Scanlan to James H. Burnley, February 6, 1865

Mr. Scanlan to Mr. Burnley

Sir: There was passed in the United States Congress last July an act to purchase at certain points products of insurrectionary States. In the one article of cotton alone, after deducting the tax, which is 6d. per pound, and the expense of transportation to New York, which would be 12d. per pound, the purchasing agent at Memphis takes for the government one-quarter of the whole. This act of July excepted from this sale to the government all products raised by freedmen’s labor.

Before the passage of this act, nay, even prior to the emancipation proclamation, I released from bondage the former slaves of my wife, and afterwards hired, from the United States superintendent of freedmen at Memphis, hands, with whose labor I raised the crop referred to. This was a solemn contract under their auspices, and as such ought to relieve me from the embarrassments to which those were subjected that favored slavery, and were intended to be reached by the act of July, 1864. This act was retrospective, the crop being grown ere it passed, and it excluded all persons from the necessity of turning their products over to the government who raised them with the labor of freedmen. The advancing the purposes of the emancipation proclamation renders one so obnoxious to the confederates that their personal effects are a prey to their incursions, which, together with the difficulties experienced in obtaining permits for supplies, and the high prices at Memphis, nearly absorb the value of the products raised. The supervising agent at Memphis demands of me the same surrender of the products of my plantation as those who have hired no freedmen, and have been guilty of acts of hostility to the United States government.

To many of this class, who have not even hired their labor from the government, said agent has given permits to transport their cotton to New York without turning it over to the government. Moreover, he has given private speculators permits to ship cotton purchased from the confederate tax collector at one point on the river; to ship the cotton so purchased on their own account to New York. Among the cotton thus purchased and shipped was cotton pressed from me by this collector of customs or tenths of the confederates.

If these speculators should ship without hindrance cotton unjustly pressed from me by the confederates, ought not I to be permitted to ship mine, who raised it under contract with the acting officer of the government, and in furtherance of the proclamation of the President? It may be objected, first, that my plantation is not inside the federal lines; second, that my land should be leased from the government. The answer to my first would be that my plantation is on the banks of the Mississippi river, under cover of the gunboats of the federal navy, and embraced in the order of Major General Canby, commanding the whole department. Moreover, were it not considered inside their lines they would not hire to me freedmen to work on my plantation. With regard to the second objection, that the lands should be leased from the government, I beg to say that no mention is made in the act of July. This act merely excepts products raised by freedmen’s labor, and defines that such products should be permitted to be forwarded to market on the applicant making affidavit that it was raised by the labor of freedmen, and that he is a loyal United States citizen. When I was offered a permit on signing that affidavit, I refused, and now, when this clause in the affidavit has been dispensed with, Mr. Orme inconsistently denies me the permit he first offered. If it should be set forth that copies of contracts with freedmen should be filed with Mr. Miller, I should say that this rule has been enunciated neither by proclamation nor by act of Congress.