In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

John Forsyth returned to Alabama in November 1858 with every intention of returning to his diplomatic post. After the Juárez forces gained the upper hand in the Mexican War of the Reform, the beleaguered minister hoped to be able to extend recognition to the Liberal regime and continue his policy of economic and territorial expansion. President Buchanan, however, had other ideas. Buchanan realized that Forsyth’s return to the United States presented a chance to be rid of the impertinent diplomat once and for all. In December, Forsyth traveled from Mobile to Washington at the request of the president. He soon learned that the administration had no intention of sending him back to Mexico. In his Second Annual Message to Congress, Buchanan referred to Forsyth as the “late minister to Mexico.”1 Taking this affront as a personal insult to his honor as a gentleman, he asked Buchanan to allow him to brie®y return to Mexico where he would then resign. The president refused to consider Forsyth’s request so the fuming minister submitted his resignation on 7 February 1859—to be effective on March 2. During the ¤rst few months of 1859, a bitter war of words between the supporters and critics of Forsyth took place in several of the nation’s most prominent (and partisan) newspapers. On 10 May 1859 the New York Times published a “Letter from the Hon. John Forsyth, late Minister to Mexico concerning the Administration.” In this lengthy discourse, Forsyth told his side of the Mexican controversy. The editor included personal letters written to President Buchanan along with responses. Buchanan returned one particularly hostile letter with only the words, “Disrespectful, ungrateful, and absurdly unfounded .” Just after his resignation, Forsyth wrote to Stephen A. Douglas, stating that “Mr. Buchanan has put a gulf betwixt himself and me by the most shameful treatment, forfeiting all my respect for him as a gentleman as well as con¤dence in him as a just and upright magistrate.”2 As Forsyth accepted that his diplomatic career was over, he once again 6 The “Disturber” of the Democracy turned his attention to state and national issues. In June, the Register noted Forsyth’s return to full-time management of the paper as sole owner and editor. Forsyth wrote: “I come back to take the undivided responsibility of the conduct of this journal with political principles not only unchanged, but indurated by the re®ections which two and a half years of separation from the press have afforded me to make upon my past political career.” As for the administration, Forsyth claimed his falling out with Buchanan would in no way affect his loyalty to the Democratic Party. As a crucial presidential election approached, it was time to “let bye gones be bye gones.”3 The months leading up to the election of 1860 were among the most eventful and controversial of Forsyth’s entire career. During the nomination and platform adoption processes of the national Democratic Party, several important themes either came to light or resurfaced. First, the territorial problem, far from being solved, became more explosive than ever. Second, Forsyth left the majority of his own state party to support the presidential aspirations of Stephen A. Douglas. Third, the campaign gave perhaps the best example of the in®uence of national arguments on local concerns. Finally, Forsyth played an important role in the Charleston and Baltimore national Democratic conventions and the resulting disruption of the national party. Understanding the continuing uproar over the territories requires a brief review of the situation. The nation’s leaders had debated the dilemma over slavery in the territories, and the question of congressional authority over it, since the Ordinance of 1787. As we have seen, the acquisition of the New Mexico Territory and California after the Mexican War, the Wilmot Proviso, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act each, in turn, brought the question to the national forefront. The furor that developed over the ill-fated Wilmot Proviso led Southerners to close ranks on the issue of states’ rights. William L. Yancey’s Alabama Platform went in the opposite direction. Yancey believed the federal government had a duty to protect slavery in the territories and that slaveowners had the right to take their slave property into the territories without interference. The debate of 1850–51, in which Forsyth (then editor of the Columbus [Georgia] Times) sounded like an avid secessionist, resulted in a patchwork compromise. Stephen A. Douglas, while...

Share