Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-07-17
FOR The E.NroiJJRER-
Telegraph.

Il
Enquirer of the Is h Inst. and attended to the re-
ferences made by you, with the view of testing
it's authenticity; and that alone has induced me to
make this Communication
! John Harris, the pretended author of the letter
! had lived several years in this county before he
entered he militia service in ISi4. l knew him
well, aud had partial acquaintance with his stu
alton; but not wishing altogether 10 rely on my own
recollection, have went TO the immediate neigh
borhood where he had resided, and conversed with
a number of his intimate acquainlances-inte,
gent and respectable, whose concuTing account
renders the following statement of facts indispuia-
bic. That Harris was a6ou, fifty years old, not
subject 10 militia duty (the law of Tennessee MAX
| ing an exemption therefrom at forty e)-Thai
judgment of Ave or six hundred dollars had been
obtained against him and three other men as his
securties,on account of delinquency in the Office
OF coroner which he had once held An act of
the Legislature of Tennessee in force during the
war, suspended all proceedings at law against per
sons attached 10 the militia OF the state actual
lservice-To delay the collection OF this Judgment,
Harris hired himself substitute in the place OF
man of The of Sheriff. who had been drafted 10
perform tour of duty IN 1914, aAd received horse
In addition TO the monthly pay that he should
draw. That Harris had wife and nine children
had TWO sons grown, the eldest was married, and
lived near him-the second iuto the army with
hn-Thai when Harris desc rjed from the Creek
nation, he came home, and his with kim
where they were both arrested and taken back by
some or the party sent in pursuit of the deserters.
That alter the execution of Harris his son came
home, having, as II was understood, been excused
from punis account of his youth and the
Influence which his fathers example supposed
TO have had over him. That Hauis's youngest
child was four Ave years old at the time
That instead of 90 wife aud one olilY poor
little Child repeated six times in the letter ia
The sense, Harris had Hiae children; be could
not have made such a mistake la a matter so well
known to him; he could have had motive, and
being under sentence OF deaIh, could have had no
disposition to make such palpable misrepfesenta-
ton. Is II not plain that he did not write the
letter!
Another circumstance which you refer 10 in the
letter, and designed TO furnish an argument in IA
your of the pardon 10, that Harris is made to say
we have just heard of the glorious battle you
have gained over the Enemy &c and in another
place reminds the General oil % The great victory he
had gained;" This be intended 10 sllude 20 the
battle 1.-THE Sih OF January, 1915, at New Orleans;
The letter is dated at" Mobile January 10th, ISl5.'
II would seem that the writer of the letter was
aware OF the shor'ness OF lie time he had to EN-
poy in getting the news of the battle OF the Sth 10
Mobile Harris's letter written after that, and for
waTded TO Gen. Jackson, al n. Orleans before the |
I'D OF January, when the sentence of the court !
martial was approved; and he has divided it e. |
qually, placing ihe dale of the letter just midway |
between these two events. The facts are notor |
ols that from before the 9Th of January I'LL after
the 9Th of February, the British were in possession
OF all the water communications between n. Or |
leans and Mobile, and dat The streams and low |
grounds in that season OF the year were flooded
and inundated; athe Communications byIand
was necessarily cjrcutous and iedious.
Ton 90 have not now the opportunity Of refer |
ring TO 81! the documents which may relate to this
circumstance, yet have proof at hand which }
think every examiner Nill deem sufficient, 10 re-
move all uncertainty about IT, My neighbour |
Capt Powell, every way entitled TO entire |
crpflpf g. he'd n
see militia Mobile during the whole OF !
that winter; on finding this statement ia tie letter
remarked THAT be eli confident that information
OF the battle Of the Sth OF January had been eceys
Ell at Mobile esrly the 15ih, and in this be-
liei he is confirmed by finding IN his company /
Book kept at the time, in which all The general or !
ders were inserted length, The order of General
Winchester who commanded there, announcing % |
the army under his command the victory OF the & h
at N. Orleans. This general order IS dated ON |
the loh OF January three days after The date oil
tie letter That this IL authentic there IL doubt;
the appearance of the Book the yeTacity of Capt r.
forbid any question Of the fact From his Book I !
send you what know is q tue copy Of The order !
there inserted, with Capt. Powell statement, /
showing that by this order he received the 6rs in
formation OF lie victory at Orleans. The order |
Itself refers 10 Gen. jacks0n's communication to
Winchester, which appears to have been written !
the day alter the battle and before the extent of the
en- emies loss known ;and wss most likely sent
10y express The Importance of the inteilie ence !
required that II should have speedy a conveyance
aud as sariy publication as practicable II Is |
therefore, very unlikely that the news OF the battle
should have reached Mobile before jackson letter
or That Winchestef's order announcing it should |
have been delayed for h.ur. To suppose a I
difference OF three days - sbsurd This circum- \
stance being unknown al Mobile TIE date OF the |
letter, and making It's appea' herein renders
The thing impossible that Hsrfis could have written
It. Where, CT by whom, it bss since been manu- /
iactured are matters carefully concealed from disco
very. What is said for the authenticity OF the pa
PERI When, how, and from whom was il pio- |
cufedl by whom was il furnished? III tchaf Post
Office t0as IL matted? Such are the incidsnts usu-
ally attending far disclosure Of honest ruth bus
none such are given, and Why? because it given 1
they might lead TO an exposure most of all 10 be |
avoided After all, The design Of this and many
other like undertakings admit of no concealment
and with that discovery The public will perfectly
understand what the feyilers u Jackson are cana
Die OF attempting.
The internal evidence which the letter Furnished
for its condemnation Is abundant Harris was
noisy, seli-whled, busting, bigoted man, not
Of dishonest character but Of irregular conduct and
rough mind and manners have heard thar ri
times he attempted to preach, but whether dulv
ausbone ed by any denomination or not, have NOT
learned The clumsy csnHng style in =, bics most
OF Tie letter - written might do FOR On imitation
Of that which be might be supposed 10 use; bat
in describing " the blue hills and the green feld.
OF Tennessee, bis posthumou letter writer nates
BIN poe,icslj ia " crying from ibe dust Of bi.
wfe'fheihess" m,hes him ssnumemsl and oibr,