HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI,
Saint Louis, Mo., February 28, 1864.

Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War, Washington, D.C.

SIR: On the 12th of the present month the Rev. Bishop Ames presented at these headquarters a circular letter from War Department, dated November 30, 1863, copy of which is hereto annexed, marked A, directing that--

"All houses of worship belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, in which a loyal minister appointed by a loyal bishop of said church does not now officiate, are placed at the disposal of the Right Rev. Bishop Ames"--

and asked that an order be issued in conformity thereto. I immediately issued a circular to commanding officers of troops of the department (copy of which is herewith inclosed, marked B, directing that "they furnish Bishop Ames every facility and assistance compatible with the interests of the service" under the order mentioned. Saturday, Mr. John Hogan called with a letter dated February 13, 1864 (copy inclosed, marked C, bearing the official signature of James A. Hardie, assistant adjutant-general, directed to Major-General Rosecrans, commanding Department of the Missouri, with an indorsement in the handwriting and bearing the signature of the President of the United States, intended, as he (Hogan) claimed, to abrogate entirely in this State the circular order printed by Bishop Ames. As no official copy of the letter to me of the 13th February has been received at these headquarters, and as there is a doubt in my mind as to the policy the War Department intends to adopt as regards church property in this State, which the circular and the letter from the Department does not make perfectly clear, I would respectfully request that more definite instructions be furnished to enable me to carry out the views and intentions of the Government.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

W. S. ROSECRANS,
Major-General, Commanding.

####

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI,
Saint Louis, March 5, 1864.

Co1. J.P. SANDERSON, Provost-Marshal-General, Department of the Missouri:

COLONEL: In the opinion of the general commanding, the interests of the country require that due protection should be given within the limits of this department to religious convocations and other religious assemblages of persons whose function it is to teach religion and morality to the people. But at the present time he deems it expedient that the members of such assemblages should be required to give satisfactory evidence of their loyalty to the Government of the United States, as a condition precedent to such privilege of assemblage and protection. The major-general commanding desires that you take such steps as in your judgment will best secure these objects.

I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
O. D. GREENE, Assistant Adjutant-Generat.

###

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI,
Saint Louis, Mo., April 29, 1864.

Rev. J.P. FINDLEY, Westminster College, Fulton, Mo.

DEAR SIR: Assured by your letter of the 25th that the members of the Presbytery of Missouri, which was to have met at Boonville, are loyal, I am quite satisfied that nothing but a proper understanding of the origin and purposes of the order is necessary to cause it to meet their hearty approval. My respect for your body and for the principles of religious freedom requires that I should give an explanation to you and to the religious public. Loyal church members, both lay and clerical, called my attention to the facts that many assemblages of ministers and teachers of religion of various denominations were to convene during the spring and summer, in which would doubtless be many persons openly and avowedly hostile to the National and State Governments; that in one, most of them would be open enemies of the Union. They also prayed me to take such measures as that those assemblages should not be used to concoct treason or injure the national cause. What was to be done? If all who claim to meet for religious purposes can do so without question, a convocation from Price’s army, under the garb of religion, may assemble with impunity and plot treason in our midst.

If, on the contrary, religious assemblages, really such, are scrutinized with the same freedom as political meetings of unknown or doubtful character, not only would it be necessary to inquire into the ministerial character of its members, but their public and private proceedings must be watched, that treason could not be perpetrated without detection and punishment, which would occasion a most irksome interference with personal privacy and the freedom of religious action. As the general commanding this department, my duty to the country and the people of the State required me to protect them from the machinations of enemies, who, under cover of the freedom of religion, should attempt to conceal plans and counsels opposed to the interests of peace and safety of the State and nation, while as a Christian I feel bound to secure religion from the danger and disgrace of being used as the cloak of malice, and its freedom from a surveillance freely exercised over political meetings.

To fulfill these duties, the provost-marshal-general was instructed as follows: [see letter dated March 5, 1864].

Upon these instructions the provost-marshal-general issued the order to which your letter alluded. In that order as now enforced he protects these meetings and dispenses with surveillance of the members or proceedings, on the simple and easy condition that the members will individually assure him of their loyalty in either one of the following ways:

First. By certifying on honor that they have sworn to support the Constitution and Government of the United States and the provisional government of this State, as required by the laws thereof to enable ministers to solemnize marriage, each at the time and place set opposite his name; or,

Second. By taking an oath of the form prescribed in that order.

I am quite sure that upon proper understanding and reflection the friends of religion and its freedom will thank me as much as do the friends of the Union for this order. I regret to say that while I have abundant evidence of their satisfaction, I know of very few who have complained of it who have been remarkable for loyalty. Most of them have been remarkable for their sympathy with the rebellion, and now live in our midst, croaking, fault-finding, and even rejoicing in the nation's struggles and reverses like the impious son of Noah who uncovered and mocked at the nakedness of his father.

It is easy to see that such persons injure the cause of religious freedom as they do that of the country. From what has been said it is manifest that the order, while providing against public danger, protects the freedom and purity of religion on the one hand from disgraceful complicity with treason, and on the other from an irksome surveillance which would otherwise become necessary in times of public danger.

W. S. ROSECRANS,
Major-General.