[font="Courier New"][RIGHT]DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
Holly Springs, Ms., Early September 1862[/RIGHT]
His Excellency ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President, &c.:
Dear Sir: The following is in response to your request for an assessment on loyalties and control of the states in my department.
All the free states, and Missouri, are solidly (or in the case of Missouri, sufficiently) pro-Union in loyalties, hence there are no control problems in those states.
Arkansas is rather rabidly pro-Confederate leaning, however, this is not as problematic as is the case elsewhere. With the imminent capture of Little Rock, the campaign for the northern half of the state will be at an end; the troops used for the campaign transferred to the Mississippi for the drive south towards New Orleans. Supply for our outlying garrisons at Fort Smith and Little Rock will be by river, hence the need to control the hinterland of Arkansas to the Missouri border is not all that critical, I think.
Kentucky and Tennessee are much more problematic.
Loyalty there is generally very bad. Since the Emancipation Proclamation, loyalty in some areas, which had been rising steadily around 25% Union, have dropped to 0% Union.
This will have some very bad effects. Loyalty influences control, and once control of an area drops below 25%, the rail and supply lines through the area are cut. The worse the loyalty situation (below 50% for our side), the faster control drops.
Now, we can prevent disloyalty from dropping control levels by simply placing a unit there to garrison it. This is why the garrisoned towns and cities of Kentucky and Tennessee have stayed firmly under Union control.
We can also raise loyalty through martial law. But for martial law to be effective, we have to have a garrison in the area. Provided there is a garrison, martial law will raise loyalty by 1% every two weeks, until 30% is reached. If loyalty can get to at least 50% (that extra 20% by other means, for example), we wont have to worry about it dropping control levels while ungarrisoned. Which would be nice, as this frees up garrison troops for other things, like fighting the rebels.
So, the way I see it, the issue here is not so much martial law vs. not martial law, but making sure we have sufficient garrison troops. Whatever strategy you decide to employ, we will need garrisons to carry it out.
For example, if you want to go with full liberties, thats indeed possible; but we will need to have a unit garrisoning each vital province of a state. Probably for the duration of the war. This means not only towns and cities, but all rail provinces we wish to use in between. And this we have lamentably not been doing (for want of adequate units).
If you opt for a martial law strategy, again, we will need garrisons; martial/habeus has no effect on ungarrisoned areas. The benefit is, however, the slow eventual loyalty increase, such that we will be able to remove said garrisons once loyalty reaches appropriately pro-Union levels. 15 months of martial law will bring a province up from 0% Union loyalty to 30% Union loyalty.
So, however you decide to tackle the problem, we will need more rear-area garrison troops. Lots of them. Militia regiments would obviously be the best for this, as they are the cheapest to produce. As to how many we need, that is simple; count up the currently ungarrisoned rail lines (I see no need to bother with non-town, non-rail areas) we need to garrison, and that is the number of militia we need to raise. With more needed as we move further south, of course.
A heavy production burden no doubt, but for the campaign in middle Tennessee towards Atlanta, I do not see a way around this necessity, I fear.
For the drive down the Mississippi, I am going to stick close to the river for supply as near as practicible (as opposed to the inland rail lines south of Corinth). A river has no loyalty, which for our purposes is nice! All I need to do is maintain a chain of river depots (Memphis, Bolivar, etc) and we will be able to drive on Vicksburg through to New Orleans just fine, I believe.
Intelligence reports that Bragg's corps is no longer in the vicinity of New Orleans. Only Hardee and two CSA divisions maintain the siege there. My guess is (and it is only a guess), Bragg has been sent to Vicksburg, to begin digging in there. I shall send Foote down river with a few ironclads to carefully scout out Vicksburg, and verify this theory.
As to the troublesome Sioux, two newly raised cavalry regiments in Chicago shall be dispatched. And perhaps Brig. Gen. McCook, who has a bit of a reputation as an indian fighter.
Which on the subject, we could use some more brigadiers out west, for a few of our divisions are in need of leadership. If there are any such unemployed in the east, I am sure I will be able to find work for them here.
I remain, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Maj. Gen., Commanding[/RIGHT][/font]