War of the Rebellion: Serial 032 Page 0801 Chapter XXXIV. CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.-UNION.

Search Civil War Official Records

from citizens of this State to my lines. You are hereby ordered to deliver the same without unnecessary delay. An officer will be ready to receive it.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,


Brigadier-General, Commanding.

[Inclosure H.]

SPECIAL ORDER.] IN THE FIELD, Jackson County, November 27, 1862.

To the officer in command of the Twelfth Kansas Regiment:

SIR: You are hereby required to mount all the men that were mounted when you left Kansas (not exceeding 20), and immediately march you command, with such transportation and baggage as you brought with you into the State.


Brigadier-General, Commanding.

SAINT LOUIS, MO., December 1, 1862.

His Excellency Gov. H. R. GAMBLE:

GOVERNOR: The undersigned, your memorialist, who is now and always has been an unconditional Union man, and a hearty supporter of the Government, most respectfully represents that the assessment now in progress, to be levied upon secessionists and Southern sympathizers, is working evil in this community, and doing great harm to the Union cause. Among our citizens there are all shades of opinion, from what is called neutrality, which is little better than treason, through all the grades of lukewarmness, half-way measures, and hesitating zeal up to the unqualified loyalty, which your memorialist, in common with yourself, claims to possess. To assort and classify these, so as to indicate the dividing line of loyalty and disloyalty, and to establish the rates of payment by those falling below it, is a task of great difficulty. If it can be done at all, it must be by patient investigation, and after hearing evidence on both sides, giving each person the opportunity of self-defense. It would require not only a competent tribunal, sitting for a great length of time, and possessed of full authority to call and examine witness under oath, but also a kind and degree of scrutiny inconsistent with republican institutions. Such an investigation, so far as practicable, has been attempted in the present case; but although the character and standing of the members of the assessment board give assurance that the faithful endeavor to be impartial and just has been made, yet they have been compelled to admit hearsay evidence, rumors, and "general impressions," and have in no case required witness to testify under oath. The unavoidable consequence has been that many feel themselves deeply aggrieved, not having supposed themselves liable to the suspicion of disloyalty; many escape assessment who, if any, deserve it; and a general impression of inequality in the rule of assessment and its application prevails. This was to be expected, because no two tribunals could agree upon the details of such an assessment, either as to persons or amounts to be assessed, without more complete knowledge of facts than can be obtained from ex parte evidence and current reports. Nothing short of a thorough judicial investigation could lead to a satisfactory result.