I N writing for “The Century” magazine hisrecollections of “ The Second Battle of BullRun,” General Pope has, perhaps inadvertently,used the exact language which, in 1803, and longafter, so bitterly hurt one of his most loyal subor-dinates. In the course of his article appear thesewords [see p. 470] :
“ I sent orders to McDowell (supposing him to he withliis command), and also direct to General King, severaltimes during that night and once hy his own staff-officer,to hold his ground at all hazards."
Now the casual reader, ignoring the commasbefore ami after the words “and also direct toGeneral King,” would say that orders were sent toKing several times that night and once by his ownstaff-officer. Indeed, these words have been usedas authority in the army, in histories, even in Con-gressional debate, for the statement that GeneralKing received repeated orders to hold his groundon the evening of August 28th, 1862, and aban-doned it in spite of them.
JXo order or message of any kind, sort, or descrip-tion, reached General King that night from GeneralPope or any other superior officer; no staff-officer ofGeneral King saw or heard of General Pope thatnight; and, in point of fact, no matter how manyhe may have sent to McDowell, Pope has sinceadmitted that lie sent none to King.
Early in 1 863, when those words first met GeneralKing’s eyes, lie wrote at once to his late commanderto have the error rectified. General Pope claimedthat the construction of the sentence proved thatMcDowell was meant as the one to whom therepeated orders were sent, but at that time liethought he had sent one message to King by astaff-officer. I quote from his letter now in mypossession, the italics being mine :
“ It waH far from iny intention to imply even that anyblame attached to you in the. matter. . . . The officercame into my camp about 10 o’clock looking forMcDowell, to report tlio result of your notion. I toldhim I had no idea where McDowell was, hut to return atonce to you with the message to hold your ground. Hegot something to eat, I think with Haggles, and wentoff. . . . Whether he was on your staff or not I reallydo not know, though I thought ho was your staff-officer.
“ Several officers of McDowell’s staff came to me dur-ing the night looking for him, and to more than one ofthem I gave the same message for McDowell. IfMcDowell had been with his command, as I supposed liewas, Sigel and Reynolds could have been brought toyour support. I was disappointed, of course, but didnot for a moment attach uny sort of blame to you. I
never knew whether the aide-de-camp reached you thatnight or not, but I felt always perfectly satisfied that■whether he did or not you had done the very best youcould have done under the circumstances.”
Now the aide-de-camp in question was Major D.C. Houston , Chief of Engineers, of General McDow-ell’s staff. He had witnessed the severe engagementof King’s division, west of Groveton, and some timeafter dark had ridden off through the woods insearch of his general, who had not been seen byKing or his officers since 2 o’clock in the after-noon. McDowell, in hunting for Pope, got lost inthe woods, and Houston , hunting for McDowell,stumbled in on Pope ’s camp late at night, toldthere of King’s battle, got refreshment, he says,of Ruggles, and went off; but he remembered nomessage from Pope to King, and if there was one,which he doubts, he did not deliver it, for he neverattempted to return to King, but went on in searchof McDowell until he found him late the followingday. No other officer from King got within rangeof Pope that night, so far as rigid investigation hasever disclosed, and that none at all came fromPope to King is beyond peradveuture. Indeed, in1878 General Pope declared it was to McDowellthat all the orders were sent, if
As to King’s falling back to Manassas Junction ,that was the result of the conference between himand his four brigade commanders, and was vehe-mently urged upon him as the only practicable wayto save what was left of the command after thefierce conflict that raged at sunset. King’s orderswere to march to Centreville, which was objected tostrenuously by Stonewall Jackson ’s corps, and theywere in the majority. The brigade commandersvoted for a deflection to the right toward Manassas ,General John Gibbon being most urgent, and thefollowing extract from a letter from him to King,dated Baltimore , March 17th, 1863, gives his views:
“ I deem it not out of place to say that that retreatwas suggested and urged hy myself as a necessary mili-tary measure ... I do not hesitate to say, and it issusceptible of proof, that of the two courses which Iconsidered open to yon, of obeying your orders to marchto Centreville or retreat on Manassas on your ownresponsibility, the one you adopted was 1lie proper one.
“ Having first suggested the movement and urged iton military grounds, I am perfectly willing to hear myfull share of the responsibility, and you are at liberty tomake any use of this communication you may deemproper. 1 am, General, very respectfully, your obedientservant, John Gibbon , Brig.-Gen. Vols.”
if General Pope also repeated this statement in a conversation with me in July, 1887, and expressed his regretthat this phraseology had not been corrected in his article which appeared in “ The Century ” magazine forJanuary, 1886.— C. K.
THE OPPOSING FORCES AT CEDAR MOUNTAIN, VA.
August. 9th, 1862.
The composition, losses, ami strength of eacli army ns here stated give tlio gist of all the data obtainable in Die OfficialRecords. K stands for killed ; w for wounded; m w for mortally woundedg m for captured or missing; c for captured.
THE UNION ARMY.
ARMY OF VIRGINIA.-Major-General John Pope .
Escort: A and C, 1st Ohio Cavalry, Capt. Nathan D. Menken. Loss: m, 2.
SECOND ARMY CORPS, Maj.-Gen. N. P. Banka. first division, Brig.-Gen. A. SAVilliams. Staff loss: m, 1.
Escort: L, 1st Midi. Cav., Capt. Melvin Brewer; M, 5tli Escort: M, 1st Midi. Oav., Capt. R. C. Dennison.
N. Y. Cav., Lieut . Eugene Dimmick; H, 1st W. Va. Cav., First Brigade , Brig.-Gen. Samuel W. Crawford: 5thCapt. Isaac P. Kerr. Escort loss: lc, 5; w, 6; in, 6 = 16. Conn., Col. George B. Chapman (w and c); 10 th Me.,
495