Was Maj. Gen. John Pope exaggerating?

[Billy1977]

Hello everybody, now first let me say that a few days ago I made a blanket statement in another thread that Maj. Gen. John Pope wildly exaggerated the figures for prisoners and trophies of war captured in the pursuit after the fall of Corinth as I had taken the matter at face value, in that I knew that Halleck had sent a telegram to Stanton which mentioned the figures in question and when it was disputed (Beauregard wrote an article in a Richmond newspaper that took issue with the figures, saying the report "contained almost as many lies as lines" or something to that effect), Halleck said it was taken entirely from Pope's messages and that if there is a discrepancy the fault lies with Pope, not him. Knowing that Pope had a reputation as a self-promoter and braggart I presumed that if the figures were wrong then as Halleck said it must have been Pope's fault, presumably due to Pope's self-aggrandizement.

Today however I looked in the Official Records at the actual communiques between Pope and Halleck at the time in question, right after the fall of Corinth, and I must say that I'm less sure of that position than I was and would greatly appreciate some input from you knowledgeable folks about the matter as I would really like to take a closer look at this controversy to sort out who was really at fault.

O.K., one statement that in my opinion seems to be wildly exaggerated is in Pope's report of 30 May at the very beginning of the pursuit, though from the context it is difficult to tell if Pope means Rienzi or Corinth. He says: "They have cut roads through the woods in every direction from Corinth, but they all come into the main road along the Mobile and Ohio Railroad toward Rienzi. The main body of the enemy is undoubtedly retreating south along the railroad. Price and Van Dorn undoubtedly left in a hurry, leaving tents standing, hundreds of barrels of beef, several hundred wagons, which they had tried to destroy, and 7,000 stand of arms."
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0010;node=waro0010:3;view=image;seq=879;size=100;page=root

Whereas a reporter from the Chicago Tribune admitted that: "Nothing of any use to us whatever was found, not even a quaker gun. ... The retreat of the enemy was conducted in the best of order. Before our men had entered the place all had gotten off safely. General Halleck has thus achieved one of the most barren triumphs of the war." http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0010;node=waro0010:3;view=image;seq=790;size=100;page=root


Though again, I'm not sure if he was referring to Corinth or Rienzi. Either way Beauregard disputes this as I will address in a moment. The main source of the controversy seems to be in a message Pope sent to Halleck regarding Col. Elliott's raid on Booneville on 30 May in which Pope said that "He destroyed the track in many places both south and west of the town, blew up one culvert, destroyed switches and track, burned up depot and locomotive and train of 26 cars, loaded with supplies of every kind; destroyed 10,000 stand of small-arms, 3 pieces of artillery and a great quantity of clothing and ammunition, and paroled 2,000 prisoners who could not keep up with his cavalry." http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0010;node=waro0010:3;view=image;seq=880;size=100;page=root

Pope however appears to be basing this claim on the after-action report given to him by Col. Elliott himself who did not say outright that 10,000 small arms were destroyed but he did say that of the 26 "large cars" on the train stranded in Booneville that his men destroyed "5 [were] loaded with small-arms, some of them boxed up".
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0010;node=waro0010:3;view=image;seq=880;size=100;page=root

I'm not an expert on rail car capacity but it seems plausible to me that 2,000 muskets could fit into each of the five boxcars, giving him a total of 10,000 small arms found there. (Any railroad experts out there that maybe would know a boxcar's capacity for Civil War-era muskets?) Elliott does however say that three artillery pieces were on the train and were destroyed and all Pope's information about destruction of a culvert etc. matches what Elliott said in his report. About the 2,000 prisoners paroled there is some difference, with Elliott saying that he disarmed and left behind some 500 to 700 infantry prisoners as they couldn't keep up with his cavalry. However he also mentions that about 2,000 to 2,500 Confederate convalescents and sick soldiers were found to be in Booneville and obviously he didn't take them with him so maybe Pope meant that when said he "paroled 2,000 prisoners". Not sure.

Pope also sent a message to Halleck on 3 June which said "The roads for miles are full of stragglers from the enemy who are coming in in squads. Not less than 10,000 men are scattered about, who will come in within a day or two." http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0011;node=waro0011:2;view=image;seq=251;size=100;page=root

Now that seems like idle speculation and pulling a figure out of the air. Of a piece with that is a message of 8 June in which Pope says "They have lost, by desertion of the Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas regiments, near 20,000 men since they left Corinth."
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0011;node=waro0011:2;view=image;seq=276;size=100;page=root

I have no idea how he would arrive at this last estimate and it may be immaterial since it was on 8 June and as far as I know the telegram Halleck sent that supposedly was based on Pope's messages was sent on 4 June. In this 4 June message Halleck says "General Pope, with 40,000, is 30 miles south of Corinth, pushing the enemy hard. He already reports 10,000 prisoners and deserters from the enemy and 15,000 stand of arms captured."
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0010;node=waro0010:3;view=image;seq=687;size=100;page=root

This is apparently what made its way into the newspapers for Beauregard to see it and take exception to the figures. I don't know how Halleck came up with the figure of 15,000 stand of arms captured but the 10,000 "prisoners and deserters" seems almost certain to be based on Pope's message saying there were "not less than 10,000 men... scattered about, who will come in in a day or two". Reading it carefully one sees that Pope did not actually claim to have already captured 10,000 rebels but merely that (in his estimate) there were at least 10,000 rebel stragglers running loose in the area who he assumed would turn themselves in in a day or two. Maybe irresponsible of him to assume that and I don't know how he would pick the number 10,000 as to how many rebels he thought were straggling and would soon surrender themselves but Halleck it seems to me should have been more careful in his wording of the message to Stanton, rather than saying Pope reports 10,000 prisoners and deserters he should have said that Pope estimates that the surrounding countryside has at least 10,000 rebel stragglers in it, not giving the impression that Pope already has 10,000 of them corralled somewhere. As for the "15,000 stand of arms captured" I could find no reference to Pope claiming that. Now as I mentioned above Pope said Elliott destroyed 10,000 small arms at Booneville and that either at Corinth or Rienzi they captured 7,000 stand of arms but while I could see Halleck taking it at face value and saying something like "Pope reports capturing or destroying some 17,000 rebel small arms" he says 15,000 and says they were all captured. It was things like that that made me start to have some doubts about who really is at fault here.

By Beauregard's account this is what the Confederates lost at Corinth, Booneville and the vicinity: "I suppose about 200 stragglers and deserters, about 1,500 arms burned at Booneville and about 500 left in the dark at a convalescent camp 4 miles south of Corinth will cover those two items of losses. With regard to the ordnance stores and provisions, I could obtain no return from the respective chiefs of those departments, although repeatedly called for by me before leaving Tupelo. I firmly believe that all we lost at Corinth and during the retreat would amount to much less than one day's expenses of the enemy's army in this quarter."
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0010;node=waro0010:3;view=image;seq=795;size=100;page=root

In a report written by Col. William Preston Johnston, a report Beauregard read and approved, Johnston says that "I asked the general whether seven locomotives and sixty-three cars, loaded with bacon and medical stores, had not been lost in the retreat and also as to the circumstances of the loss. He admitted seven locomotives and five trains (three loaded and two unloaded box cars), but declined to express an opinion in regard to their contents and destruction as the circumstances were undergoing investigation and he knew nothing positive on the subject."

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0010;node=waro0010:3;view=image;seq=797;size=100;page=root

These would be the locomotives and trains lost between Chewalla and the Tuscumbia River, the bridge having been destroyed before the trains passed through so they were stranded and their crews destroyed them to prevent them from falling into Union hands. Johnston goes on to mention the desertion question, saying "The general says he did not suffer much loss from actual desertion, and that the forces reported to him by commanders of corps were nearly the same immediately after our arrival at Tupelo as when we left Corinth, and is still now increasing from convalescents returning."

Which is pretty far afield from the claim that the rebels lost 20,000 men to desertion in the retreat from Corinth. However that was a claim made after Halleck had already sent the controversial message to Stanton that he said was based on Pope's reports. In that message Halleck says "I telegraph to you daily what information I receive of events in this department, stating whether official or unofficial, and, if official, giving the authority. I am not responsible for the truth of the statements thus communicated. ... In regard to the numbers of prisoners and arms taken I telegraphed the exact language of General Pope. If it was erroneous the responsibility is his, not mine."
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0010;node=waro0010:3;view=image;seq=689;size=100;page=root


And further muddying the waters Pope remained silent about the controversy when Beauregard disputed the claims Halleck said he made, and when Halleck said that he was just quoting Pope's reports in his message to Stanton, and when northern newspapers apparently ridiculed Pope for making such claims, and for the rest of the war he said nothing publicly about the matter until July 1865. In Memoirs of Henry Villard, Journalist and Financier the eponymous author mentions this controversy and says "The simple truth was, that Pope's captures of men and arms were only about one-tenth of the number he had reported to Halleck. The whole army was amazed when the newspapers arrived with the correspondence between Stanton and Halleck, and the enthusiastic popular responses it had provoked. I and all knew that a gross deception had been practiced. In due time, the Northern press broke out in furious indignation against Pope, who was considered responsible for it. Pope did not defend himself. Singular to relate, it was only in July 1865, three months after Lee's surrender at Appomattox, that Pope addressed a letter to Halleck calling attention to the subject, disclaiming the authorship of the false report and asking to have his record set right. Halleck excused himself from complying with the request, on the ground that his papers had been boxed up as he was about to start for California to take command on the Pacific coast. Pope thereupon prepared a long letter for publication in which he denied his responsibility for the report, and criticised Halleck very severely for practically refusing him the satisfaction to which he was entitled. The letter appeared in print and attracted a good deal of attention. I do not remember what Halleck did regarding it."
https://archive.org/stream/memoirshenryvil07villgoog#page/n310/mode/2up

So what do you all think about this controversy? Pope and Halleck can't both be telling the truth.

 

[photoman475]

1860s box cars would have had at most 25-30 tons capacity. And that is probably pushing it some, more likely in older cars to be 15-20 ton range. My book about this era's freight cars isn't accessible right now, so I going off of memory and a quick Google check. To put 10,000 muskets in one box car may be a stretch, but certainly over two or three, depending on how they are packed and then stacked in the car. If I remember correctly, muskets coming straight from the manufacturer were packed four or six to a shipping crate.

 

[Billy1977]

Thanks for your reply Photoman475. Elliott actually said there were five cars full of small arms so that's why I was wondering if 2,000 would fit in a single boxcar because Pope stated to Halleck that Elliott's men destroyed 10,000 small arms and in Col. Elliott's report he doesn't actually say the number of firearms destroyed but does say that five of the rail cars were full of small arms, some of them boxed up.

 

[Billy1977]

Just to clarify, in the initial post in the part where I said "after Halleck had already sent the controversial message to Stanton that he said was based on Pope's reports. In that message Halleck says "I telegraph to you daily ..." what I meant to say was that the message that Halleck sent containing the controversial claims was sent on 4 June whereas Pope's "20,000 lost to desertion" assertion was made four days later but the actual message from Halleck to Stanton in which Halleck said that the claims were based on Pope's actual words was a separate message days later. It wasn't all in the same message, I didn't mean to leave that impression.

 

[NedBaldwin]

...
Pope however appears to be basing this claim on the after-action report given to him by Col. Elliott himself who did not say outright that 10,000 small arms were destroyed but he did say that of the 26 "large cars" on the train stranded in Booneville that his men destroyed "5 [were] loaded with small-arms, some of them boxed up"...
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0010;node=waro0010:3;view=image;seq=880;size=100;page=root
...

A Confederate report of what was lost claims that the train was only 10 cars long, and only 4 of which were lost. It gives the number of stands of small arms as 2,200 all in one car and that the other cars contained non-arm accouterments.
See:
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;q1=absent;rgn=full%20text;idno=waro0010;didno=waro0010;node=waro0010%3A3;view=image;seq=0811

 

[NedBaldwin]

"The general says he did not suffer much loss from actual desertion, and that the forces reported to him by commanders of corps were nearly the same immediately after our arrival at Tupelo as when we left Corinth, and is still now increasing from convalescents returning."

While I think this may be true, the number reported as absent from duty was quite large even before they left Corinth which suggests that those Pope detected as scattered about could already have been reported by the Confederates as absent from duty before they left Corinth. To me, the more problematic part of Pope's message is "will come in within a day or two".

 

[Billy1977]

Thanks NedBaldwin for that extremely detailed list of what was contained in the train cars at Booneville! It even says how many horse halters and artillery bridles and whatnot there were. Amazing. Meriwether Clark must have been looking at a freight manifest or something in order to deliver that kind of detail. So now it looks like Col. Elliott was not being honest when he made his report to Pope about the Booneville raid. I don't see any mention on Clark's list of any artillery pieces at all. Elliott claimed three when it seems that there was artillery ammunition there but not the cannon themselves. Had it been me I would have been satisfied being able to burn a train, no matter what was on it, and get away safely back to Union lines rather than "embellishing" my feat into some massive work of destruction. So it looks like
1. Col. Elliott was being untruthful in making his report to Pope, inflating his accomplishment beyond what it really was
2. Pope further embellished the story by pulling the figure of 10,000 stand of arms out of the air; and
3. Halleck either did not word his message to Stanton very well or did not read Pope's message carefully enough before he paraphrased it, not using Pope's "exact language" as he said but either deliberately or accidentally making it sound like Pope had 10,000 rebel prisoners and deserters under guard already rather than the wishful thinking of Pope that they would all turn themselves in in a day or two, not sure where Pope got that idea

 

[Billy1977]

Oh I see now where Pope got the "10,000 stand of arms" figure. It was mentioned in Lieut. Col. Edward Hatch's report

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0010;node=waro0010:3;view=image;seq=882;size=100;page=root

but Hatch's report bears little relation to Meriwether Clark's detailed manifest of what was on board the train. Hatch claims "I found standing on the track an engine disabled, 26 cars, loaded with 10,000 stand of arms, 1,000 small and side arms (muskets weren't considered small arms back then?), 800,000 rounds ball cartridge, 100,000 rounds of fixed ammunition for 6 and 8 pounder guns, 3 mounted field pieces, 4 mortars (!), 1 car of horse equipments and team harness, haversacks, cross-belts, cartridge boxes, canteens, knapsacks for 10,000 men, a large amount of stores. The railroad depot was filled with commissary stores, 3,ooo stand of arms, shells of a large size, two wooden (?) 68-pounder guns, medical stores, 300 kegs and barrels of powder, marked "Alabama Powder Company"."

At this point I'm wondering if there even was an Alabama Powder Company, as far off the mark as the rest of his list seems to be. Nobody else is claiming there were four mortars there which I'm presuming he means the big siege mortars like I've seen pictures of from that era, the comically large pieces that sit on a railroad flatcar, since I don't think they had the kind of man-portable mortars like we see in the modern era ( 60mm and 81mm generally). And what on earth is a "wooden 68-pounder gun"? That sounds like a "Quaker gun", a dummy gun made to look from a distance like a real cannon, and I can't see that as being something they would pack aboard a train car and take with them. So going by Hatch's report there were 14,000 stand of arms destroyed counting the 10,000 he claims were on the train, another 1,000 "small and side arms" on the train and still another 3,000 firearms found in the depot. So his figures don't match anyone else's. Was anybody telling the truth?

 

[Drew]

So his figures don't match anyone else's. Was anybody telling the truth?

General Lee told the truth about Pope and dealt with him accordingly. That's about all we need to know.

 

[NedBaldwin]

And what on earth is a "wooden 68-pounder gun"?

It was probably a naval gun mounted on a wooden carriage:
Confederates might had shipped some up from the coast

 

[Billy1977]

Oh OK, on a wooden carriage, that makes sense. I read "wooden 68-pdr. guns" and was picturing a Quaker gun! Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Billy1977]

I still feel like I'm missing something regarding the Pope-Halleck controversy. I've read and reread the dispatches sent between the two at the time in question and while Halleck asserts that he "telegraphed the exact language of General Pope" I'm not finding the correspondence in the Official Records supporting this assertion. Rather it seems that Halleck used similar language but, either inadvertently or deliberately, changed Pope's wording a little and in its altered form it left the impression that Pope was claiming that he already had 10,000 rebel prisoners and deserters under guard. As for the 10,000 stand of arms that Pope reported as destroyed at Booneville he was almost certainly just going by what Lieut. Col. Hatch reported to him and passing it along to Halleck. I'll agree that while it may not have been the most responsible statement that Pope made in pulling the number out of the air regarding how many stragglers and deserters were believed to be in the surrounding countryside it appears that it was Halleck who incorrectly paraphrased him in messaging Stanton that Pope "already reports 10,000 prisoners and deserters from the enemy".

In other words it appears (to me at least) that despite Pope's well-earned reputation as a braggart he was not the one mostly at fault in this particular situation, that he was simply passing along (incorrect) information from Col. Elliott and Lieut. Col. Hatch and going out on a limb in predicting that the woods were full of 10,000 deserters and stragglers who would turn themselves in within a day or two. The most problematic thing for me though is that when this big stink blew up in the newspapers, with Beauregard saying the dispatches contained almost as many lies as lines and Stanton inquiring of Halleck about the veracity of the dispatches (and Halleck being careful to leave the impression Pope was entirely to blame for it), Pope apparently made no effort at the time to defend himself, which to me makes him look guilty whether he was or not. Why would Pope wait until July 1865 to finally raise the issue with Halleck and insist on either a public clarification as to what his messages actually said or failing that at least letting him see the dispatches in question that Halleck said his message to Stanton was based upon? From what I know about Pope he doesn't strike me as being the casper milquetoast type who would let himself get railroaded in the press and say nothing in his own defense if he was truly not at fault. Was Pope worried that a different exaggeration, the one I first mentioned in which Pope claimed that hundreds of rebel wagons and tents and barrels of beef were found when as the reporter from the Chicago Tribune stated "Nothing of any use to us whatever was found", was he worried that this would be thrown in his face if he publicly insisted at the time that he was not at fault for the discrepancy in question?

Was it not for Pope's allowing the public and press to place the blame on him without defending himself I would feel pretty certain that this was a case of a known braggart being blamed for exaggerating something when in this particular instance he was not actually the one at fault. Pope's lack of a timely defense however casts a cloud of suspicion over it.

 

[Billy1977]

In reading Pope's letter to Halleck in July 1865 the only hint he gives of his reasoning behind remaining silent on the issue for the duration of the war was in the following comment in which he says "The war has now ended and the events and incidents connected with it are passing into history. As I do not wish that any report or misconception which has been circulated to my prejudice and which is susceptible to explanation should stand recorded against me, and as the reasons which actuated me in preserving silence until this time no longer exist, I desire to invite your attention to a dispatch published in the newspapers, dated at Corinth, Miss., June 4, 1862..."
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/c...1&node=waro0011:2&view=image&seq=637&size=100

This to me sounds like Pope was mostly concerned with not causing the appearance of a schism in the Union high command during wartime, that for the sake of the larger cause he was willing to accept public blame for the controversy rather than publicly lock horns with Halleck and start what could be an embarrassing public spat that could reflect poorly on the Army's professionalism. And that once the war was over those "reasons which actuated [him] in preserving silence" no longer existed, thus he felt no reason to put off the clarification of the matter any further than he already had.

 

[civilken]

I am not a scholar of this action but I think we all know Gen. Halleck was a blowhard. I guess today we might say the man love to exaggerate especially on himself and his abilities even if you didn't recognize them he did.