Viewing page 311 of 329

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

OF THE FREEDMEN'S BUREAU. 9

No. 3.

BUREAU REFUGEES, FREEDMEN, AND ABANDONED LANDS, STATES OF KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE,

Assistant Commissioner's Office, Nashville, Tenn., February 14, 1866.

GENERAL: Kentucky.--I regret that I am unable to report the bureau affairs progressing as smoothly in Kentucky as in Tennessee.

The freedmen of the State are very generally disposed to enter into labor contracts for wages or a share of the crop, and most of them prefer remaining in their own State to emigration elsewhere. On the part of a large majority of the whites, I believe there is an honest desire to adjust on a fair basis the new relations arising from the abolition of slavery, but the bureau is not a popular institution with them. They regard its presence among them as unauthorized— denounce its officials as usurpers and despots, and clamor for its immediate removal from the State.

In obedience to orders, immediately upon the ratification of the constitutional amendment forever abolishing and prohibiting slavery, I extended over the more than two hundred thousand (200,000) freedmen of Kentucky the supervision of this bureau, and appointed agents in a few counties only. Superintendents were selected from the citizens, and appointed upon the recommendation of the best men I could consult. The Kentucky legislature has, by numerous resolutions, called upon government to remove the bureau from the State— propositions to forever disqualify any citizen from holding an office in the State who might act as an agent of this bureau, were introduced and discussed. The official State paper (Louisville Democrat) has declared that, by the ratification of the constitutional amendment, the slavery question has become more unsettled than ever, and many of its readers believing its doctrines, pratice accordingly, and still hold freedmen as slaves. These influences in opposition to freedom have rendered it difficult to conduct the bureau affairs in Kentucky with that harmony and efficiency which have elsewhere produced good results.

More than twenty-five thousand colored men of Kentucky have been soldiers in the army of the Union. Many of them were enlisted against the wishes of their masters, and now, after having faithfully served their country, and been honorably mustered out of its service, and return to their old homes, they are not met with joyous welcome, and grateful words for their devotion to the Union, but in many instances are scourged, beaten, shot at, and driven from their homes and families. Their arms are taken from them by the civil authorities, and confiscated for the benefit of the Commonwealth. The Union soldier is fined for bearing arms. Thus the right of the people to keep and bear arms as provided in the Constitution is infringed, and the government for whose protection and preservation these soldiers have fought is denounced as meddlesome and despotic when through its agents it undertakes to protect its citizens in a constitutional right. Kentuckians who followed the fortunes of John Morgan, and did all in their power to destroy the nation, go loaded down with pistols and knives, and are selected as candidates for high positions of honor and trust in the State. The loyal soldier is arrested and punished for bringing into the State the arms he has borne in battle for his country.

That you may have a bird's-eye view of the protection afforded the freedmen of Kentucky by the civil law and authorities, I have the honor to invite your attention to the following extracts from communications received from our correspondents in that State.

C.P. Oyler, of Covington, writes as follows:
"Jordan Finney and family (freedmen) lived in Walton Kentucky; they owned a comfortable home. Two of the daughters were wives of colored soldiers, and lived with him. Returned rebel soldiers hereinafter named com-