Helen:
Your point is well taken - or at least partially so. Perhaps it was
prematurely judgemental of me to refer to Andrew as a rogue. It would
have been more precise had I said that based upon the evidence currently
at hand, he appears to have been a rogue.
But I heartily disagree that we ought not stand in judgement of our
forebearers. Your case in point regarding Armstrong descendents
discussing their border clan ancestors rather begs the issue, it seems to
me. It is one thing to be critical of the activities of 16th-century
reivers who lived in a unique corner of the world and whose mores were
shaped by social, economic and political pressures so far beyond our
frame of reference that we cannot begin to understand them, but it's
quite another to cite the errors of a 19th-century individual who lived
within legal and moral restraints not much different than our own. I
have no right to fault my Tory ancestors for fighting with the British
in the American Revolution because I don't know enough about the context
of their decisions, but I do not hesitate to call great uncle Harry a
crook because stealing horses was as wrong then as it is now.
I'm not interested in condemning Andrew Cavitt; I'm simply interested in
putting flesh on his statistical bones. His involvement in the
counterfeiting affair quite naturally sparks curiosity. Further research
may well show that Andrew was unjustly charged. After all, the
counterfeiting equipment was physically in the possession of Andrew's
uncle, Michael Cavitt, when it was confiscated. Michael just alleged
that it belonged to Andrew.
The arrest warrants issued by two different Sumner County Justices the
day after the equipment was seized, are interesting because they
paraphrase the statements made to them by the arresting officer but
differ somewhat in their details. Here are the warrants, verbatim:
"State of Tennessee, Sumner County
"To any legal Officer to Execute
"This day came before me Edw Douglass a Justice of the peace for said
county John W Byrn and made Oath that on the night of the thirteenth
instant he heard Andrew Cavitt give instructions to a young man by the
name of William Hays to go to his Uncle Michial Cavitt and secure certain
Boxes of his, he accordingly went, delivered his message, when the said
Micheal Cavitt his son and daughters took the Boxes in order to deposit
them in some secure place when he the said Byrn stopped them and took
possession of them.
"These are therefore in the name of the State to command you to take the
body of Andrew Cavitt and him safely keep so that you have him before the
proper authority to be examined concerning the above stated facts and be
further dealt with as the law Saith.
"Given unto my hand and seal this 14th day of Jany 1819.
Edw Douglass"
"State of Tennessee, Sumner County
"To any Legal officer
"This day John W. Byrn appeared before me Archbald Martan a Justis of the
piace for said county and maid Oath that on the Knight of the Thirteenth
of this instant the said Bryn & Noah Cotten went to the hous of Michal
Cavett then and there did hear certain Instruction utter by said Michal
Cavett wife daughter & sun which were in the following Effect---
Thus said Cavitt ask what should they do a with Andrew Cavitt Boxes the
result was to hide them in mar...? feet for if they should be found it
would be injurious to said Andrew.
"These are therefour to command you in the name of the State to take Said
Michel Cavitt Molly Cavitt Bitsey & Cavitt Alexander Cavett & have them
before said Justis of the peace for said county to be Examined concerning
the Boxes & the content contained therein the property of Andrew Cavitt &
what they no relating to the same & be further delt with as the case
directs given under my hand and seal this 14th day 1819.
Arch Martin Jr."
Both Michael and Andrew plead not guilty. Michael was required to post a
$150 bond to guarantee his appearance at the March Term of Court; Andrew
had to post a $2000 bond. I can't help but wonder whether the
comparative size of the bonds not only reflected the Justices' assessment
of the likelihood of flight to avoid trial, but their opinion of the
degree of culpability.
Apparently Andrew, Michael and family and various witnesses presented
themselves to the Grand Jury and then showed up in court to hear the
indictments read, so no bonds were forfeited. Sumner County records end
there.
Whatever the merits of the counterfeiting charge may have been, the
record implies that Andrew may have deliberately involved innocent, if
too trustful, relatives in an effort to conceal certain of his
activities. If this was the case, it would further suggest shortcomings
in his character.
While I'm not inclined, perhaps because I'm incorrigibly sexist, to judge
too harshly young Andrew's affair with Mrs. Stalcup, I cannot as readily
dismiss the counterfeiting affair as a youthful indiscretion. After he
married and "settled down," he does appear to have made something of
himself. But again, his very identification with the counterfeiting case
understandably prompts speculation as to HOW he made something of
himself. As to his indisputable contribution to the development of
Texas, what was it? Leaving a lot of descendents there?
So you're right, we mustn't dump on poor Andrew .... quite yet. But let
me say again, I'm not trying to find additional court records and
contemporary newspaper accounts in order to justify condemning him. I
just want to know who he really was.
John