words, on that day, May 23, 1863, Lieutenant-Colonel Ludlow, with little or no comment, delivered to me General Orders, Numbers 100, as the rules adopted for the government of the Federal Army. I never had any intimation that all the provisions of General Orders, Numbers 100, did not continue in force until I received on the 8th of July, 1863, the following letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Ludlow: *
The "notice" referred to in Lieutenant-Colonel Ludlow's letter was the delivery of General Orders, Numbers 100, with its one hundred and thirty-first paragraph. That paragraph was set aside by the provisions of General Orders, Numbers 207, which bears date July 3, 1863, three days after the submission of the question of the paroles of Duane and Michler to the court of inquiry, two days after its finding, and several days after our captures in the Gettysburg campaign. On the 7th of July, 1863, Lieutenant-Colonel Ludlow substantially informs me that, although he notified me on the 22nd of May that paragraph 131 of General Orders, Numbers 100, was to be continued in force, yet, under the circumstances of the case, and in view of what had taken place in Maryland and Pennsylvania, said paragraph was not to be considered as being in force at any time after the 22nd of May, and General Orders, Numbers 207, although it was issued July 3, 1863, should be construed as bearing date the 22nd of may preceding.
It will be observed that Lieutenant-Colonel Ludlow in his letter to me of the 7th of July nowhere says I had made any agreement with him, and yet it bears the same date as his letter to Colonel Kelton. It is apparent on the face of the paper that he is conveying to me certain information for the first time, and that this information is the "additional provisions" of General Orders, Numbers 207, one of which set aside paragraph 131 of General Orders, Numbers 100. The court of inquiry in its finding (see Army and Navy Official Gazette, July 14, 1863) says I was "notified," &c. Lieutenant-Colonel Ludlow in his letter to Colonel Kelton says it was distantly "understood" between Mr. Ould and himself, &c. You in your letter of the 24th of September says I made an "agreement" with your predecessor. The notification first rises to an understanding, and is then elevated into an agreement. What further promotion it will receive remains to be seen.
You have charged a deliberate breach of good faith upon the part of the Confederate States. Let me bring to your attention an incident connected with this matter of release from paroles: On March 9, 1863, General Schenck, of immortal memory, issued a General Orders, Numbers 15, requiring all officers and men who had been captured and paroled in his department, and particularly in the Shenandoah Valley, but who had not been exchanged, to return to duty on penalty of being considered deserters. Your general order in force at that time-Numbers 49, February 28, 1863-in section 8, provided that if the engagement which a prisoner made was not approved by his Government, he was bound to return and surrender himself as a prisoner of war. The same General Orders, Numbers 49, in the same section 8, uses these memorable words, which I now set up against your present extraordinary claims, to wit: "His own Government cannot at the same time disown his engagement and refuse his return as a prisoner. " In spite of those honest words General Schenck issued his order, which to this day has not been countermanded, in effect directing not only that such as were captured and paroled after March 9, 1863, should return to duty, but also all who had been captured and paroled under the circumstances named since the beginning of hostilities, on penalty of being considered deserters.
*See p. 90.