(Private and
Unofficial)
New Orleans, October 16th, 1862.
Dear Sir: My
last letter was in reference to trade with the enemy.
After Gen. Butler's return from Pensacola — for the purpose
of discussing the matter, Gen. B. asked me to his house, where I met also Gov.
Shepley. In a long conversation, I stated to them fully my own views, and it
was understood that there should be no more trade with the enemy — that no
supplies of any kind or in any quantity, should pass into insurrectionary
districts not even supplies for loyal residents of such locality, because
Guerillas would in most cases, take away such supplies for their own use.
Gen. Butler and Gen. Shepley each said, however, that he had
given one permit to cross the Lake, not yet carried into effect. The goods were
bought and vessels loaded, but that I had stopped them. It was insisted that
these vessels should be allowed to proceed. I said that the permission of the
Secretary of Treasury ought first to be obtained.
The next morning Gen. Butler sent me the list of cargo for
the vessel, on the second leaf of which was endorsed his request that she be
allowed to proceed. Gen. Shepley sent me a note to the same effect in regard to
the other. A copy of the list of cargo, with Gen. Butler's original endorsement
on second leaf, is herewith enclosed, marked A. A copy of the list of cargo of
second vessel, with Gen. Shepley's note, is herewith enclosed, marked B.
It is inexpedient that I should have a controversy with the
military authorities, and I let these two vessels go, with the distinct
understanding however, that nothing more was to go out.
Gen. Butler's permit was to Judge Morgan, a good Union man,
who has lost much by the Rebellion.
Gen. Shepley's was to one Montgomery, who has previously
taken over, among other things, 1,200 sacks salt. Gen. S. says he granted this
permit at the earnest solicitation of Mr. Bouligny — formerly in Congress from
this state, but now in Washington — and that Montgomery told him Bouligny was
part owner of the cargo with him (Montgomery).
I think there will be no more of this trade. Gen. B. has
always carried out (so far as I know) the wishes of the Gov't. when distinctly
made known, and I believe he will fully carry out (in future) your views
respecting this matter.
Gen. B. has more brains and energy than any other three men
in New Orleans. He does an immense amount of work, and does it well. He knows
and controls everything in this Department. I regret that it was necessary to
write my last letter — or rather, that the statements therein made were facts.
Besides, no other officer appreciates, like Gen. Butler, the importance of
freeing and arming the colored people — and he is not afraid to do it. All the
pro-slavery influence in this State cannot change him in this matter.
When Weitzel's expedition (spoken of in a late letter) goes
out, Gen. B will send the 1st. Colored Regiment right into the heart of the
section of the country to be taken. They will move nearly west from here, on
the line of the Opelousas Railroad. I think they will do a great work. The
expedition is expected to start in about two weeks. Late New York papers
indicate the adoption of some plan for getting out cotton from Rebeldom. I hope
it will not be done by means of trade with the enemy, which is objectionable
for many reasons.
It will benefit the enemy ten times as much as the
Government — it demoralizes the army, who imagine themselves fighting for
speculators — officers will be interested, directly or indirectly, in the
trade, and they and other speculators, will wish the war prolonged for the sake
of great profits — the Rebels will not keep their engagements nine cases out of
ten — the rebels are terribly in want, and now is the time to deprive them of
supplies. There are other objections besides those enumerated.
The greatest distress prevails in insurrectionary districts
all around us. The Guerilla system injures Rebels more than the Government, and
the people are becoming heartily tired of it.
SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual
Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol.
2, p. 326-7
No comments:
Post a Comment