FDR's version of Appomattox

[samgrant]

From a press conference in Honolulu, July 29, 1944:


"THE PRESIDENT: Still is with everybody. There has been a good deal of complaint among some of the nice, high-minded people about unconditional surrender, that if we changed the term "unconditional surrender," Germany might surrender more quickly.

Mr. Churchill and I have made no modification of the terms of unconditional surrender.

They complain that it is too tough and too rough. I will explain it a little this way.

Back in 1865, Lee was driven into a corner back of Richmond, at Appomattox Court House. His army was practically starving, had had no sleep for two or three days, his arms were practically expended.

So he went, under a flag of truce, to Grant. Lee had come to Grant thinking about his men. He asked Grant for his terms of surrender.

Grant said, "Unconditional surrender."

Lee said he couldn't do that, he had to get some things. Just for example, he had no food for more than one meal for his army.

Grant said, "That is pretty tough."

Lee then said, "My cavalry horses don't belong to us, they belong to our officers and they need them back home."

Grant said, "Unconditional surrender."

Lee then said, "All right. I surrender," and tendered his sword to Grant.

Grant said, "Bob, put it back. Now, do you unconditionally surrender?"

Lee said, "Yes."

Then Grant said, "You are my prisoners now. Do you need food for your men?"

Lee said, "Yes. I haven't got more than enough for one meal more."

Then Grant said, "Now, about those horses that belong to the Confederate officers. Why do you want them?"

Lee said, "We need them for the spring plowing."

Grant said, "Tell your officers to take the animals home and do the spring plowing."

There you have unconditional surrender. I have given you no new term. We are human beings—normal, thinking human beings. That is what we mean by unconditional surrender."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16539

[chadutes]

Sam, I think that showed that Lee had a great love for his men, and Grant had great respect for the human race. I also think that both men were tired of the war and wanted it to end..............

Chadutes.............

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by chadutes

Sam, I think that showed that Lee had a great love for his men, and Grant had great respect for the human race. I also think that both men were tired of the war and wanted it to end..............

Chadutes.............

Huh? ..........

[cw1865]

Goebels in WWII had a field day with the unconditional surrender demand. It seems a bit obstinate to demand no terms and then to accede to the very terms that would render the surrender something other than 'unconditional'

[samgrant]

Hello.

I was expecting some other types of response on the order of "what's wrong with this picture".

1) Roosevelt was a History/Government major at Harvard. Surely, he must have known that Grant's famous "Unconditional Surrender" was not at Appomattox. Or maybe he was mistaken?

1a) If he did know the history of Grant's "Unconditional Surrender", was he just telling a yarn to a bunch of newspaper reporters who he knew would swallow it whole?

2) His account of Appomattox, aside the "Unconditional Surrender" piece, if full of errors.

He has Lee offering his sword to Grant, and says "Bob, put it back". Now do you really think Grant addressed Lee as "Bob"?

It seems that Roosevelt either knew the real story and gave it with simplistic embellishment to the reporters, or that FDR simply mixed up his history in his mind and said what he believed.

What do you think?

[unionblue]

samgrant,

I am of the opinion that FDR didn't want historical facts get in the way of a good story that helped get his point across.

What's that line from the John Wayne movie, The Cowboys? The one where the black cook is telling a story about his life to all the white kids in the bunkhouse before the cattle drive begins?

"If it ain't true, it oughta be."

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

It seems that Roosevelt either knew the real story and gave it with simplistic embellishment to the reporters, or that FDR simply mixed up his history in his mind and said what he believed.

I'll go with "simplistic embellishmen."

"If it ain't true, it ought to be."

ole

[cw1865]

I think FDR might be trying to placate the German-Americans. The message might also be directed at the Germans themselves, that an 'American' Unconditional Surrender is not that bad (among the Allied powers it seems the Germans clearly prefer surrendering to US/UK forces), I've even read accounts of German soldiers fighting through the Red Army for the sole privilege of surrendering to us.

[RLQ1]

One can imagine the surprise of the Germans that surrendered to the US forces only to be handed over to the Soviets. One of the German units handed back over to the Soviets was the 3rd SS Totenkopf Division.

[ole]

Anyone ever see any of those guys again?

"That wasn't part of the deal!"

"Riiiiiight."

ole