Has anyone heard or read the story about a letter published in an Ohio newspaper in 1865 that was supposedly written by a freed slave to his former owner? The freed slave's name was Jourdon Anderson and the owner was Patrick Henry Anderson of Tennessee. The story has been getting some buzz lately.

There's something about this that doesn't ring true. Apparently the names and locations and other events stated in the letter are real, but I'm skeptical about the authorship. It just seems too comprehensive in scope and too perfectly tailored to what someone else would have wanted the supposed author to have said. In this respect, it reminds me very much of the bogus text attributed to Chief Seattle that made the rounds in the in the 1960s.

And while I thought this would go without saying, I guess I had better say it anyway, because you never know what kind of knuckleheads are out there: I do not dispute the logical or literary merits of the composition. I just wonder whether it is really the creative work of the stated author, or if the creative work that went into it was done primarily by someone else who then put J Anderson's name on it.

It got a rather large article in the Sunday Chronicle. A few links:

http://www.businessinsider.com/read-this...ter-2012-1

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7035/67907...fe88_o.jpg

It's apparently old, written in 1865, but I have serious doubts that a man who had been a slave for 32 years could write that after having been free for a year.

I think one of the comments to Sammy's first link probably got it right: "This piece says the letter was dictated. The original Daily Tribune article also begins by saying the letter was dictated, but then seems to backtrack when it adds that it "contains" Mr. Anderson's "ideas and forms of expression." If people think the letter is a fake, it is probably because they find it implausible that a former slave who required a transcriptionist to pen a letter would be so well-spoken. Had the Daily Tribune not clarified the authorship, it's likely that its 19th-century readers would have been just as incredulous.
To what extent the letter really does reflect Mr. Anderson's original ideas—and not somebody else's—we'll never know."

By the way, George, thanks for bringing this up. I had missed the hub bub about it.

"A slave's sarcasm: How did letter to plantation master come to be?"

http://trivalleycentral.com/articles/201...470733.txt

(07-16-2012 11:25 AM)JSA Wrote:  "A slave's sarcasm: How did letter to plantation master come to be?"

http://trivalleycentral.com/articles/201...470733.txt

Alas, this article seems to capture the leading responses to skepticism regarding authorship, which are as follows:
- "Why not?"
- "You're racist."

Check out this argument:

Quote:Regarding questions about whether the letter was really Anderson’s, Finkenbine says: “It’s kind of a racist assumption ... that when someone is illiterate, we make the assumption they’re stupid.”

Note: according to this expert, such an assumption is not elitist, and certainly not merely illogical or ignorant. No, it is full-bore racist. And this guy is a college professor!

But even this alleged expert concedes that there was "help":

Quote:“I think the letter is clearly his ideas and, for the most part, his own words” — though Winters probably had “some minor role in shaping the language.”

And that's the question: how much is "for the most part"? How extensive was the "minor role"? The claim that J Anderson was the author may be correct -- but so far it seems to based more on wish than on evidence, and this one expert's airy dismissal of reasonable skepticism actually magnifies, not diminishes, doubt.

Tangential perhaps, but if interested in first hand accounts of slave history, Twelve Years a Slave by Sololmon Northup is fascinating.

Came across it in the entertainment section of the paper - Brad Pitt is involved in a film production!