Fraternising with the Enemy?

[English Doc]

I happen to own a couple of original copies of the Official Records.

Whilst looking through them today, I found, in Vol XLV part II, page 637, a letter From Beauregard to Genl. S Cooper, (Adj and Inspector General) dated Dec 2 1864.

The letter bemoans the fact that there are no supplies, no pay for the troops etc. But partway down the page I read:

'[B]....cotton is here, badly put up, exposed to weather, to depredation, and at times liable to capture......This, I believe, with proper management and under proper regulation, can be used to procure from the enemy's lines all needful army supplies...'[/B]

There follows other correspondence, but nothing to clarify whether he was indeed suggesting trading with Federal forces. There is mention from J A Campbell, asst. Sec. of War, of a despatch from Genl. Taylor on 27th September 1864 communicating ..' abuses and mischeivous traffic..' but I don't have this to hand!

Anyhow, my point is - did this trade happen? or am I interpreting it wrong?

Thanks

[Hank Trent]

Re: Fraternising with the Enemy?

Yep, it apparently happened. One of the many cool things about Into the Piney Woods, was that, on the carpool down, our group of civilians was talking about the historical evidence for the secret trade of cotton to the Yankees. After we "stepped out of our time machine" into 1864 Louisiana, we needed to deal with the local sheriff at one point (we weren't actually trying to steal that slave, I swear!), and he hinted that he was helping with the trade of cotton to the Yankees. It's pretty nice when everybody's reading from the same books. :)

But anyway, I looked back through my Piney Woods stuff and found that somebody had put in the civilian group folders, this quote from: Seale, Richard. “Pine Hills and Plantations: Some Social and Economic Views of the Civil War in Natchitoches Parish.” Journal [North Louisiana Historical Association] 25 no. 4 (1994).

In addition to the good secured by the tax-in-kind law, the Confederate government also required cotton as an item of exchange for much needed supplies. Unfortunately, along with the benefits this trade brought to the area, this system provided many opportunities for corruption by allowing cotton to be traded to Northern agents. Speculation in cotton by both civilian and military groups helped drive prices higher. Robert Patrick of the 4th Louisiana Infantry wrote in November 1863, that, “he found a great change in the ideas and sentiments of the people. They were trading liberally with the Yankees and hauling cotton to them . . . this illicit trade was carried on to an astonishing extent.”

Private citizens saw much of this commerce as trading with the enemy, but it was essential to the Confederate war effort. In addition, the Confederate army burned many bales of cotton to prevent it from falling into the enemy’s hands. Since knowledge of the movement of cotton might have given Union authorities an opportunity to seize the cotton as it moved to cotton buyers through Union-held territory, General Kirby Smith could not explain to the people why he allowed this trade, or why he protected some cotton from burn orders. So, despite the misunderstanding this trade caused among the citizens of Louisiana, secrecy had to be maintained.

In 1864, the Natchitoches Times expressed the general disillusionment felt by the people of the parish.

We have been informed that the Cotton Bureau at Monroe is selling cotton marked “C.S.” [Confederate States] to the Federal authorities . . . The universal impression in this section seems to be a magnificent individual speculation is going on in the cotton business . . . a few corrupt officials are growing unjustly rich, while . . . the wants and rights of the soldiers and the Government [are] neglected.

Despite profits of up to 1000% generated from this cotton trade, little of the surplus made its way to benefit the soldiers for whom it was collected. The Natchitoches Times charged the government with scandal, stating

Our government on this side of the Mississippi have been exchanging cotton for army supplies for the past three years . . . The cotton has been sold to our government because the “powers” distinctly stated that army supplies were to be exchanged for it. Now from the immense amount of cotton sold to the government for the past two years, our soldiers should have been silver clad.

Due to these abuses in the cotton trade, many people in Louisiana began to lose faith in the Confederacy, especially when legitimate military commanders misused these laws to their own benefit. Felix Poche wrote in his diary of his disgust with certain Confederate officers.

The General [Scurry] and his staff are well provided . . . [by] the principle profits of the speculators in the large trade in cotton with the enemy, and our brigade . . . [who] are at this moment almost naked, gains nothing from that tremendous commerce.

The Confederate army did not hold a monopoly on corruption in Louisiana. Henry Gardner, a private with the 18th New York Independent Battery Light Artillery, wrote from Baton Rouge in 1863 about Union speculators.

We have a new commander, Gen’l Cooke . . . I suppose he has come here to make his share on the Cotton speculations. It seems as if every Post Commander here, made a good pile, and then gave way to someone else . . . . Some days the lines will be closed and no one allowed to pass through, the next they are opened and in pours the Cotton . . . The transaction looks queer to say the least. . .

Apparently, this illicit trade seems to have been a necessary evil in north Louisiana in order for many goods to reach both needy soldiers and civilians. In 1864, when the Natchitoches Times published the Confederate ordered prohibition against illicit trading, the newspaper also acknowledged the effect it would have on the people. “All trade with the insurrectionist districts is prohibited. This will, of course, stop all exchanges of cotton and purchases with specie of merchandise and medicines, and will, no doubt, be keenly felt by our people.”

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[English Doc]

Re: Fraternising with the Enemy?

Mr Trent,

That is just what I was looking for!

Question answered and quickly to boot!

Thanks

[J. Donaldson]

Re: Fraternising with the Enemy?

I was working through my dissertation this morning and I remember going over this a couple of days ago in my notes.

Information from John Solomon Ottos' Southern Agriculture During the Civil War Era, 1860-1880. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press). 1994. Pages 27-28.

The United States not only failed to end blockade running, but the Union blockade of the entire Mississippi Valley also proved porous. As Union forces invaded the Mississippi Valley, Northern traders and speculators followed in their wake. These Northerners clandestinely traded war supplies to Southerners for cotton, which was desperately needed by Northern textile mills. While Union and Confederate armies continued their war, Northerners and Southerners continued their commerce, exchanging Northern saltpork and textiles for Southern cotton. One Northern journalist commented on this absurd arrangement: "In our occupation of [the] cities along the Mississippi, the Rebels found a ready supply from our markets. . . . We chastised the Rebels with one hand, while we fed and clothed them with the other".
Though Union military commanders frowned on this clandestine trade with the Confederacy, it had the blessings of the federal government. In July of 1861, the U.S. Congress prohibited all trade with the Confederacy except that licensed by President Lincoln and regulated by the Treasury Department. Obtaining licenses from the Lincoln administration, Northern traders crowded into Union-held riverports and seaports to trade with Southerners. This sureptitious trade proved so beneficial to the Confederacy, however, that Congress revoked the President's authority to license private traders in July of 1864. Henceforth, Congress permitted only the Treasury Department officials to purchase Southern cotton. By September, Southerners could sell cotton only to Treasury agents and receive only three-fourths of the current New York price in return. But in that same month, Lincoln issued an executive order that permitted Southern cotton-sellers to buy merchandise valued at one-third of the purchase price of their cotton and carry it back within Confederate lines. Given such confused policies, illicit trading continued in the Union-held areas of the South until the end of the war. And despite misgivings about trading with the enemy, the Confederate government grudgingly permitted officials and civilians to trade Southern commodities for Northern supplies.

I can provide his sources on request while I have the book on hand.