Pope's General Orders--To Bring the War to Southern Peoples--

Why I'm still waiting for you to provide anything as a source as to what was "standard" "normal" counterinsurgency, perhaps you actually refence the existing army manuals or cite actual laws....so far its still just you throwing around modern terms
I am arguing that Pope was practicing standard hard counterinsurgency . I am not arguing and in fact pointed out that there was no counterinsurgency manual during the ACW. Has I mentioned many times in the past the first or one of the first written accounts of counterinsurgency was the Jewish Maccabees vs the Hellenic Syrians so counterinsurgency may not of had a formal doctrine but it was nothing new.
Pope was merely practicing standard counterinsurgency of that era.
Leftyhunter
 
Then note pray tell anything describing or defining "standard hard counterinsurgency" in 1861...………once again provide the US manuals describing it as "standard" or "policy". You simply saying a lie over and over doesn't make it true, perhaps try actual 1861 sources....

And if want to make vague references to counter insurgency policies at the time with no actual link to US military policy. In International community the counter insurgency tactics that been printed and discussed were "soft" not "hard"...….. to say "hard" was the standard of the era is blatantly false, as even then there was differing philosophies...And US hadn't adopted any as standard policy.

The third Marques of Santa Cruz de Marcenado (1684–1732) is probably the earliest author who dealt systematically in his writings with counter-insurgency. In his Reflexiones Militares, published between 1726 and 1730, he discussed how to spot early signs of an incipient insurgency, prevent insurgencies, and counter them, if they could not be warded off. Strikingly, Santa Cruz recognized that insurgencies are usually due to real grievances: "A state rarely rises up without the fault of its governors." Consequently, he advocated clemency towards the population and good governance, to seek the people's "heart and love

Not assessments, threats, reprisals...….. Hearts and minds isn't modern but pre civil war...….

Also most theorists note militaries often have lashed out at civilians in frustration at their inability to cope with guerrillas...….however that in itself isn't a "hard counter insurgency policy" its simply blundering about with no policy.
 
Last edited:
.... that large numbers of white Southerners are transplants from the North and retired military people from all over the country? And that many prosperous white Southerners have left resentments from the rebellion far behind them? And that increasing numbers of Southerners are immigrants from Mexico and Asia?
That doesn't make them Southerners. Makes em Yankee transplants. :D

No different if I went to NYC. I wouldn't suddenly be considered a New Yorker.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people wanting to move here from the North, or really anywhere for that matter. The South is a wonderful place. Nice climate, great food, & decent folks. My problem is people that wanna move here, from some big city up north, & then want our area to be more like the place they left. :frown:
 
The Rape of Nanking and the Smallest massacre were examples of conventional war which have nothing to do with insurgency warfare vs Pope' s order which does. I was not arguing if Pope's Order was legal or not just that Pope was in the norm for then contemporary counterinsurgency.
Unless you can show any case law or disciplinary action against Pope then Pope's Order is perfectly fine.
Leftyhunter
Just curious, you hold that the Native Americans i.e. the Cheyenne at Sand Creek and Washita fought convetional war as did the Germans at Malmedy and the Imperial Japanese at Nanking? Well now , that beggers any discription of Convential War I was taught at FMF/Divison /USMC Schools ; the Rules of Land Warfare prohibit killing , raping, looting of civilians and the summary excecution of surrendered combatants even in the 1860's but hey rock on with your " The ends justify the means." line of logic.
 
My opinion, yes. As is your view that most Southerners resent Grant, Sheridan and Sherman. But I prefer my opinion to yours. So, are you advancing the notion that black Southerners hold resentments against the people who crushed the rebellion and freed their ancestors?

I’ve talked to scores of Southerners about the rebellion. I never talked to a black Southerner who had anything bad to say about the American cause or in favor of the rebellion. Many white Southerners aware of the rebellion spoke poorly of the American officers and troops though I worked with boilermakers from East Tennessee and northern Alabama who were well aware of the Unionist views and actions of their ancestors and favored the American cause. Also being trade unionists they obviously don’t think and act in the conventional southern manner.

Hispanic Southerners generally seem to have little emotional investment in the events and people of the rebellion. Same goes for white Southerners who moved from the North. And white Southerners who are retired military people, many of whom I’ve known in St. Augustine and San Antonio, favor the American cause.

I've never met anyone who spoke well of Sherman, or thought that what he did was a good thing, even though probably the majority of them are pro-United States and certainly think it's a good thing that we're one country. Even for people who don't really care about history (which is the majority), they know that Sherman and his men did a lot of burning and looting, and they generally disapprove. People like the result of the war without necessarily approving of Sherman's role in bringing that about.
 
That doesn't make them Southerners. Makes em Yankee transplants. :D

No different if I went to NYC. I wouldn't suddenly be considered a New Yorker.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people wanting to move here from the North, or really anywhere for that matter. The South is a wonderful place. Nice climate, great food, & decent folks. My problem is people that wanna move here, from some big city up north, & then want our area to be more like the place they left. :frown:
The let us tell you how we did up North crowd. :mouse:
 
The above example was the standard counterinsurgency technique of the day. It is an example of hard counterinsurgency. The opposite " Soft Counterinsurgency" would have to wait until the late 1940s. We should not blame Pope for following the standard counterinsurgency doctrine of that era.
Leftyhunter

So what's your gripe against the Confederates taking standard counterinsurgency measures against unionists and other acts of disloyalty?
 
Just curious, you hold that the Native Americans i.e. the Cheyenne at Sand Creek and Washita fought convetional war as did the Germans at Malmedy and the Imperial Japanese at Nanking? Well now , that beggers any discription of Convential War I was taught at FMF/Divison /USMC Schools ; the Rules of Land Warfare prohibit killing , raping, looting of civilians and the summary excecution of surrendered combatants even in the 1860's but hey rock on with your " The ends justify the means." line of logic.
I never said the Indians fought a conventional war. I merely pointed out that Nanking and Malmedy were examples of conventional war and not applicable to conventional war. The Indians did use guerrilla warfare against the United States. If there were any rules against killing civilians they were never enforced or if so rarely enforced by the US Military in the nineteenth century. Before we get caught up in righteous indignation about the US Army outrages against the Indian's the Confederate Army also killed unarmed Indian Civilians. That information has been posted before I can repost it.
Leftyhunter
 
Be
:confused:
Cause they were an illegal political entity that had no right to use violence against anyone.
Leftyhunter

Rather a draconian assertion, but that's my personal view. According to your reckoning, the War for Southern Independence was a prolonged, violent struggle between two illegal political entities. :confused:
 
Rather a draconian assertion, but that's my personal view. According to your reckoning, the War for Southern Independence was a prolonged, violent struggle between two illegal political entities. :confused:
Negative. The United States was a Nation recognized by many other nations . No nation recognized the Confederacy. As you well know there is no legal legitimacy for the Confederacy per Texas v.White.
Leftyhunter
 
General Pope issues the following general orders listed below and these general orders cause consternation among the people of the south as well in the north. General Lee when so far as to call Pope "miscreant". He told Jackson to clear him out of Virginia over these general orders.

All General Pope was doing was trying to fight a war in his opponents backyard and bringing the war home to the South's civilians. You might call it "total War Light" but Grant and Sherman did it in a more effectively way to bring the war home to the Southern people and are called "hero's". While Pope gets consternation form everyone else for doing a similar concept. I do not see anything wrong in what Pope was proposing with his General orders but trying to win a war.

Why such consternation over them?


Major General John Pope's General Orders No. 5, 7, 11, and 19
GENERAL ORDERS NO. 5
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF VIRGINIA
July 18,1862, Washington,
Hereafter, as far as practicable, the troops of this command will subsist upon the country in which their operations are carried on. In all cases supplies for this purpose will be taken by the officers to whose department they properly belong under the orders of the commanding officer of the troops for whose use they are intended. Vouchers will be given to the owners, stating on their face that they will be payable at the conclusion of the war, upon sufficient testimony being furnished that such owners have been loyal citizens of the United States since the date of the vouchers. Whenever it is known that supplies can be furnished in any district of the country where the troops are to operate the use of trains for carrying subsistence will be dispensed with as far as possible.
By command of Major-General Pope:
GEO. D. RUGGLES,
Colonel, Assistant Adjutant-General, and Chief of Staff.
GENERAL ORDERS No. 7.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF VIRGINIA,
Washington, July 10 [?], 1862.
The people of the valley of the Shenandoah and throughout the region of operations of this army living along the lines of railroad and telegraph and along the routes of travel in rear of the United States forces are notified that they will be held responsible for any injury lone to the track, line, or road, or for any attacks upon trains or straggling soldiers by bands of guerrillas in their neighborhood. No privileges and immunities of warfare apply to lawless bands of individuals not forming part of the organized forces of the enemy nor wearing the garb of soldiers, who, seeking and obtaining safety on pretext of being peaceful citizens, steal out in rear of the army, attack and murder straggling soldiers, molest trains of supplies, destroy railroads, telegraph lines, and bridges, and commit outrages disgraceful to civilized people and revolting to humanity. Evil-disposed persons in rear of our armies who do not themselves engage directly in these lawless acts encourage them by refusing to interfere or to give any information by which such acts can be prevented or the perpetrators punished.
Safety of life and property of all persons living in rear of our advancing armies depends upon the maintenance of peace and quiet among themselves and upon the unmolested movements through their midst of all pertaining to the military service. They are to understand distinctly that this security of travel is their only warrant of personal safety.
It is therefore ordered that wherever a railroad, wagon road, or telegraph is injured by parties of guerrillas the citizens living within 5 miles of the spot shall be turned out in mass to repair the damage, and shall, beside, pay to the United States in money or in property, to be levied by military force, the full amount of the pay and subsistence of the whole force necessary to coerce the performance of the work during the time occupied in completing it.
If a soldier or legitimate follower of the army be fired upon from any house the house shall be razed to the ground, and the inhabitants sent prisoners to the headquarters of this army. If such an outrage occur at any place distant from settlements, the people within 5 miles around shall be held accountable and made to pay an indemnity sufficient for the case.
Any persons detected in such outrages, either during the act or at any time afterward, shall be shot, without awaiting civil process. No such acts can influence the result of this war, and they can only lead to heavy afflictions to the population to no purpose.
It is therefore enjoined upon all persons, both for the security of their property and the safety of their own persons, that they act vigorously and cordially together to prevent the perpetration of such outrages.
Whilst it is the wish of the general commanding this army that all peaceably disposed persons who remain at their homes and pursue their accustomed avocations shall be subjected to no improper burden of war, yet their own safety must of necessity depend upon the strict preservation of peace and order among themselves; and they are to understand that nothing will deter him from enforcing promptly and to the full extent every provision of this order.

By command of Major-General Pope:
GEO. D. RUGGLES,
Colonel, Assistant Adjutant-General, and Chief-of-Staff.
GENERAL ORDERS No. 11.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF VIRGINIA,
Washington, July 23, 1862.
Commanders of army corps, divisions, brigades, and detached commands will proceed immediately to arrest all disloyal male citizens within their lines or within their reach in rear of their respective stations.
Such as are willing to take the oath of allegiance to the United States and will furnish sufficient security for its observance shall be permitted to remain at their homes and pursue in good faith their accustomed avocations. Those who refuse shall be conducted South beyond the extreme pickets of this army, and be notified that if found again anywhere within our lines or at any point in rear they will be considered spies, and subjected to the extreme rigor of military law.
If any person, having taken the oath of allegiance as above specified, be found to have violated it, he shall be shot, and his property seized and applied to the public use.
All communication with any person whatever living within the lines of the enemy is positively prohibited, except through the military authorities and in the manner specified by military law; and any person concerned in writing or in carrying letters or messages in any other way will be considered and treated as a spy within the lines of the United States Army.

By command of Major-General Pope:
GEO. D. RUGGLES,
Colonel, Assistant Adjutant-General, and Chief of Staff.
GENERAL ORDERS, No. 19.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF VIRGINIA,
Near Cedar Mountain, Va., August 14, 1862.
The major-general commanding discovers with great dissatisfaction that General Orders, No. 5, requiring that the troops of this command be subsisted on the country in which their operations are conducted, has either been entirely misinterpreted or grossly abused by many of the officers and soldiers of this command. It is to be distinctly under stood that neither officer nor soldier has any right whatever, under the provisions of that order, to enter the house, molest the persons, or disturb the property of any citizen whatsoever.
Whenever it is necessary or convenient for the subsistence of the troops, provisions, forage, and such other articles as may be required will be taken possession of and used, but every seizure must be made solely by the order of the commanding officer of the troops then present and by the officer of the department through which the issues are made. Any officer or soldier who shall be found to have entered the house or molested the property of any citizen will be severely punished. Such acts of pillage and outrage are disgraceful to the army, and have neither been contemplated nor authorized by any orders whatsoever; the perpetrators of them, whether officers or soldiers, will be visited with a punishment which they will have reason to remember; and any officer or soldier absent from the limits of his camp found in any house whatever, without a written pass from his division or brigade commander, will be considered a pillager and treated accordingly. Army corps commanders will immediately establish mounted patrols, under charge of commissioned officers, which shall scour the whole country for 5 miles around their camps at least once every day, and at different hours, to bring into their respective commands all persons absent without proper authority, or who are engaged in any interruption of citizens living in the country; and commanding officers of regiments, or smaller separate commands, will be held responsible that neither officers nor men shall be absent from camp without proper authority.

By command of Major-General Pope:
R. O. SELFRIDGE,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
Source: Official Records of the War of the Rebellion
There is nothing in any of these orders that would lead to Pope being singled out as particularly evil - "Miscreant Pope" as Lee called him. The orders are pretty standard boilerplate for forces operating in hostile enemy territory.
 
Negative. The United States was a Nation recognized by many other nations . No nation recognized the Confederacy. As you well know there is no legal legitimacy for the Confederacy per Texas v.White.
Leftyhunter

You miss the point, the rebel colonists began the war for independence as you so blithely suggested as an illegal intity. It wasn't until December 1777 that recognized the rebel cause and then not because the French King admired colonial democratic ideals, but rather because France had been an enemy of England for centuries. Unfortunately, for the Confederate States, the United States had no powerful enemies at the time that had a compelling reason to intervene. Whether to recognize or not has nothing to do with international legality and all to do with national self-interest.

As for the Texas vs. White decision, it was a post-war diktat imposed on the Southern people in the midst of Radical Reconstruction and had nothing to with the Southern War for Independence 1861-1865.
 
You miss the point, the rebel colonists began the war for independence as you so blithely suggested as an illegal intity. It wasn't until December 1777 that recognized the rebel cause and then not because the French King admired colonial democratic ideals, but rather because France had been an enemy of England for centuries. Unfortunately, for the Confederate States, the United States had no powerful enemies at the time that had a compelling reason to intervene. Whether to recognize or not has nothing to do with international legality and all to do with national self-interest.

As for the Texas vs. White decision, it was a post-war diktat imposed on the Southern people in the midst of Radical Reconstruction and had nothing to with the Southern War for Independence 1861-1865.
True the Colonial Rebels were certainly in violation of British Law when they fought for Independence. Either a nation is recognized or it is not . Since the Confederacy was not recognized it was never invaded. Union troops merely put down a rebellion. Yes Texas v. White does matter since the decision is based on antebellum law .
If (also @Lion7Yeoman ) Secession was truly legal then why didn't the Confederacy appeal to the court's for protection and or guidance to peacefully separate from the United States?
Leftyhunter
 
True the Colonial Rebels were certainly in violation of British Law when they fought for Independence. Either a nation is recognized or it is not . Since the Confederacy was not recognized it was never invaded. Union troops merely put down a rebellion. Yes Texas v. White does matter since the decision is based on antebellum law .
If (also @Lion7Yeoman ) Secession was truly legal then why didn't the Confederacy appeal to the court's for protection and or guidance to peacefully separate from the United States?
Leftyhunter
I believed the invaded are the best judges of whether they've been invaded or not. Uh, appeal to whose court and why?
 
I believed the invaded are the best judges of whether they've been invaded or not. Uh, appeal to whose court and why?
If Secession was truly legal then the secessionists could have appealed to the federal courts to peacefully achieve Secession. Revel secessionist opinion on their being invaded is irrelevant to the federal government's lawful efforts to subdue the rebellion.
@Eleanor Rose provided a relevant quote from an antebellum judge to show that Secession was illegal.
Leftyhunter
 
If Secession was truly legal then the secessionists could have appealed to the federal courts to peacefully achieve Secession. Revel secessionist opinion on their being invaded is irrelevant to the federal government's lawful efforts to subdue the rebellion.


I wonder how such appeals were made to the aggrieving entity throughout history and how many were successful?
 
Irrelevant. If it is true that Secession is legal per the US Constitution then the courts could have been used to implement Secession. Obviously if the US Constitution had a clear frame work for Secession it would if been utilized. The fact that is was not proves the Secessionists used violence to achieve an unlawful political goal.
Leftyhunter
 
Back
Top