was a most laborious and dangerous service, bring- CH. XVIII. ing them nothing but vexation and discouragement and breeding only intrigue and jealousy among themselves; keeping them constantly hampered and thwarted in their wishes, and offering them no opportunities for advance, for success, for distinction. The fact pointed out by Halleck, that no general had gained a brilliant victory, was due not so much to want of merit or courage as to the restraints which closed every avenue that might lead to a decisive contest. The campaign against Vicksburg, so sadly neglected in the spring, was resumed in the winter of 1862; but by this time it had become the work of a great army and required the genius of a great general. To aid in collecting this army, Missouri was drained of troops, and the task of repressing guerrillas fell largely upon local Union sentiment, which in the main found its organization and effective strength in the Enrolled Militia. The only action of importance which marks the military administration of Curtis was the battle of Prairie Grove in the northwest corner of Arkansas, where on the 7th of December the detachments respectively commanded by the Union generals James G. Blunt (who had been hovering all summer along the border of Kansas) and Francis J. Herron, who, finding Blunt pressed by the enemy coming northward with a view of entering Missouri, advanced by forced marches from near Springfield and formed a junction with Blunt just in the nick of time to defeat the Confederates under General Hindman. The losses on each side were about equal, and on the day following the engagement 1862. 1862. CH. XVIII. the Confederates retreated southward across the protecting barrier of the Boston Mountains. It was in a diminished degree a repetition of the battle of Pea Ridge, fought in the preceding March within twenty or thirty miles of the same place. In the main it served rather to keep both sides within their respective military limits, preventing the invasion of Missouri by the rebel leaders in Arkansas, and reciprocally restraining an advance of the Union leaders into Arkansas for the purpose of seizing Little Rock—a movement constantly planned and desired by them, and yet in the nature of things inexpedient, if not impracticable, until Vicksburg should fall. While general history, therefore, can take little note of the endless skirmishes and raids in Missouri which fill up the military record, the conduct of local military administration comes prominently into the foreground, not so much because of its intrinsic importance as through its indivisible relation to local politics, and through local politics to the great national questions of slavery and emancipation. The slavery question was indeed present as an ineradicable element of war almost everywhere, but in the State of Missouri, from the autumn of 1862, it not only supplemented, but in a certain degree even supplanted, the war itself. W. R. Curtis's earlier reports, made about two months after assuming command, are in a hopeful tone. With the approach of winter the guerrilla troubles were diminishing; a quiet election had been held, the first since the attempted secession of Missouri, and adequate preparations existed to meet the threatened Arkansas invasion which, as already W. R. Part II., stated, was repelled by the battle of Prairie Grove. CH. XVIII. So effectually did this engagement serve to scatter the rebel forces that Schofield reported January 31, 1863, "There is no considerable force of the enemy north of the Arkansas River; indeed I believe they have all gone or are going, as rapidly as possible, to Vicksburg. Ten thousand infantry and artillery can be spared from Southern Missouri and North- Vol. XXII., ern Arkansas." Nevertheless, the Administration at Washington was not free from trouble about Missouri, and as was so constantly happening, the intervention of President Lincoln was sought to compose the questions of difference in which other officials could not or would not come to an agreement. One of the matters at issue is briefly and pertinently stated in his letter of the 29th of November, 1862, to Attorney-General Bates. Few things perplex me more than this question between Governor Gamble and the War Department, as to whether the peculiar force organized by the former in Missouri are State troops or United States troops. Now, this is either an immaterial or a mischievous question. First, if no more is desired than to have it settled what name the force is to be called by, it is immaterial. Secondly, if it is desired for more than the fixing a name, it can only be to get a position from which to draw practical inferences; then it is mischievous. Instead of settling one dispute by deciding the question, I should merely furnish a nestful of eggs for hatching new disputes. I believe the force is not strictly either "State troops" or "United States troops." It is of mixed character; I therefore think it is safer, when a practical question arises, to decide that question directly, and not indirectly, by deciding a general abstraction supposed to include it, and also including a great deal more. Without dispute, Governor Gamble appoints the officers of this force, and fills vacancies when they occur. The question now pracVOL. VI.-25 p. 88. |