Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America. Vol. 2.
Henry Coppee , LL.D., Ed.

---

[714] march, were preparing to demolish. But in Missouri, where the war assumed quite a different character, requisitions on both sides were merely organized depredations. When General Pope, who had begun the war in that State, was summoned to Virginia, he sought to introduce some of the practices he had followed among the combative communities west of the Mississippi. In this, however, he only followed the example of General Milroy, who, since he had exercised a command independent of General McClellan in the valley of Virginia, had sought to repair his errors, and compensate for his reverses, by resorting to every kind of arrogance and violence against the farmers of that rich country. This abuse of the right of requisition having given rise to numerous complaints, the Secretary of War issued an order, dated July 22, 1862, the very day of the signing of the cartel of exchanges, regulating its application. This order directed that in the nine States then considered in rebellion the military authorities should proceed to seize all that was necessary to supply the wants of the war, out of private property, prohibiting at the same time any destruction of property not justified by those wants. It authorized, likewise, the employment of negroes, found upon plantations, for all the work required by the army or navy, by means of proper compensation. It finally directed that all requisitions for slaves or articles of any kind should be made in writing, so as to entitle the owners of such property to indemnity. Nothing could be more equitable, but the seizure of slaves and their employment in labors, for which they themselves received the wages, was looked upon by Southern planters as the first step toward emancipation, and the order of the Federal Secretary was made the subject of a violent protest on the part of Mr. Davis.

The treatment of citizens and partisans who were fighting on their own account gave rise to difficulties of a much more serious character. In a civil war, where certain States found themselves divided between the adherents of the two causes, it was not an easy matter to draw a distinct line separating the assassin from the insurgent and the latter from the belligerent, the conspirator from the citizen armed in defence of his own opinions, and the latter from the regular soldier. In the Northern States any man who should have fired upon a Federal uniform or raised the