John Pope

[hanna260]

I'll admit- I've always been fascinated by this guy for pretty much no reason- especially since I don't really know all that much about him. Most of the other generals who came before Grant seem to have plenty written about them, I feel like the respective strengths and flaws of McClellan, Meade, even Hooker have been re-hashed quite a bit- but for some reason Pope usually gets dismissed as a braggart and a fool, and just that guy who was in charge of Second Bull Run. So, was Pope really that bad? Was Bull Run really his fault? How does he compare to other generals before Grant? What was he like as a person- all bad or some redeeming qualities?

 

[NedBaldwin]

I'll admit- I've always been fascinated by this guy for pretty much no reason- especially since I don't really know all that much about him. Most of the other generals who came before Grant seem to have plenty written about them, I feel like the respective strengths and flaws of McClellan, Meade, even Hooker have been re-hashed quite a bit- but for some reason Pope usually gets dismissed as a braggart and a fool, and just that guy who was in charge of Second Bull Run. So, was Pope really that bad? Was Bull Run really his fault? How does he compare to other generals before Grant? What was he like as a person- all bad or some redeeming qualities?

Pope was not that bad. He made mistakes and was overwhelmed by army command at Bull Run, but he wasnt he only one that made mistakes which contributed to the outcome.

As a person, he seems likeable to me.

Author Peter Cozzens has published two books on Pope. Cozzens edited 'The Military Memoirs of General John Pope' which is a collection of articles Pope wrote for the National Tribune. Cozzens also wrote 'General John Pope: A Life for the Nation'. If you are looking to read more about him, these are good places to start.

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

Pope did better out west - New Madrid, Island #10. He seemed a good candidate to take on the first team of the enemy in the East division. Sturgis' remark summed up the value of his contribution there: "I don't care for John Pope one pinch of owl dung".

 

[nitrofd]

Pope did better out west - New Madrid, Island #10. He seemed a good candidate to take on the first team of the enemy in the East division. Sturgis' remark summed up the value of his contribution there: "I don't care for John Pope one pinch of owl dung".

But Sturgis is not the best source as all he could do was run with his tail between his legs.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I've read The Military Memoirs of General John Pope, edited by Cozzens. My overall impression is that Pope was fairly competent, though there was an underlying streak of egotism that makes him a little difficult to fully sympathize with. His pompous-sounding communiques to the troops when he came East were the result of a poorly-handled effort to boost morale and backfired on him rather badly. He was a bit of a difficult subordinate (as witness his behavior in the Corinth campaign, although being under Halleck could have made many better men somewhat difficult). His memoirs as edited by Cozzens reveal someone who's really not the complete dunderhead he's been portrayed as, though I still wouldn't characterize him as a misunderstood genius.

Oh-- and he could have used more of a staff. That headquarters-in-the-saddle business is partly what got him into trouble at Second Manassas-- a competent staff could conceivably have gotten his trains out of the way, rather than falling into Confederate hands.

 

[ErnieMac]

Pope had performed well at New Madrid and Island No. 10, but his opposition in those operations was BG John P. McCown and BG William W. Mackall, neither of whom held significant commands in the Confederate army afterward. (Mackall would serve as chief of staff for Bragg and Johnston when those men commanded the Army of Tennessee.) Pope commanded the Left Wing of Halleck's army during the siege of Corinth. He was IMO a reasonable choice for a higher command at that point in the war, even though future events would show he was no match for Lee.

Pope was the first to bring a harder conduct of the War in the East. Under McClellan the Union Armies conducted themselves in a manner designed to minimize their impact on Confederate civilians during operations. Pope had other ideas. Union soldiers were encouraged to forage from Confederate farms. Civilians behind Union lines would be required to take an oath of allegiance or face expulsion. Civilians would be held responsible for attacks by Confederate guerillas that occurred near their homes. This seems pretty tame compared to Sherman's or Sheridan's campaigns in 1864, but it was harsh for the time and could be seen as a sign of things to come. These actions raised Lee's ire to the point that he referred to Pope as a "miscreant" who needed to be "suppressed", fairly strong language for Lee.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Pope had performed well at New Madrid and Island No. 10, but his opposition in those operations was BG John P. McCown and BG William W. Mackall, neither of whom held significant commands in the Confederate army afterward.

Not to mention, Pope had Island No. 10 fairly handed to him, courtesy of Commander Henry Walke and the Carondelet.

(In all fairness, Pope was in on the planning for that move, and in fact was the one trying to nudge Foote to do just that-- send a gunboat past the island. As I said, Pope was not an utter dunderhead.)

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

So much of 'greatness' in a military commander relies on the hour finding the man. I wonder how many potential Grants or Forrests went unnoticed, just because they never had an opportunity to shine in a big way?

And on the flip side, how many merely mediocre officers look better than they probably ought to, since they were under a gifted commander? Was there a material difference in ability between, say, a Pope and a Jefferson C. Davis? The latter was not suddenly catapulted into a major command slot, and had the good fortune to serve under officers of greater ability; so though he is largely known as "the other Jeff Davis," he doesn't have quite the odium hanging about him as does Pope-- even *with* that business about killing Nelson.

(This is similar to my musings about McClellan and Sherman, whom I think bore a lot of similarity to each other at the get-go, and I've wondered before that if the two had been swapped if it wouldn't have been McClellan as the hero of the Western armies and Sherman in the veritable doghouse... it's just that Sherman got a chance to grow as a subordinate and McClellan was jumped ahead in the line without that chance.)

Anyway... basically, I could imagine a scenario where Pope remains as a subordinate commander under Grant, and perhaps grows and matures to be a good number-two man. I don't think he was the stuff of greatness himself, but true greatness does tend to be generous.

 

[BillO]

So Hanna it appears that the short answer is yes. He was pretty bad. Maybe not the worst but far, far from the best. He does hold the dubious distinction of being the one Yankee Lee personally wanted "to suppress."

 

[Miles Krisman]

I'll admit- I've always been fascinated by this guy for pretty much no reason- especially since I don't really know all that much about him. Most of the other generals who came before Grant seem to have plenty written about them, I feel like the respective strengths and flaws of McClellan, Meade, even Hooker have been re-hashed quite a bit- but for some reason Pope usually gets dismissed as a braggart and a fool, and just that guy who was in charge of Second Bull Run. So, was Pope really that bad? Was Bull Run really his fault? How does he compare to other generals before Grant? What was he like as a person- all bad or some redeeming qualities?

According to Proffessor Gary W. Gallagher, General Pope was not well liked due to his arrogance and bragging. Apparently, soon after Pope came East and took command of the the Armies of Freemont, Banks and McDowell, he made several statements to the press and his army that demonstrated that arrogance. He announced to his troops that he was from the west and his Army in the west never retreated. They were used to seeing the backs of their enemy, unlike the troops he now commanded in the east, which had suffered several reversals. He was not interested in defensive lines and avenues of retreat because it was the Confederates that would be retreating. He also stated that he would execute guerrillas and confiscate the property of anyone found to be helping guerrillas. He would force those civilians not supporting the Union out of the Union lines.

Pope was also a Republican, unlike most of the other Generals in the East. He was therefore anxious to fulfill the goals of the Republican Party and was sympathetic to the ideas of the Radical Republicans. Consequently, when he lost the battle of 2nd Bull Run/Manassas, Lincoln used the opportunity to remove a man he saw as too controversial from command, and sent him to fight the Sioux in Minnesota. In reality, Pope was just a man ahead of his time. Had he been put in command in the East a year or so later, he would have been better able to fulfill his potential because the circumstances of the war would have changed.

 

[Pat Answer]

I'm only familiar with John Hennessy's book but it seems that Pope handled things with a degree of competence (e.g., extricating his force from the Rapidan-Rappahannock trap) until just before Manassas 2 when he couldn't locate Jackson and generally seemed to lose touch with developments. He wasn't the only Union commander at this stage who didn't organize and use his cavalry to the full...

 

[BillO]

I'm only familiar with John Hennessy's book but it seems that Pope handled things with a degree of competence (e.g., extricating his force from the Rapidan-Rappahannock trap) until just before Manassas 2 when he couldn't locate Jackson and generally seemed to lose touch with developments. He wasn't the only Union commander at this stage who didn't organize and use his cavalry to the full...

Well Pat even a blind hog can find an acorn every once and awhile.

 

[Pat Answer]

Well Pat even a blind hog can find an acorn every once and awhile.

!

I guess I'm an incorrigible member of the "Archer Jones" school - I'll even give Halleck and Bragg the benefit of a detailed look at the circumstances. No matter how you slice it, being a general was a tough job...

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I'll even give Halleck and Bragg the benefit of a detailed look at the circumstances. No matter how you slice it, being a general was a tough job...

Truth. It's surprisingly hard to find a general who invariably did everything wrong, unless it's Gideon J. Pillow-- but even he may have shown up in the correct uniform now and then. Both Halleck and Bragg had their strong points (as did Pope), but they didn't have as many of them as others, or they were counterbalanced by failings and weaknesses.

For instance, Pope was not one of the overly-defensive-minded commanders; he was aggressive and assertive, which are qualities one wants when there's some attacking to do. However desirable this is, though, if it's not adequately matched by good intel-gathering and an ability to rapidly change plans when the situation doesn't pan out as expected, it can become a significant handicap instead of a positive quality.

I wonder how things would have gone if Halleck hadn't yanked Pope off the Mississippi to add to his huge force at Corinth. His forces were on the point of evolving some interesting riverine doctrine in combination with the Western Gunboat Flotilla, with Island No. 10 as a template...

 

[Carronade]

"He announced to his troops that he was from the west and his Army in the west never retreated. They were used to seeing the backs of their enemy, unlike the troops he now commanded in the east"

Not exactly a morale builder. A good leader makes his men feel like they're the best, that they can whip anybody.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

"He announced to his troops that he was from the west and his Army in the west never retreated. They were used to seeing the backs of their enemy, unlike the troops he now commanded in the east"

Not exactly a morale builder. A good leader makes his men feel like they're the best, that they can whip anybody.

Yeah... misfire. It was intended to say, "You want victory, I'll take you there..." but Pope had a bit of a tin ear for PR.

 

[hanna260]

Thanks for the replies everyone!

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Not to drag Walke into it... well, no, really, to drag Walke into it... one of the things I've come to think about Henry Walke's career is that he was simply unlucky in a number of things over which he had no control, or else he'd likely be better known. One of them is that the general involved in one of Walke's best-known actions, the run past Island No. 10, was John Pope. If Pope had gone on to bigger and better things, rather than going down in history (fairly or unfairly) as a blowhard who got creamed at Second Manassas, Walke might have received a bit more attention.

(A few other examples of Walke's less-than-stellar luck include having his name forgotten by Grant when the latter was writing his memoirs about the early actions on the Mississippi near Cairo, such as Belmont; and in later years, having finally received a large amount of back pay, being robbed of it on the way to deposit it in the bank... there are more. Walke did well for himself, but he didn't catch many lucky breaks.)

 

[brass napoleon]

...In reality, Pope was just a man ahead of his time. Had he been put in command in the East a year or so later, he would have been better able to fulfill his potential because the circumstances of the war would have changed.

While I agree that his political aims would have been more palatable a year later, I don't see much reason to believe he would have been any more competent. And while I also agree that he wasn't completely incompetent, and that he wasn't entirely responsible for the debacle at Second Manassas, he was largely responsible for it. He steadfastly refused to adjust his battle plans to the reality of what was occurring on the battlefield, or to even acknowledge that it was occuring. He had done all his imagination would allow him to do, and was now intent on sitting back and watching Stonewall Jackson beat an ignominious retreat. No amount of intelligence to the contrary would convince him that just the opposite was happening.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Pope had a very long and successful career in the Regular Army. It is unfair to judge his entire career based on three bad days in August 1862.