This is one -- the nature of Special Order #126 -- which has been heavily discussed on this board over the years. In 1864 SO 126 resulted in a huge number of officers and non-coms being dismissed from the Enrolled Missouri Militia. It was not heavily discussed in the press of the era, and, strangely, never ever discussed in historical writings despite its massive effect on how the war would end up being waged in Missouri. Over time, the nature and import of SO 126 has been sensed on this board but never was resolved. It had been speculated at one point here that SO 126 was a last gasp by Missouri Conservative Unionists as they were losing power, and its intent was to purge Radical Unionists from the EMM "for being too tough."

Which was wrong. Actually its nature was quite the opposite.

In the study of almost any war, the longer that conflict goes on, the bloodier it becomes, and the more extreme the measures to wage it escalate. The American Civil War in general was no different, and in Missouri specifically. Think U.S. Grant taking the gloves off in 1864. Think Sherman taking the gloves off in 1864. And think the Missouri Unionists in Missouri taking the gloves off in 1864.

I finally got to the bottom of the SO 126 conundrum recently during the course of my dive into events surrounding the killing of Bill Anderson, and the role the Ray County militia had in it. I found a dispatch sent in the summer of 1864 discussing which Ray County companies of the EMM -- the 51st Enrolled Missouri Militia -- were "loyal," and which ones were "disloyal." I then began looking into each specific company mentioned, and found that the "disloyal" ended up being heavily hit by the Special Order #126 purge. Now while that pretty much told me what the nature of SO 126 was, I still didn't have my hands on the order itself to prove it.

Further analyzing and researching, I was able to establish that SO 126 was issued on July 28, 1864. Hmmm...so, I pondered, what was going in Missouri in July 1864 during the confluence of the issuance of SO 126 and discussions of disloyalty in the EMM.

Most of you reading this probably just had a light bulb go off over your heads. I myself didn't have to ponder the question long. The Paw Paw Rebellion happened. Armed elements of two northwest Missouri EMM regiments right next door to Ray County switched sides in Platte City on July 10, 1864. The Federal response to the rebellion was swift, and harsh. The so-called Paw Paw Militia defectors were attacked by Union forces, killed, captured and dispersed, and Platte City was burned to the ground.

Then, 18 days later, Special Order 126 was issued, resulting in fully 838 officers of the Enrolled Missouri Militia, at least, being purged from virtually every single EMM unit across the state of Missouri. While there may be one or two EMM regiments which missed the purge, I haven't identified them yet, if they do exist. That's how broad the purge was. So the EMM personnel who were dismissed weren't dismissed for being too tough on the other side, the were dismissed in the midst of a major melt-down in the confidence of the loyalty of the EMM.

So having discovered, through a bit of luck and a lot of research (which sets the stage for luck, right?), I came up with the specific date of the issuance of SO 126. From that date and working backwards I not only found the order, and the specific list of every EMM officer purged, but also the regiment and right down to the company each officer belonged to. And from there, I was able to backtrack to the genesis of the special order, and found it originated directly from an act of the legislature followed by the issuance of a general order by Gen. William Rosecrans, the senior U.S. ranking officer in Missouri, all of which anticipated the disastrous possibility of something like the Paw Paw Rebellion transpiring before it transpired.

So following the bread crumbs of SO 126 back to their source, I found that on Feb. 15, 1864, the General Assembly of Missouri passed "AN ACT to prescribe an oath of allegiance for certain military officers." I don't have the legislative history of this act, but if one exists it'll probably be in some dusty box and include testimony, transcripts and affidavits (i.e., a treasure trove for future historians).

Anyway, this Feb. 15, 1864 legislation required that all "colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, first lieutenants and second lieutenants, and all commissioned and non-commissioned staff officer of regiments, and all non-commissioned officers of companies in the Enrolled Militia of the State of Missouri" to take an oath of allegiance (see next post in this thread for the actual oath). Note the scale of that law -- it required virtually every person in every company in every regiment of the Enrolled Missouri Militia, with the exception of privates, to take the oath.

So in response to this Feb. 15, 1864 legislation, on March 5, 1864, Gen. Rosecrans, through his adjutant John B. Gray, issued General Order #8 incorporating the entire act of the legislature, word for word, into military edict. Each EMM officer and non-commissioned officer taking the oath was required to file it with the clerk of the county of his residence by July 4, 1864. Taking the oath and violating it subjected the invidicual to prosecution in civil courts for perjury. I am guessing it would have also subjected the individual to court martial and military charges.

So, as you can see, the stage was already set for the purge at the time of the July 10, 1864 Paw Paw Rebellion. I am thinking that when it happened, the U.S. command in Missouri immediately began auditing the oath responses which had been required to have been filed by July 4. This would have been no small task--gathering the oaths the length and breadth of the state, and cross-referencing those in hand to lists of EMM officers and non-coms across the entire state of Missouri. However, that task was quickly completed with Rosecrans issuing his follow up Special Order Order #126 purging the oath scofflaws from the EMM on July 28, 1864, just 18 days after the Paw Paw Rebellion.

In such a wide-scale and rushed undertaking there were a few mistakes made, of course, with some who had filed being overlooked and having appealed there dismissal. So massive was this purge, that the St. Joseph newspaper immediately speculated "we judge that four-fifths of the militia officers of the State have neglected to take the oath, and therefore go out of the service."

That purge of 80 percent of all EMM officers is probably overdramatized and overstated. In the list I have in hand I count 838 names, which likely would have been around half of all EMM officers at the time. That's officers...as for EMM non-coms purged -- enlisted men whose "loyalist" sentiments would have been even more questionable -- one can only imagine.