Foot-prints of a letter carrier; or, a history of the world's correspondeceRees, James
History
Foot-prints of a letter carrier; or, a history of the world's correspondece
Rees, James
Postal service -- History; Postal service -- United States -- History
In 1835, Amos Kendall received a letter from the postmaster at
Charleston, stating that he had detained in the office certain
inflammatory newspapers, circulars, pamphlets, &c., the distribution of
which he thought was calculated to do much harm in the State; in fact, a
meeting was called in that city of its citizens upon the subject of
these “incendiary documents,” when it was publicly stated that
“_arrangements had been made with the postmaster, by which no seditious
pamphlets shall be issued or forwarded from the post-office in this
city_”! The committee consisted of the following-named gentlemen, who
had waited upon the postmaster, and hence his letter to the
postmaster-general:—General Hayne, John Robinson, Charles Edmonston, H.
A. Desaussure, James Robertson, James Lynah, Edward R. Laurens. The
following is an extract from Mr. Kendall’s letter to the postmaster at
Charleston: similar replies to other postmasters from the Southern
States were also forwarded, as it appeared to have been a preconcerted
Southern action. Of this there can be no doubt; for the Charleston
letter bore date July 29, 1835, the Richmond August 8, New Orleans July
15, and Georgia July 10. Mr. Kendall says,—
“But I am not prepared to direct you to forward or deliver the papers of
which you speak. The post-office department was created to serve the
people of each and all of the _United States_, and not to be used as the
instrument of their _destruction_. None of the papers detained have been
forwarded to me, and I cannot judge for myself of their character and
tendency; but you inform me that they are in character ‘the most
inflammable and incendiary, and insurrectionary in the highest degree.’
“By no act or direction of mine, official or private, could I be induced
to aid knowingly in giving circulation to papers of this description,
directly or indirectly. We owe an obligation to the laws, but a higher
one to the communities in which we live; and if the _former_ be
perverted to destroy the _latter_, it is patriotism to disregard them.
Entertaining these views, I cannot sanction, and will not condemn, the
step you have taken. Your justification must be looked for in the
character of the papers detained, and the circumstances by which you are
surrounded.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account