"Civil War Era Letter from Slave To Master" Topic

This is a fascinating letter recently discovered from a slave to his former slave master who had asked that he return after the end of the Civil War.

I'm an attorney and I could not have made his case any better than he did for himself.

link

Very interesting to say the least.

See here:

TMP link

Forgive me if I harbor a few doubts about its authenticity.
It sounds too good to be true.
Having said that, it would be way cool if it were genuine.

Most white men couldn't have written that letter, so I am also doubtful that an escaped slave wrote it.

Setting aside whether or not an escaped slave could have written so literate a letter, the style of the writing is NOT 1865-ish.
The style is far too modern.

Why look it up, when there are others around to do it for you?

link

The people are real, and the "letter" is of that time, but as far as who the actual author was, and if it was actually a letter that was sent to the former master, rather than post-war propaganda, that seems to be undecided.

Seems far more political propaganda of the time than genuine letter

total fake. for many reasons, first being the sentance structure. not many educated whites could compose a sentance like that. i believe in bigfoot, but i'm not that stupid…

According to the link, History PhD is correct that it is a piece of propaganda.

I do archival and academic research for a living. Definitely not the phraseology of a man who would've been totally illiterate only some 5 years prior to writing that letter

I too think the letter is/was a hoax, but it is funny how the folks on the 19th century media board are so much more trusting than this lot here. :)

There is an interesting chapter in the very entertaining 'Wicked River: The Mississippi When It Last Ran Wild'. In it one of the most prosperous citizens of I think it was Natchez, a slave-holder who owned a number of businesses, smithies, barber shops etc. who kept a strange diary of accounts laced with reports of street fights got into a dispute over a land deal and was bushwacked by his antagonist.

The interesting thing was he was a free Negro and so was the man who murdered him boldly in plain sight of witnesses, or at least was thought to be. The murderer managed to introduce evidence in court that his color was in fact from his being half Seminole Indian and so the witnesses, who were black, were not allowed under Mississippi law to testify against him.

The family of the murdered man were of course wealthy and sent investigators who found evidence the murderer was in fact part Negro but the judge would not hear the evidence. The murderer was also a wealthy man in the community you see $$$.

A fascinating story which I think illustrates the complexity of history which is so often simplified into slogans.

The fact that it was published as post war "propaganda" is something I can easily accept. As to whether it was actually "dictated" by an escaped slave I believe that could be easily verified by historical details in his letter and the names of others on the plantation. It seems if this was a fake someone around that time would of spoke up or published something saying this guy was never a slave or none of those events ever happened.

I would be interested in knowing who the union soldier that was killed was. Seems if there was a battle fought in that area around that time and a soldier was captured his identity could be discerned. I'm sure his family would have an interest in knowing how he really died if the Col. actually shot him as unarmed prisoner of war

i do own a rather nice train trostle in nesquehoning, pa. i'd sell for a low price to the person who believes this letter is real…

Wow what a fake letter, written way to well!

I've never met a trained historian who doubted the authenticity of the letter and several very good ones (David Blight for instance) are quite convinced that it is authentic. Might I suggest that this was not written by a field hand, but probably by a slave who was a favorite of his master (obviously at least a moderately wealthy planter) and thus probably could read and write reasonably well?

Billy Yank

Some fairly compelling evidence that supports the idea that while the man was real, the letter was composed for him by a Freedman organization just after the war.

As further support of the authenticity of the letter and its contents, I direct the reader to the 1870, 1880, and 1900 federal censii for Dayton, Ohio which show Jordan Anderson (b Dec 1825 in Tennessee) in a household with his wife Amanda (b Oct 1829 in Tennessee). In the 1870 census, five years after the letter was published, they were listed with four of their children -- 19 year-old Jane, 12 year-old Felix (Grundy?), 5 year-old William, and 1 year-old Andrew. Over the years, Amanda had had eleven children, only six of whom were still living in 1900. Three of the children we were living with them 1900, including their 29 year-old son Valentine, a physician. In the years of the censii, Jordan lists himself as hostler, a coachman, and a butler. He cannot read or write, and Amanda can only read, but all of his children attend school in the records shown.

link

I am fascinated by the number of people who say this can't be real on the grounds that it's too well written.

I especially liked the TMPer who provided this piece of comedy gold:

"total fake. for many reasons, first being the sentance structure. not many educated whites could compose a sentance like that."

Indeed, indeed.

well, like i said jack, i do own a bridge thats for sale. i'd figure a smart man such as you would be interested…

Well, over the years I've read hundreds of period letters, and I find nothing in this letter that says "FAKE!"

Rather, most of the remarks in this thread appear to me to be from folks who likely find it disconcerting that a former slave could possibly write, and probably converse, in a better manner than they might ever hope to attain.

V/R

I'm not sure if it makes any difference whether the letter is fake or not. What's real are the sentiments involved. There WERE a great many Southern whites who believed (hoped) that after the war things could just go back to the way they were before the war. 'Well, this secession thing didn't work out so well after all. Let's just forget it ever happened okay?' And pretty much all the blacks said: 'In your dreams, buddy!' :)

I am reminded of the dialogue that Stomewall Jackson had with his slave in Gods and Generals.
"You darkies, y'all don't mind being slaves, now do you?"

Most likely was a letter written for the slave in question – perhaps by Frederick Douglass, who proves that a former slave most certainly could write much more succinctly then most educated whites of the (any actually) time.

John, if you really look at that scene carefully and listen to what's being said, it's one of the most damning condemnations of slavery you'll ever find. His slave talks of his hopes and his dreams for himself and his family and Jackson treats him like a little child who's asking for a new pony. 'Well, we'll see.' is his answer (I think he actually says that it's all in God's hands, but it amounts to the same thing). Clearly Jackson just DOESN'T GET IT. That this is a person, just like himself, with dreams and ambitions just like himself and Jackson just can't see that. What I really want to know is if that scene was intended to be that way or if the screen writer and director just didn't get it either :)

Rather, most of the remarks in this thread appear to me to be from folks who likely find it disconcerting that a former slave could possibly write, and probably converse, in a better manner than they might ever hope to attain.

Actually if you look at the previous post from firstvarty1979, you will see that the former slave in question could neither read nor write.

@Dynaman216
I donīt think anyone here is suggesting that a former slave cannot be eloquent, but rather THIS former slave could not be so. As far as Douglass is concerned, we know of him because he was an exceptional human being.

As far as the authenticity of this letter is concerned, I donīt doubt that at all. What I doubt is the ability of the former slave to express himself in such a way that totally defies his background. Like I said on the other board, I think this was just a post-war poke at the South. However, it is still good reading :)

> I donīt think anyone here is suggesting that a former slave cannot be eloquent, but rather THIS former slave could not be so

I refer you to the 5th post down…

>Most white men couldn't have written that letter, so I am also doubtful that an escaped slave wrote it.

Ummm, ok, so MOST people here are not suggesting a former slave cannot be eloquent. :)

More updates on the linked site, his daughter could read and write, but it is possible his lawyer wrote it for him. That sounds plausible, the letter has some lawyerly touches to it.

That does indeed sound plausible. I donīt doubt that the letter is from 1865, only that it was dictated by the former slave.

After reading it, my impression was he had help. A little too carefully crafted and clever to be just an ordinary letter to a former master. That said, I don't think most former slaves would've necessarily looked kindly on their former masters or would've necessarily been full of animosity towards them either. It was a complex relationship of authority and subordination with deep cultural and psychological affects. No one walked away from it on either side unscathed or unaffected. Of course, the former slaves had the worst of it.

I suspect much of the phraseology was from the person that did the actual writing. Lack of the ability to read or write does not indicate lack of intellect – especially for someone that would have been prevented from attending school.
A well meaning abolitionist cooperating with Jourdan would have no troubles writing the letter. Read the letter of Sullivan Ballou link if you want a feel for the writing ability of the lettered at the time.

The fact that the letter was probably embellished does not mean that the sentiments expressed were not legitimate or that a former slave could not be elloquent. OTOH just because the sentiments expressed were legitimate and a former slave could be elloquent does not mean that this letter wasn't significantly embellished by one or more other persons.