pickettcsa
Cadet
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
On June 26, 1862, President Lincoln relieved George McClellan of command of the Army of the Potomac and assigned Major General John Pope in his place. Pope has been characterized as being arrogant, if not boastful, in personality but aggressive in battle which, after dealing with McClellan's reluctance to fight Robert E. Lee, was what Lincoln was looking for. Other than victories on Island No. 10 and New Madrid, Pope had little to boast of other than some well placed publicity. Still, Lincoln was swayed to appoint Pope as commanding general ahead of others who were more senior to him including Fitz John Porter and Phil Kearney. Pope's arrogance even went as far as to insult his new command when he addressed them saying, "Let us understand each other. I come from the West, where we have always seen the back of our enemies; from an army whose business has been to seek out its adversary and to beat him where he was found; whose policy has been to attack and not defend (a deliberate insult directed towards McClellan)...." . The politics of the Army of the Potomac were such that several generals expressed their displeasure of serving underneath Pope. Still, Pope's bragging did not serve him well as he was out-generaled by Lee and slammed by Jackson at Second Manassas. Pope was instantaneously blamed for the poor showing of the Army by both newspapers and politicians alike and Pope was canned. Pope, in his defense, blamed Fitz John Porter, specifically, for disobeying orders and refusing to support him during the campaign, as well as Irwin McDowell and John Reynolds. McClellan even took a pot shot at Pope as well writing to Lincoln that he should, "leave Pope to pull himself out of this scrape.". Afterwards, Pope was re-assigned to the Pacific Northwest where he was an able administrator and fought successful campaigns against the Indians. Do you believe that history has given John Pope a fair shake or was he a victim of Union Army politics?