His next neighbor to the eastward was Maj. Gen. Don Carlos Buell, commanding the Department of the Ohio, which extended from the Cumberland River to the Allegheny Mountains. Gen. Buell's complete cooperation was necessary to the management of affairs in the Mississippi Valley, but this seems to have been difficult to secure. Buell had his own ideas, and they frequently did not harmonize with those of Gen. Halleck. Halleck recommended that Buell's Department be put under his own command, which was also done later.
Bridge-burning and other outrages by straggling bands claiming to be Confederates seriously disturbed the peace, embarrassed operations, and worried the Commanding General. Halleck reported that within 10 days prior to Jan. 1, 1862, these bridge-burners had destroyed $150,000 worth of railroad property and that they had concocted a plan to burn, simultaneously, every railroad bridge in the State, and set fire to the city of St. Louis in a number of places. In his comprehensive order advising summary and severe punishment against these marauders he took careful guards against such being made the pretext for any private vengeance or official malice, and instituted Military Commissions of not less than three responsible officers, acting under the solemnity of an oath, and making written reports of their proceedings. This order brought down a storm of abuse from the Secessionist and semi-Secessionist press, which Halleck calmly disregarded.
Gen. Sterling Price on Jan. 12 wrote Gen. Halleck a strong letter protesting against the order and asking the question whether "individuals and parties of men specially appointed and instructed by me to destroy railroads, culverts, bridges, etc." were, if captured, to be regarded as deserving of death.
Gen. Halleck in reply said:
You also complain that "individuals and parties of men
specially appointed and instructed by you to destroy
railroads, culverts and bridges by tearing them up, burning,
etc., have been arrested and subjected to a general court-
martial for alleged crimes." This statement is in the main
correct. Where "individuals and parties of men" violate the
laws of war they will be tried, and if found guilty will
certainly be punished, whether acting by your "special
appointment and instruction" or not. You must be aware,
General, that no orders of yours can save from punishment
spies, marauders, robbers, incendiaries, guerrilla bands,
etc., who violate the laws of war. You cannot give immunity
to crime. But let us fully understand each other on this
point. If you send armed forces wearing the garb of soldiers
and duly organized and enrolled as legitimate belligerents
to destroy railroads, bridges, etc., as a military act, we
shall kill them, if possible, in open warfare, or, if we
capture them, we shall treat them as prisoners of war.
But it is well understood that you have sent numbers of your
adherents in the garb of peaceful citizens, and under false
pretenses, through our lines into northern Missouri, to rob
and destroy the property of Union men and to burn and
destroy railroad bridges, thus endangering the lives of
thousands, and this, too, without any military necessity or
possible military advantage. Moreover, peaceful citizens of
Missouri, quietly working on their farms, have been
instigated by your emissaries to take up arms as insurgents,
to rob and plunder and to commit arson and murder. They do
not even act under the garb of soldiers, but in false
pretenses and in the guise of peaceful citizens. You
certainly will not pretend that men guilty of such crimes,
although "specially appointed and instructed by you," are
entitled to the rights and immunities of ordinary prisoners
of war. If you do, will you refer me to a single authority
on the laws of war which recognizes such a claim?
You may rest assured, General, that all prisoners of war not
guilty of crime will be treated with all proper
consideration and kindness. With the exception of being
properly confined, they will be lodged and fed, and where
necessary clothed, the same as our own troops. I am sorry to
say that our prisoners who have come from your camps do not
report such treatment on your part. They say that you gave
them no rations, no clothing, no blankets, but left them to
perish with want and cold. Moreover, It is believed that you
subsist your troops by robbing and plundering the non-
combatant Union inhabitants of the southwestern Counties of
this State. Thousands of poor families have fled to us for
protection and support They say that your troops robbed them
of their provisions and clothing, carrying away their shoes
and bedding, and even cutting cloth from their looms, and
that you have driven women and children from their homes to
starve and perish in the cold. I have not retaliated such
conduct upon your adherents here, as I have no intention of
waging such a barbarous warfare; but I shall, whenever I
can, punish such crimes, by whomsoever they may be
committed.
An examination of the correspondence leads to the conclusion that Halleck possessed very superior talents as a letter writer.
Contrasted with Fremont, McClellan, Buell and others, Halleck gave great satisfaction in Washington, and Secretary Stanton telegraphed him as follows:
Your energy and ability receive the strongest commendation of this Department You have my perfect confidence, and may rely upon the utmost support in your undertakings. The pressure of my engagements have prevented me from writing, but I shall do so fully in a day or two.