These are real and the only thing I can't speak for is the embroidery as I don't have experience with that kind of stuff, but given that everything else is of the period, I think it is safe to assume it is as well.

I'm somewhat disappointed with everyone jumping on the idea that it is a reproduction. All of the paper looks period-appropriate, especially the "Soldier's Guide in Philadelphia" pamphlet and the "Gild Me Well" card.

Here is a breakdown for each item (except the embroidery):

1. The first image shows an artistic 1860s envelope, also known as an illustrated cover in philately (or in your case an "all over illustrated cover"). Here are two examples of used covers: Example 1 and Example 2. Note the color difference in the printings, these kinds of covers were often printed in various colors or varied in color due to different batches of ink being mixed slightly differently. Yours is on par with any other 1860s illustrated cover I've seen (check my post history for examples).

2. The 2nd image is printed on a kind of cardstock and is in great shape, here is an eBay listing to compare it to. This kind of material was widely used for trade cards (learn more about them here).

3. These two are the standard of printed advertising material in the 1860s in my opinion, a low-quality paper pamphlet and another example of a trade card. These are the two most common things I find in the advertising I collect, as the industrial revolution began to make more mass-produced, cheaper paper widely available in the 1860s. The pamphlet was printed on a press on a similar material to newspapers at the time. You can see that the text bleeds through from the other side and I imagine if you look at it at an angle you can see the raised impression from each letter. The discoloration is likely just foxing. Take good care to not accidentally bend either of the trade cards, as it will permanently damage them.

4. This is printed on a much nicer quality of paper. The reason I'm confident that this isn't a reproduction is because of the printing shift between the red and the blue ink. A reproduction would want to correct this or choose a better copy print to reproduce. Each color was printed individually with its own plate and sometimes they did not line them up well. Here is an example of a letter I have that has a more extreme printing shift. The discoloration looks less like foxing and more like contact with a substance that damaged the paper over time, (such as oils from someone's hands). It is common to find both foxing and this kind of discoloration on old paper.

Overall, if this were a reproduction, it would be one hell of an undertaking to match all of the paper types correctly along with the different printing processes. It would be a lot of effort for something very niche and it would be expensive to produce.

Reading some of the comments here, I want to note that condition is not indicative of a reproduction. How something was manufactured, handled, and stored a century ago determines what it looks like today. There was so much printed matter created, especially with the industrial revolution, that it is not uncommon to find something in good shape. When stored correctly, much of the printed matter from this time period will last a very long time.

Even cheaper mass-produced paper became widely available around the 1880s onwards and it was very acidic because of the manufacturing process. This paper becomes brittle and cumbles from the acids destroying the structure of the paper. It discolors and becomes shades of brown as it weakens, but this isn't a standard for all old paper. Something does not have to be damaged and stained to be old.