The Missouri in the Civil War Message Board

Re: Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?

Kirby,

Yes, I would like to see somebody track down Special Order Number 126 that dismissed literally scores of officers from their positions in EMM regiments. I know only that it was issued in 1864, and I thought it was issued about late April 1864, but I see in the MO Adj. Gen. Report for the Year 1865 for some units that order was applied to dismiss company grade officers in July 1864.

I was told that S.O. Number 126 was the last gasp of the moderately-controlled governor's office and General Assembly in their losing battle against the rising tide of the radical northerners to take control of both the governor's office and the General Assembly, since the Union state military officers formed the backbone of the radical movement in the state. Of course in the General Election of November 1864 the radicals achieved their state goals and the moderates were out for good. Further, I was told that S. O. 126 specifically stated these officers were dismissed from the EMM program "for being too harsh on rebels." I should not use this in my published writing until somebody can authenticate or verify its truthfulness and its source.

I thought that S. O. Number 126 was issued not by the federal Department of the Missouri, but by the State of Missouri Adjutant General's office. What confuses me is that Provisional Governor Hamilton Gamble and the General Assembly developed this unique relationship with Major General John Schofield, who filled a federal position as head of the Union Dept. of the Missouri, in which they gave much of the control of the EMM to him. Despite this, my understanding is that some kind of State of Missouri commission or board or something made the decisions about who to activate, who to de-activate, and so forth, and not the Feds.

But, without something to cite, or some authority, I cannot in good faith keep making those claims I wrote above. I think a good start would be if someone could give us S. O. Number 126 for 1864 word for word. Can anybody do that? Someone wrote about it some time in the past, because I know I did not make or dream this stuff up. I'm ususally rather good about being able to cite things and find my citations, but this one escapes me for now. I realize it will probably come to me in the bathtub, but it hasn't so far.

Bruce Nichols

Messages In This Thread

Controversy re: David Guitar, Columbia, Mo.
Re: Controversy re: David Guitar, Columbia, Mo.
Seriously flawed research/logic/headstone
Primer on Slaveholding Unionism
Re: Primer on Slaveholding Unionism
More slaveowning Unionists
Newspaper report of Guitar's death; Ghosbusters
Re: More slaveowning Unionists
Re: More slaveowning Unionists
Re: More slaveowning Unionists
Re: More slaveowning Unionists
Re: Seriously flawed research/logic/headstone
Re: Seriously flawed research/logic/headstone
EMM membership; Odon Guitar as slaveholder
Re: Seriously flawed research/logic/headstone
David Guitar myth dissected
Re: David Guitar myth dissected
Re: Seriously flawed research/logic/headstone
Re: Controversy re: David Guitar, Columbia, Mo.
Re: Controversy re: David Guitar, Columbia, Mo.
Re: Controversy re: David Guitar, Columbia, Mo.
Re: Controversy re: David Guitar, Columbia, Mo.
Re: Controversy re: David Guitar, Columbia, Mo.
Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?
Re: Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?
Re: Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?
Re: Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?
Re: Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?
Re: Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?
Re: Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?
Re: Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?
Re: Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?
Re: Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?
Special Order 126 seems to have targeted Radicals
Re: Special Order 126 seems to have targeted Radic
Review DMD?; David Guitar a Radical??
Re: Contents of Special Order 126, 1864?
David Guitar loyalty; Analysis of his company
Re: Controversy re: David Guitar, Columbia, Mo.
Re: Controversy re: David Guitar, Columbia, Mo.