a prominent part. More or less intimate acquaintanceships sprang
up between the members. If Pendleton attended the sessions his personality and
ability were such as to attract favorable attention. There is no doubt that as a
former Virginian and brave soldier Washington knew of and respected him.*

    When the Federal judiciary was established Washington appointed Pendleton as
the first United States Judge for the District of Georgia. Four years later
Thomas Jefferson resigned the office of Secretary of State and was succeeded by
Edmund Randolph, another Virginian, who retired in a storm cloud in August,
1795, leaving a nest of thorns for his successor. The country was torn with
dissensions, divided into almost warring factions as to its attitude toward the
French Republic. Patrick Henry, of Virginia, Thomas Johnson, of Maryland,
Governor Pinckney, of South Carolina, when approached declined the honor of
filling the vacant secretaryship. Sorely perplexed Washington turned to his
chief adviser, Alexander Hamilton:

    "What am I to do for a Secretary of State," wrote he, "private and
confidential": "I ask frankly and with solicitude, and shall receive kindly any
sentiments you may express on this occasion."

    Seven days later, on November 5, Hamilton wrote the President: "The
following characters, in the narrowness of the probable circle, as to
willingness, have occurred to me: Judge Pendleton, of Georgia * * * * Judge
Pendleton writes well; is of respectable abilities, and a gentlemanlike smooth
man. If I were sure of his political views, I should be much disposed to advise
his appointment under the circumstances, but I fear he has been somewhat tainted
with the prejudices of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, and I have afflicting
suspicions concerning these men."

    The world knows there was no political love lost between Hamilton and
Jefferson. It does not recall as vividly that there was but a minimum of it
between Washington and Jefferson.

    Several Georgia encyclopedias, even Appleton's Encyclopedia of American
Biography, state that Washington suggested the name of Pendleton. There is
nothing in Washington's published letters to indicate this. The thought of
Pendleton seems to have originated with Hamilton and but for the suspicion that
the Savannahian was tainted with Republicanism Hamilton would have succeeded in
installing him as the successor of Jefferson and Randolph, in making him the
third Virginian by birth to fill the office.

    Whether Pendleton knew at the time that he was under consideration for the
chief of cabinet positions does not appear. A year later, on August 31, 1796, he
resigned his judgeship and removed to New York. His departure from Savannah may
have been the result of his connection with the Yazoo land grants. Despite his
position as Federal judge, Pendleton is said to have been active in urging on
the legislators the passage of the act, and signed and issued certificates for
the shares that, it was charged, were given to the members of the legislature of
1794-95 for their votes. He indignantly denied any wrong doing in his acts but
one can readily perceive the uncomfortable position he occupied in Savannah when
Jackson opened the batteries of his fiery wrath on all connected with the Yazoo
affair.

    In New York the acquaintanceship between Pendleton and Hamilton was renewed
and ripened into a more intimate friendship. It was probably through him that
Hamilton became a legal adviser for those fighting before Congress to sustain
their claims to Georgia lands under the Yazoo grants. Hamilton's esteem for him
had become so pronounced that when Vice-President Burr's challenge came to him
he turned at once to Pendleton as his friend and second, and at the duelling
ground on Weehawken Heights it was the former Savannahian, guide and adviser
through all the unfortunate affair, who stood by his side and helped to bear the
dying man away to his home when felled by Burr's bullet. And when Hamilton's
will was read it was found that Pendleton was named as his executor.

    Truly, in many ways, Savannah connects with some of the most dramatic
incidents in the history of our country. The stories of its sons are illuminated
with thrilling incidents. Its streets and public places are vibrant with
historic life. It is hardly second to any other American city, younger though it
is than some, in those colorful, picturesque events that give history its great
charm. But the, poet and the painter and the novelist have been absent. The full
story has never been told as it should be, to grip the imaginations and leave
indelible pictures on the minds of all readers.

    Pendleton never came back to Savannah. His son, Nathaniel Greene Pendleton,
born in Savannah; became a congressman from Ohio, and his son, George H.
Pendleton, was one of the great leaders of the Democratic party, and among those
considered for its presidential nomination. He was candidate for vice-president
when Gen. George B. McClellan ran for president against Lincoln in 1864. He was
in the United States House of Representatives in 1857-65, Senator from Ohio in
1879-85, and minister to Germany under Cleveland in 1885-89.

    Other duels came in due course between Savannahians, of which no records
exist, mainly political in origin. South Carolinians, too, had a habit of
settling their disputes on Georgia soil and an occasional death attested the
sureness with which they shot. Of one such duel the only existing data,
apparently, is in the municipality's records of burials:

    'F. Strace Senter, 25 years of age, physician, native of Rhode Island,
January 19, 1804. Lockjaw occasioned by wound. Buried January 20. Left two
brothers in England and two sisters in Rhode Island, also some property in Rhode
Island. Wounded in duel with Honble. John Rutledge, Esq."

    Senter's dust has long mingled with the sand of Colonial park. Strange to
say, highly prominent as Rutledge was, not a bit of information can be had as to
the duel and its cause. Those most conversant with South Carolina history when
appealed to admitted that they had never heard of this affair. All there is with
reference to it, outside of the municipal death records, is an allusion to
Rutledge's having killed a man in a duel. As Mr. A. S. Sally, Jr., secretary of
the South Carolina Historical Commission, wrote me: "The newspapers of the early
days did not care to pry too much into a strictly private affair."

    Sometimes from the neighboring world with which Savannah was closely
associated by the ties of blood and of business came the news of a tragedy so
poignant in its resulting sorrows that all attention was centered on it and the
community as a whole felt a thrill of horror and a sense Of deepest sympathy
such as only come when men and women are shaken from their apathy by an incident
far beyond the ordinary. Such an occasion was that of 1807, when two young men
of Beaufort, well known here, met death at one another's hands. Frequent duels
of a more commonplace character had hardened the public conscience, but the
pathos of this affair stirred anew the fountains of remonstrance, and the
newspapers found courage and room for an account of the meeting in which the
writer gave full vent to the protests against the taking of life in such a way.
From the "Republican" this account is taken:

    "Departed this life on Monday afternoon, Mr. Arthur Smith, and on Tuesday
morning, Mr. Thomas Hutson, and yesterday the remains of these young gentlemen
were deposited in the tomb. On Monday morning they arose in all the vigour of
youth and health; in a few hours both were bleeding on the field of honor. A
challenge had been given and accepted—a duel was fought—and both were mortally
wounded. Such, honor, are thy triumphs! Come hither, duellist, and regale thy
senses! See two young men, the joy of their parents, levelling the deadly tubes
at each other— they fire—they fall. See them groaning on a death bed; and now
they breathe their last. Hear the distracted outcries of a fond and doating
parent—the heart-piercing lamentations of affectionate sisters and the more
silent though equally deep grief of loving brothers—are these pleasing to thine
eyes, or music to thine ears ? Yet, these, duellist, are the fruits of honor, so
called.

    "Oh, thou idol who delightest in human sacrifice; who snuffest up blood as
sweet smelling incense; when will thy reign cease. Oh, ye votaries of the
Moloch, ye abettors of murder and bloodshed, remember that that day will
assuredly come when you will know whether you are to frame your actions by the
laws of honor or the laws of God."

    On the following Sunday a union service was held at the Episcopal church in
Beaufort. The rector took as his text: "Let not the sun go down upon thy wrath;
neither give place to the Devil." The graves of the two young victims of the
code duello were in view of the worshippers as they heard the appeal from the
pulpit for the suppression of duelling by the force of Christian opinion. But
the impression proved only too fleeting. The hold the custom had upon the public
was too strong to be broken. For seven decades to come other young and older men
met as these two youths had done, some to fall never to rise again.

    The Hutson family name is occasionally met in the Savannah papers of the
early part of the century as resident here.

    Fencing masters located in Savannah in the early years of the century and
the young bloods became their apt pupils. "The polite art of fencing," as they
termed it in their advertisements, became quite popular. But the sword could
never usurp the place the pistol and the rifle had long held in the public
esteem. Occasional ebullitions of feeling against duelling are noticed with
resulting legislation aimed at the custom, but it was all to no purpose. Perhaps
earliest among the southern states to seek to check the spreading practice of
recourse to the code was Tennessee. Its legislature in 1802 passed a law under
which he who killed another in a duel was held a murderer and "to suffer death
without benefit of clergy", with a fine of $50, imprisonment for sixty days, and
forfeiture of rights of citizenship for one year, for sending, carrying or
receiving a challenge. North Carolina the next year followed suit, but the
“aiders and abettors" of a duel resulting fatally were likewise to suffer the
death penalty, while a fine of £100 attached to sending or carrying a challenge.
It is interesting to recall in this connection that the man who was most
instrumental in putting through this law was Frederick Nash, grandfather of
Edmund S. Nash, of New York, once resident here, and the great-grandfather of J.
C. Nash, of Savannah. So effective and beautifully expressed was his speech in
the House of Commons, although he was then but 22 years of age, that it was
incorporated in one of the early reports of the State. He was the son of Abner
Nash, second governor of North Carolina, and afterwards became a Superior Court
judge and Chief Justice of his state.

    Encouragement to this opposition sentiment was furnished the Savannah public
by occasional publications of protests from other sections, and in one of the
"Columbian Museums" of 1803 is found a three column letter from an English
bishop vigorously condemning duelling.

    It was not until 1809, though, that Governor Mitchell affixed his signature
to a rather weak Georgia act. But neither before that nor after was there a
predominant sentiment here to sustain prosecutions. When William Ploudon awoke
one morning and found staring in his face, in the columns of the "Columbian
Museum", this announcement:

    "I pronounce WILLIAM PLOUDEN a COWARD and a LIAR.
June 15, 1802.                GASTON BACKLER."

what was there for William Plouden to do, if he wished to remain in Savannah and
not have the finger of scorn pointed at him as1 he walked along its streets, but
to immediately dispatch a friend with a challenge to Backler? Nor was there any
expedient other than the duel whereby Francis Welman could save his sense of
personal honor and satisfactorily refute the charges, when the Savannah
"Rapublican" of June 21, 1809, held this card:

    "I hold Francis H. Welman a Liar, Coward and Poltroon.
                                  John Moorhead."

    While there is no record that Plouden and Backler and Welman and Moorhead
settled their difficulties with bullets, it is reasonable, in view of the spirit
of the day, to believe they at least fired one shot at each other. The burial
records tell of no resulting deaths.

    Readers of the old "Gazette" also found this graphic portraiture of one of
their fellow-citizens confronting them on its news page one morning:

    "To deal in calumny accords with the lineaments of this gentleman's
contracted phiz and phlegmatic constitution; the features of his countenance
appear clouded with malignant passion; his soul is' prone to false invective;
and though the insidious smile should now and then relax the furrows in his brow
it bears no claim to benevolence,"

    A shot or two under the circumstances must have greatly relieved the strain
and imparted a new and different smile to the "contracted phiz"—provided it was
not put beyond the pale of smiles forever by a well-located bullet.

    Even to-day such an unvarnished picture of a well-known Savannahian, wart
and all, would be calculated to provoke a street brawl, if nothing worse. In
those days the pen portrait painter invited an invitation to the nearest
duelling ground.

    At times a man was posted at the vendue house, which stood on the Bay near
where the City Hall now is. There the public sales of the city were advertised.
Amid the miscellaneous1 offers of negro slaves and plantation lands, of stocks
of merchandise and of schooners and other vessels, of rewards for runaway
apprentices and slaves, the angered Savannahian boldly and openly nailed the
paper on which he gave to the world his final verdict as to the character of his
erstwhile friend. His sketch was in a few simple words and no one who could read
could misunderstand them.

    In the very heart of the city's business district, surrounded by the offices
and warehouses of its merchants, he pilloried the man who had refused to accept
his1 challenge, or whom he desired to provoke to hostilities.

    Quickly the news spread within the small limits of the town and before
nightfall in every Savannah home there was a discussion of the merits of this
latest antagonism of two leading citizens and its probable final outcome. When
the victim of the posting came forth on the morrow he saw in every face the
language of his foe and realized that, for the time being at least, he was the
subject of general inquiry and comment, and that all awaited his action.

    Posting at the vendue house was equally as effective as posting in the
newspaper. It was as though the town crier, drum beating and a pack of
barefooted children at his heels, had gone up and down the sandy streets' loudly
proclaiming the insults that were heaped upon the white placard that stared at
every passer-by on the Bay. It was the acme of humiliation and of affront,
firing the blood to the fighting temperature.

    Sometimes the man posting another stood by the placard, pistol in pocket,
ready to draw and shoot if any one essayed to remove the obnoxious paper. It was
unsafe to interfere in such an affair, except through the regular channels'
prescribed by custom.

    The Grand Jury presentments of 1808 throw a flood of light on the local
situation as to duelling, leave no doubt that hostile meetings and rumors of
meetings kept the community alive with gossip, and prove conclusively that the
then existing laws did not check the habit, unsupported as the statutes seem to
have been by any strong favorable public sentiment. Said that august body to
Judge Walker:

    "We present the too frequent and irreligious custom of duelling. As we view
it with horror, we recommend some penalty that may effectually restrain it.

    "We regret that persons in the commission of the peace have not been
prevented thereby from carrying challenges, which is directly in violation of
the laws they are bound to support."

    From this one might infer that the officers of the law were more interested
in arranging for meetings under the code than in suppressing them—a conclusion
that is justified by other official pronouncements. Wounding a man's honor by
seducing his wife, or slandering his integrity, or sneering at his1 courage, was
not an offense to be disposed of in the Superior Court with a damage verdict for
so many dollars and cents. There were some things that could not be translated
into terms of money and public opinion proved paramount to legislative
enactment. Grand juries did not indict for violations, and if they had done so
petit jurors would hardly have convicted. As for the judges on the bench, well,
is it improbable that they would in the main have echoed the viewpoint of Judge
Fletcher, in England, who, in charging a jury in a duelling murder case, said:

    "Gentlemen, it is my business to lay down the law to you, and I shall do so.
Where two persons go out to fight a duel, and one of them falls, the law says it
is murder, and I tell you by the law it is murder, but at the same time a fairer
duel I never heard of in the whole course of my life."

    The Society of the Cincinnati, of which Alexander Hamilton was President
General at the time of his death, embracing as it did many of the most prominent
men of Savannah and other communities, the remaining officers of the
revolutionary struggle, admitted that although under the common law homicide in
a duel was murder, the law was a dead letter and obsolete, and that "All the
decisions in the courts of justice turned wholly on the fairness with which the
duel was conducted." In the North, where duelling is popularly supposed to have
been under the ban much earlier than in the South, one finds the Legislature of
New York in 1819 refusing to pass a bill making it a crime.

    Regarding duels, even when death resulted, as "purely private affairs", the
Savannah newspapers refrained from noting them. But the frequency of their
occurrence is once more made apparent by the action of the Grand Jury in
January, 1819, of which Steele White was foreman. In its presentments it
unveiled the situation locally:

    "The frequent violations of the law to prevent duelling have made the
practice fashionable and almost meritorious among its chivalrous advocates. We
will express it as1 our opinion that the law has been violated in repeated
instances with impunity, when a knowledge of the cases were, or have been, known
to its constituted guardians, and in the next instance the character of our city
was wantonly disregarded, the laws of social order and of the state unblushingly
set at defiance. Viewing the subject, as we do, of such magnitude, we deem it
our duty to present the negligence and indifference of the officers whose duty
it is to take cognizance of such matters as proper subjects of which to make
examples."

    [Referring to the Pendleton family, on page 129, Hon. George H. Pendleton
visited Savannah in January, 1876. The "Morning News" said of him: "His name in
this section is familiar as a household word, and is connected with
recollections of many defences of the South." A public ovation was extended the
visitor in front of the Pulaski House. Introducing Mr. Pendleton, Gen. Henry R.
Jackson said: "His voice has ever been raised in defence of constitutional
liberty, and his best endeavors have been devoted to the furtherance of the
interests of the South." Addressing the thousands of citizens who crowded the
street and square in front of the hotel, Mr. Pendleton referred to Savannah as a
city "which for many years he had ardently desired to visit. In his early
boyhood, he might say in his early infancy, his father had called him to his
side and pointing on the map to the city of Savannah, told him that there he had
been born and his father had lived before him." Referring to George H.
Pendleton, Alexander H. Stephens said: "He is one of the brightest and brainiest
men on this continent."]

    * From Pendleton's letter to President Washington, soliciting appointment as
Federal Judge for Georgia, published in the Georgia Historical Quarterly,
September, 1923, it is evident that he had never come into personal contact with
Washington, sustaining the opinion that Pendleton did not attend the
Constitutional Convention. His uncle, the noted Virginian, Edmund Pendleton, who
presided over the Virginia convention and was potent in having it ratify the
Constitution, and who was afterwards Chancellor of Virginia, used his influence
in behalf of his nephew for the District Judgeship and afterwards in an
unsuccessful effort to secure his appointment on the bench of the United States
Supreme Court.


Additional Comments:
From:

ANNALS   OF   SAVANNAH

SAVANNAH DUELS AND DUELLISTS

1733-1877
BY

Thomas Gamble

COPYRIGHT 1923
REVIEW PUBLISHING & PRINTING COMPANY SAVANNAH, GEORGIA




File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ga/chatham/history/other/gms412savannah.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/gafiles/

File size: 31.4 Kb