Privacy Of The US Mail In The 19th Century?

When I'm not stamp collecting, I sometimes do historical research. I happened today to be reading an 1832 letter to a somewhat prominent western politician where the writer is being strikingly careful with his words.

I can think of a couple of possible reasons for such caution, but one that comes to mind is that this person feared his letter might be read by a stranger en route to delivery. I seem to remember hearing that the U.S. mail wasn't very secure in the early 19th century.

Does anyone know of a good discussion on the history of the privacy of U.S. mail? In the early 19th century, was there a real risk of someone's letters being read?

In reviewing letters from the early 19th century, I've noted that some letters were sealed with wax. But many were not. I suppose these unsealed letters would have been particularly prone to being read by strangers, right?

https://postalmuseum.si.edu/exhibit...ministration




US Registered mail service began in 1855 in a limited manner but quickly expanded.

You may find, "The Postal Age: The Emergence of Modern Communications in Nineteenth-Century America byDavid M. Henkin" interesting as well.








That likely was more about proper and appropriate written communication rather than if some interloper was to read the letter.

The postal service here had a slow build up for one factual reason. Mail to be carried by the postal service needed two things, a literate sender who could put words on paper and a literate recipient who could read the words on paper plus one of whom could afford the cost of the letter's transit cost.

As we know, the greatest threat to the sanctity of the US post came from the post office and Comstockery.

I like how the USPS has a sacred duty to deliver your mailpiece but if you happened to inadvertently use counterfeit postage they'd have no problem throwing it away (in a more dystopian future that we may be nearing that is)

Bold,
Can you give a real example of USPS throwing away a mail piece that is not from a mass mailer?

I am unsure why people are buying into the silly media story on this topic. Let's try to put this topic to bed once and for all.

The actual USPS policy is intended for mass mailers who are found to be using counterfeit stamps and either have no return address or a false return address.

Once they ID large bundles of mass mailings with counterfeit stamps, they want the right to throw them away. If anyone disagrees with this, what is a better solution? Should they add postage due and make the addressee/recipient pay the postage? Should they warehouse all the unpaid for mail and have a committee look into it?
Don

I can believe that the new policy is intended for mass mailers, but is this actually specified in the policy? If the steps are detailed that the USPIS takes to combat this issue with mass mailers, that is fine, but all I see in the DMM manual is,


A problem with a vague policy like this is that leaves it up to the whim of any local postal clerk who might think they are following company policy by throwing away any letter they see with a stamp that doesn't look kosher.

Furthermore, I'd like to know what is defined as a mass-mailer. Most of the counterfeit postage that I see advertised is Forever stamps, not bulk rate stamps typically used by a mass mailer. If a school or a small non-profit organization sends out 500 or 1000 items, would that be considered a mass mailing and destroyed?

I think a more equitable solution for everyone is to first contact the sender and bill them for the correct postage before the articles will be released. A second offense will cost them a penalty. If unpaid, then they get shredded. The fine should be large enough to help defray the extra costs of this enforcement. It may not be revenue neutral at the beginning, but as word spreads, it should cut down on the number of offenders. As it stands today, with no notification, advertisers will just keep sending out their mailers until the cows come home, with no realization that the items are getting tossed.

Also I think it is fine to target non-mass-mailers with a courtesy postcard telling them their postage is counterfeit and they should stop using it. Cut down on the demand will slow down sales and help combat the problem from the supply side.

Parcel Guy, I appreciate this recommendation. Thank you. It may be that I had the wrong idea about the security of 19th-century mail.




You may be right. The letter I'm reading is from a political activist who lived near Marietta, Ohio, to Robert Lucas, who was days away from winning the nomination for Ohio governor in an 1832 state political convention. Wrote the activist:

...allow me Sir in the sincerity of my Heart to make a Suggestion. give to it, whatever Weight you Please...: Let the Gentleman nominated, or before nomination for Governor, be introduced and associate a little, with affability among the Delegates, with but little trouble and without lessening any Gentleman's Dignity, much Good will be done.

I initially found it odd that the letter writer spoke of the future nominee in the third person when it seems clear he was really suggesting to Lucas what Lucas should do at the convention.

It may be that this activist did not want to risk insulting Lucas by suggesting he would ever do anything so gauche as to directly seek office. I didn't think of this before, but in this era, many aspiring politicians still tended to let their friends campaign on their behalf. Plus, given that Lucas was already a pretty big deal at this point (he had run statewide in 1830), the activist may have figured a little obsequiousness could not hurt.

Thanks for helping me think through this.

I believe the privacy of any 1832 letter within the mailstream to be much more secure than after it was delivered and setting around open on/in a desk, etc.
(consider the lack of return address in this era too.)

Or even decades later when the letter is read by numerous others. I often wonder if senders ever thought that what they wrote would become public and read by people for generations to come. Exactly what should we all believe in terms of our own 'expectation of privacy' for our personal communications?
Don