Apparently not. The correspondence between Colonel Witt and the Union officer (I can't recall his name right now) then shifted to a request that the Unionist "home guard" companies be disarmed and disbanded. The last letter I have a copy of is a recommendation that Colonel Witt's request be approved, the Union officer agreeing that the so-called Unionist home guards were bushwhackers, jay-hawkers, desperadoes, etc.

Though the request to retain his regiment's arms was apparently denied, the Union officer offered to let the men keep their horses "for agricultural purposes", very magnanimous when you consider that Witt's regiment was fully mounted.

Harold, when I get rid of some other projects I'm working on, I'll post the Witt correspondence. It gives a pretty vivid picture of the unlawful state of affairs in Van Buren County in 1865.