A year ago B. Brown spoke his "We are the Revolution." This year the reply comes in a threat of brutal force. The day is more than historical. But what next?
The Westliche Post says, in relation to this order:
The Republican interests this severe, double-edged, and in many respects equivocal order as if it were especially directed against the radical Union press. This interpretation seem to us absurd, because it is impossible that a journal of the Republican's tendency should be considered the standard of a loyal and patriotic paper. In fact, we are not yet sure as to what has been the cause of this order, and we must await its application before we can express our views concerning it.
In the last proclamation of the President, suspending the habeas corpus act, there is evidently nothing which could have provoked the issue of this general order. It is only justified if it has been necessary to suppress the rebellion, which finds such continued, direct or indirect, support in the Missouri slaveholding aristocracy. In granting the extensive powers to the President at the last session, Congress had surely no other object than this. As far as the liberty of the press is concerned particularly, the President has always, even in the case of disloyal papers, evinced such respect for the free utterance of opinions that an interpretation of Orders, No. 96, as the Republican and the Union give it, must surely be repudiated.
In commenting on a Jefferson City correspondence, denying the right to draft the Enrolled Militia, the Post says:
As the so-called provisional regiments have been called into service by State authority, and not by an order of the commander of this department, General Orders, No. 96, cannot apply to them. The commander of the department has, indeed, expressed the wish that 1,000 men of the Enrolled Militia might be enlisted, but he presupposes, as a matter of course, that the enlistment will be carried out according to the existing State law. Hence the question always returns to this: Can the Enrolled Militia be compelled to active service, or must the enlistments be voluntary? If Judge Clover's writ of habeas corpus of Thursday would come up for argument, we should have a judicial decision on this question.
HDQRS. FIRST Brigadier, CAV. DIV., DEPT. OF THE MISSOURI,
Brownsville, Ark., September 20, 1863.
Acting Assistant Adjutant-General:
SIR: I have the honor to report that, in compliance with the order of the general commanding the division, I moved, with the Eighth Missouri and Merrill's Horse, to this point from Little Rock. The general directed me to post the three battalions of one of my regiments-one at each of the railroad bridges and one at Austin. I found that three railroad bridges across Bayou Meto were all included within a space of less than 3 miles, and that the troops could be better disposed, with the object in view, by dividing a regiment equally between the bridges and Austin. I accordingly left Lieutenant-Colonel Lisenby, Eighth Missouri, with six squadrons, camped on good ground near the middle bridge, instructing him to post a guard of one squadron at each of the other bridges, and sent Colonel Geiger, commanding the other six squadrons of the Eighth, to Austin. By this means I accomplished the object in view, and avoided the necessity of dividing a regiment into small fragments, lessening the tendency to laxity of discipline from the scattering of the regiment. Merrill's Horse, under Major Harker, I have established at Brownsville, where i have also established my own headquarters.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Colonel, Commanding First Brigade, Cavalry Division.