War of the Rebellion: Serial 119 Page 0029 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. -UNION AND CONFEDERATE.

Search Civil War Official Records

refusing to receive such as I deem objectionable. Of course I will receive all for whom I have made application; also the wives and children of officers and soldiers in our service. As to all others I will pursue such a course as I think proper under the circumstances of each particular case.

My original proposition as to all such persons I am still ready to adopt; that was that all persons whose means, friends, and connections were at the North or South should have the privilege of going or coming with the district understanding, however, that the movement in each particular case was to be final. I proposed this as a mutual advantage and charity, not to be coupled with any oath of allegiance. Will you agree to this proposal now?

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

RO. OULD,

Agent of Exchange.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Richmond, Va., June 19, 1863.

Lieutenant Colonel WILLIAM H. LUDLOW, Agent of Exchange:

SIR: On the 5th day of June, 1863, I requested you to inform me when General Orders, Numbers 100, was to be considered as going into effect. To that you have returned no answer. Its date is April 24, 1863. You delivered it to me on the 23rd of May, 1863.

I perceive by a General Order, Numbers 15,* March 9 [8], 1863, issued by General Schenck, that all officers and men who and been captured in his department, and particularly in the Shenandoah Valley, and released on parole, and not regularly exchanged should return to duty and service, on penalty of being considered deserters. When you delivered General Orders, Numbers 100, to me I inquired of you as to the date when it went into effect. I understood you to say the date of its delivery. You may, therefore, well imagine my surprise when I perceive that, by the general order of one of your own departmental commanders, the new provisions as to paroles are not only to have effect from and after March 9, 1863, but are made to apply to all cases previous to that date, without any limitation as to time. This is not only contrary to your own declarations to me, but to our common practice up to May 23, 1863. You have charged against me and received credit for several captures made by General Stoneman's command in his recent raid. Is it pretended that you are to have credit for captures made by your commands, while none is to be given to us, under precisely the same circumstances? Is this fair, or just, or right?

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

RO. OULD,

Agent of Exchange.

RICHMOND, VA., June 19, 1863.

Lieutenant Colonel WILLIAM H. LUDLOW, Agent of Exchange:

SIR: Spencer Kellogg was sent to you on the 13th of this month. He was received here on the 6th instant. He was captured on the 5th of March, and never was in the Jackson penitentiary. He was in hospital; his sickness was alone the cause of his detention.

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

RO. OULD,

Agent of Exchange.

---------------

*See Vol. V, this series, p. 339.

---------------