The documents of the day rarely list David Bradford as  junior, and perhaps he had dropped that suffix after his father's death in 1808.  But from my reading he was David M. Bradford, Jr., the son of "General" David M. Bradford.

 

After the death of the senior Bradford, our David Bradford, Jr. inherited a portion of his father's land and also became a planter.  However, he seems to have had more interest in politics and the law than his land.  Regardless, when your father is the larger than life figure of "Whiskey Dave" you have a lot to live up to and maybe a little to prove.

 

Born in 1796 he lived to the age of 48 and died in 1844.  He married Amanda Davis in 1820, the sister of Jefferson Davis.  Together they had nine children one of whom was named Jefferson Davis Bradford who went on to be appointed to West Point by President Franklin Pierce in 1856.

​

And it is this connection to the Davis family that seems to be the key connection for David Bradford in his rise to the job as Superintendent of the New Orleans Mint.

 

Jefferson Davis went to West Point and graduated in June 1828.  He was assigned to an Army unit  under Zachary Taylor, the future President of the United States.  During his service he fought in the Black Hawk War and the Mexican-American War.

 

Jefferson Davis' connection with Zachary Taylor was further strengthened when he married Taylor's daughter Sarah Knox Taylor in 1835.  Sarah unfortunately died of yellow fever or malaria only months after they were married.  He then married Varina Banks Howell in 1845.  She was the daughter of New Jersey Governor Richard Howell.

 

Davis' political career obviously had many more chapters, but for our story here he was a rising and influential figure in Washington politics during the era.

​

So we now have a situation where strong family and political connections open the door to opportunity for David Bradford, Jr.  We know that Bradford ran for the U. S. Senate in 1826 but fell short in the voting.  We also know that he favored the law and politics over the life of plantation management.

 

So it could be that with the strong connection to Jefferson Davis and indirect connections to Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, and Richard Howell, Bradford was given the job of the first Superintendent of the Mint in New Orleans.

 

The political figures involved may have looked at the Superintendent's job as one of relatively low political risk and a good favor to throw to David Bradford.  We will never know, but it is certainly plausible with all of Bradford's connections.

​

Bradford became Superintendent in 1837, but was gone by 1839, so what happened?  Well it was not just Bradford that was gone.  Three key officers of the Mint were David Bradford, Superintendent; Edmond Forstall, Treasurer; and James Maxwell, Melter and Refiner.  By 1839 Bradford and Forstall and been removed from office and Maxwell died.  So there was a lot of turnover of key figures in this brief two year span.

 

Sometimes the smallest of incidents can lead to big problems, and so it went for David Bradford.  We can pick up the details of David Bradford's demise as the Mint Superintendent from an article in the E-Gobrecht May 2017 issue (Volume 13, Issue5).  It would appear that all the key officers and some employees were deposed during an investigation of the Mint's operations started by Director Robert M. Patterson.  Thomas Slidell, the U. S. Attorney for New Orleans was appointed Commissioner to conduct the investigation.  At least 345 pages of depositions survive, so there is plenty of information remaining to understand what happened.

 

Apparently a depositor, Damien Cass, brought a group of Mexican, Spanish, Portuguese, and American Dollars to the Mint melt or exchange for smaller denomination silver coins.  The value expected by Cass was $200 but when he got home and counted what he had been given it was only $199.50.  When Cass confronted the Mint about the discrepancy they could not tell if they had paid out the correct amount, or they might in fact owe Cass $212 and had paid that amount.  Or based on later evidence was Cass given coins that were struck from light weight planchets?  There were earlier events that drew the attention of the Washington Mint Officials, but this seems to be the event that kicked off the investigation.

 

Prior to this there had been heated communications concerning the production of half dollars with communications from Washington becoming more pointed.  These events later kicked off more than a century of numismatic research trying to figure out how many 1838-O half dollars were struck and conclusions that Mint Officials in New Orleans were involved in covering up the exact number of coins made.  This mystery seems to have been solved by Kin Carmody and published in an article in the John Reich Journal, April 2020.  The article and a video are available at the Newman Portal and certainly worth reading and watching.

​

Facts uncovered and listed in surviving depositions in the Mint investigation included:

• Furnaces and various pieces of equipment were allowed to be out of service.
• Machinists were frequently diverted to fix coining presses
• Dies were not being monitored for wear or deterioration and were being used beyond their life
• The Coiner had to condemn three coining presses, the milling machine, rolls, the steam engine, some cutting presses, and the draw bench
• At least one coin press had been put in the machine shop and allowed to rust
• Unauthorized modifications to the coin presses had been made by employees

​

The weight of the testimony (together with earlier suspicions) was enough for the Washington officials to believe that the New Orleans Mint was either being grossly mismanaged or that new management was needed.  This can also be coupled with a clash of management styles with Director Patterson being described as an authoritarian who would not have viewed any issues with suspicion.

 

Bradford and Forstall were removed from office at the end of the investigation and new management brought in as replacements.  Forstall was considered to be the weakest link in the management chain and capable of little more than signing papers that were presented to him.  If subordinates were "skimming" bullion from light planchets apparently he lacked the experience to detect it.  Adding to the intrigue was the Chief Coiner, Rufus Tyler.  He played a key role in the intrigue surrounding the issues but was a much better politician than Bradford.  He escaped the reorganization but died in the yellow fever epidemic within a year.

 

Family connections may help open doors for you, but once you are there you have to be competent to keep a job.  Apparently David Bradford was a poor choice for the Superintendent's job and it had started to show.

 

However, connections can help save you since no charges other than mismanagement were alleged.  There was significant evidence of the minting of underweight planchets which could have resulted in profits for Mint officials or employees, and the heated exchange over the 1838-O halves added weight to all the other suspicions.  Bradford was thought to be guilty of gross mismanagement or collusion with others minting unauthorized and underweight coins.

​

For David Bradford the end of his Mint employment was certainly not the end of his story.  By 1843 Bradford was again practicing law.  Some altercation or event preceded his issuing a duel challenge to John T. Mason.  Mason refused the challenge because of Bradford's "advanced age."  Accounts vary as to the exact events that unfolded depending on which side you were allied, but here are three accounts.

​

FATAL RECONTRE - From the last Vicksburg Sentinel we gather the particulars of an unfortunate affair which occurred at Richmond, in this State, last week, in which a man named Bradford was killed by John T. Mason.  The circumstances attending this melancholy occurrence, as related to the editor of the Sentinel, are as follows.  Mr. Bradford had challenged Mr. Mason to fight a duel, which was refused on account of the advanced age of the challenger.  Some time after Bradford came into a billiard room, while Mason was engaged in a game, and reading the challenge aloud, denounced Mason as a coward, &c.  He then left the room, and Mason proceeded to his residence, armed himself with a double-barreled shot gun, and came out into the street, where he met with Bradford, and after a few words had passed between them, the latter attempted to draw a pistol, when the former fired both barrels of his gun, which was charged with buckshot, and mortally wounded his antagonist.  After receiving the wound, and while lying on the ground, Bradford fired his pistol and wounded Mason, the ball passing through his right arm and bruising his side.  Bradford lived but a few minutes after being shot.

 

The persons who witnessed the fight were unanimously of the opinion that Mason was perfectly justifiable, inasmuch as he acted entirely on the defensive - so says the informant of the Sentinel.

​

We give place to the following communication, which the writer says is a true statement of the melancholy affair which we published a few days ago.  It is not our intention to forestal [sic] public opinion.  We gave the statement as related to us.

 

TO MESSRS. DIXON & CLAIBORNE:

Publishers of the Sentinel, &c.

Gentlemen: In your paper of the 18th inst., there appears a statement, headed "Fatal Rencontre" - that statement is false in every essential particular; improper, as it attempts to forestal [sic] public opinion in a case to be submitted to the proper tribunal for the investigation of crimes, and utterly wicked as it seeks to excuse a base and cowardly murder.  Whoever your informant may have been, I hope for his sake, that his opportunity to know the truth was small.  It is not true, that the deceased, Mr. Bradford, saw or had any communication with, or read aloud a challenge to John T. Mason, on the day on which the murder was committed.

Mr. Bradford was returning home when Mason, who was standing on the street with a double barrelled [sic] shot gun, hailed him as he approached towards him, (Mason,) asked "are you armed," and immediately fired, and after Mr. Bradford fell wounded, fired the other barrel and ran.  Mr. Bradford, as he lay, drew his pistol, cocked it and fired at and wounded slightly the --- --- --- assassin who had got some thirty yards off.

 

A few minutes afterwards, Mr. B. expired.

​

The question of what really happened took another twist when John T. Mason was indited for murder by a grand jury.

 

On May 24, 1844 this account was printed in the Richmond [La.] Compiler

 

TRIAL AND ACQUITAL [sic] OF JOHN  T. MASON ESQ.

Our readers doubtless remember that in March last, we briefly announced the fact, that the late David Bradford, of this parish was killed in the streets of this place by Mr. Mason, who at the time arrested, taken before an examining court, and held to bail for his appearance at the May term of the district court.

 

On Wednesday the 8th inst., the grand jury returned  to the court, a true bill against Mason for murder the next day he was arrested, a special jury summoned, and the case set for trial on the 15th.  According to appointment the case was called, a jury empanelled [sic] and able counsel appeared both for the prosecution and the defence [sic].

 

For the State the District Attorney; Mr. Bonham, Mr. Boyle, of Bayou Sara, Messers. Wallace and Perkins of this parish.  For the prisoner, H. S. Foote of Mississippi, D. S. Stacy of Vidalia, and Messrs. Shannon, Amonett, & Pierce of this place.

 

The investigation of the case occupied the time of the court for three days and a half, during which time, all the circumstances of the case, which were proper to go to the jury, underwent a patient and thorough investigation.  Perhaps so great a  display of learning and ability, has never before been witnessed in this parish in the investigation and argument of any case.  Several of the gentlemen mentioned, made their first appearance before a jury in this cause, and so far as we have heard an expression of opinion, acquitted themselves with great credit.

 

Gen. Foote closed the argument for the defence [sic], and Mr. Boyle for the prosecution.  They were both old and talented lawyers, and the collision of their minds may be compared to the grappling of two giants; but we cannot attempt a notice of their respective speeches.

 

At 11 o'clock, A. M. on Saturday, Mr. Boyle submitted the case to the jury, and after a short, but clear and impartial charge from Judge Willson, the jury retired to make up verdict.  About three or four o'clock in the afternoon, the jury returned into court, and asked to be discharged, on account of their inability to agree upon a verdict, which request was refused by the court, and the jury ordered back to their room.

 

On Monday morning, soon after the opening of the court, the jury returned the following verdict:

 

"We the jury find the accused not guilty, in manner and form as charged in the indictment," or in other words, the jury pronounced the act excusable homicide.  Great interest was manifested in this trial, and a very large of persons were present during its progress.

​

Obviously from the competing newspaper accounts opinions differed concerning the events.  Today these type challenges and responses are out of our sphere of understanding.