1864 Letter From New Orleans With Racist Remark

In 1864 there was no concern about "political correctness" as we know it. It was about a 100 years later that we had to start watching what we said. Although, in polite society descriptors such as Negro and colored were softer substitutes for the word in your letter.

Don

I really appreciate the civil tone everyone is taking in this thread as it is such a difficult topic that it could easy degenerate. I also think that it is an appropriate discussion since it relates directly to the piece of postal history shared by the original poster.

I agree that there is history and then there are facts. Two facts to add to the discussion about the cause of the war would be to read President Lincoln's innaugural address of March 4, 1861, in which he proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law. Here is some of the actual text of what he said:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. 3
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. 4
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another. 5
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. 6
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

The second fact is to ask when did the war between the states begin, then when did the President emancipate the slaves in Washington D.C. and finally when the the President sign the general emancipation proclamation that applied to all states? The war began on April 12, 1861. President Lincoln emancipated the slaves in Washington D.C. on April 16, 1862 - more than a year later. And then President Lincoln emancipated the slaves in all of the states on January 1, 1863 which was 20 months after the war began.

Of course slavery was a major issue, but with these facts it is difficult to say that it was the only or even the main issue otherwise why wouldn't the President emancipate all of the slaves in the northern states immediately at the begining of the war, or why would he not state clearly in his first speech after being sworn in as President that this was his main issue and would go to war because of it?

I am student of history and have been all my life.
I have read a few books and didn't get all my information
from Wikipedia.

In my nearly seven decades on this planet I have seen constant
change but the true facts of history will not and cannot change
no matter how some revisionist, bleeding heart,political correct
do gooders wish it to be.
It happened and you can twist and turn the truth but
it won't chance the facts.

The fact is that the Civil War was about states rights
not slavery.


Letter from Lincoln to Horace Greeley, Aug. 22, 1862.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.

Apparently no one wants to acknowledge the fact that Lincoln HAD to go slowly on the subject of slavery, he had the Border States to contend with. He could not risk losing them by moving too quickly on the slavery issue. Since Lincoln wrote what he did, some people seem to feel that everything that the various Confederate States wrote about the issue does not count. Pointing out what they wrote AT THE TIME is apparently "revisionist". Of course certain terminally narrow minded individuals seem to think that only "bleeding heart political do gooders" would care about slavery, or think it a horrible evil. Or recognize it as the only "States Right" involved.

BY the way, the Republican Party of Lincoln had been founded only a few years earlier. On ONE ISSUE. It was Anti-Slavery. That was it's only major issue in the early days.

States' rights???? How about states' RIGHT - singular - as in the right to hold slaves. It was the people in power who led the charge to secede. And those people in power were well aware that their power, money and lifestyle all hinged on the ability to keep very very cheap labor (slaves) available in their agrarian society.

I thought that argument about rights (plural) was punctured back in about '65 - that's 1865!

I don't quite get what you mean there.

Are you saying that what people including Lincoln said
150 years ago only counts when it agrees with
your liberal beliefs?

It was a different time and one can't judge those
people in what we believe are racist or intolerant
views.




The Republican Party was not strictly abolitionist when founded
but I agree that one of their main arguments was against the spread of slavery in any new states joining the Union.
Which isn't the same thing as abolishing slavery throughout the land.

If that was the ONE ISSUE as you say they would not have won the 1860 election.

It is also ironic that a party with those beliefs at that time
would believe themselves to be political descendants of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party.
Jefferson being a slave owner to his dying day and well known
to have fathered numerous progeny with his negro female slaves.

Making it somewhat "about" slavery probably help to keep the British from intervening on behalf of southern states trade. The British relied much on commerce with the southern states but, they could not intervene with slavery as an issue, and be seen as protecting the institution they had abolished.
Just one of many complicated factors in my opinion. But a factor non the less.

Also my opinion: Very few Northern soldiers would have fought and died only to free slaves. And......very few southern soldiers would have fought and died to only protect the institution of slavery. How many of those soldiers do you think actually owned slaves???

You are correct, stampcrow - very few of the common Southern soldier owned slaves - which is exactly WHY the powers (aka rich folks getting richer off the institution of slavery), came up with the idea of States' Rights ... it was a political spin and a sales pitch. In the North, the pitch was the all-important preservation of the Union - a House Divided against itself and all that ...

But the bottom line and underlying factor and true reason was slavery, and the abolition thereof.

The main commodity that England received from the southern states
was cotton in exchange for manufactured goods.

As soon as the supply dwindled due to Union embargoes, England
got more than enough cotton from Egypt for the duration of the war.

Britain wanted to keep their hands in the pie because they
relished the fact that their former colonies were in turmoil
and saw a chance to be a player again if the South had
survived as an independent country.

Don't forget the USA and Britain were not the friendly
allies which they are now.

Everything Lincoln said certainly counts. I'm saying that Lincoln had serious political reasons for moving slowly on the slavery issue because of the risk of alienating and losing the border states to the Confederacy, something that HAD to be avoided at all costs.
Apparently you did not read this last paragraph of what you wrote, particularly the last sentence: "What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free".
Lincoln himself also stated that "a house divided against itself cannot stand".
He knew that slavery must be abolished if the nation was to survive. And there were a fair number of people in both high and low places in the Republican Party at the time that wanted to end slavery everywhere.

Lincoln won the election of 1860 on that one issue because there were four candidates for president in that election; he won with a 40% plurality and 180 Electoral Votes.

"Pointing out what they wrote AT THE TIME is apparently "revisionist".
That means just what it says. The various states Articles of Succession and the Confederate Constitution CLEARLY point out that the issue was slavery. And they were written at the time of the events. There is nothing "revisionist" about them.

And whatever Jefferson did has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here, which happened long after his death.

For the common soldiers the issue was economic. The nation was very nomadic in the 19th century, and there were far fewer jobs available in the slave states, since the slaves were doing them.
The economy of the South depended on them, and the well being of northerners looking to improve their lives by moving around depended on their being either enough free states or no slave states at all. In the end, it's always about the money. And in this case, it's relation to slavery.

I wonder how many people here saw the PBS series
by Ken Burns called The Civil War?

It portrayed the people and the times using old photos
(many by Matthew Brady ) and besides quotes from the main characters also read letters written home
by soldiers North and South and some from the wives and daughters left behind.

Well as I recall there wasn't much concern (except Frederick Douglass) about the
pros and cons about slavery but mostly about preserving the Union
or on the other side trying to protect against northern
aggression and domination.

What is written in those letters and in newspapers at that time
is how people really felt and what they believed in;
not what some liberal lefty political correct government employed
history professor wants us to believe because he/she has some sort of agenda and knows which side
his/her bread is buttered on and no way wants to risk loosing all that by going against the grain.

You are hardly the only one to watch it; I saw it too as did millions of others. No one denies that preserving the Union was foremost in the minds of most in the North. But since that was impossible with slavery, and slavery was the reason for the succession in the first place, slavery WAS the real issue.

Apparently anyone who thinks that the issue was slavery is "some liberal lefty political correct government employed history professor". Even though he has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Although you hatred of him is certainly no surprise. And what do you know, 150 years ago that professor might well have been a slave, too.
And no, I am not in love with him, I am not in love with ANY current politician of any party.

Hatred? Since when is disagreeing with something or someone
classified as "hatred" ?

I resent that.