Who Won the Surrender?

[BlackHattedFeller]

Officers and gentlemen have demanded more stringent terms of surrender with no problems. Did Grant demand too little?

As I understand it, Grant and Lincoln had spoken of the forthcoming inevitable defeat of Lee's army. If I recall rightly, he asked Lincoln about terms; to which Lincoln responded "Let'em up easy."

Lincoln wanted peace after the war, and as little residual hatred as possible. Grant knew that and therefore gave terms to Lee that he felt would help introduce the type of peace that Lincoln wanted. The economic destruction of the south, its catastrophic losses among white manhood, and loss of their slaves meant that the south was no threat for a long time to come. The north had every reason to be magnanimous, and nothing to lose by letting the disarmed ANV leave on parole.

I think that, civil war or not, we were still one people in most ways. By treating the surrendering rebels as countrymen rather than as national enemies, Grant did one of the greatest services that anybody has ever rendered to the nation.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I think Grant was following the policy of his commander in chief, as Blackhatted says above. I've heard that some people suggest that there should have been punitive measures taken against the military leadership to get a better result from Reconstruction, but I'm not convinced of it.

Grant's generous sharing of rations, its the kind gesture of a winner to a loser.

 

[ivanj05]

The question is less "Could Grant have gotten more?" and more "Should Grant have have taken more?" I think that answer is a pretty definative "Nope."

What more was going to be achieved by punative surrender terms than was actually achieved by non punative ones?

 

[ole]

The question is less "Could Grant have gotten more?" and more "Should Grant have have taken more?" I think that answer is a pretty definative "Nope."

What more was going to be achieved by punative surrender terms than was actually achieved by non punative ones?

Grant was more than generous, but that's the kind of hairpins Grant and Lincoln were. Let's just stop here and make peace. After all, reunion and peace were the goals all along.

 

[M.Warren]

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/who-won-the-surrender/

Everyone. In the end it was the best thing that could come from the situation.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

That's the crux, isn't it? Could Grant have gotten more? For instance, could he have demanded Lee admit "We were wrong?" Could he have had Lee imprisoned as the price for not imprisoning the other officers and men of the ANV? Could he have included officer sidearms in the terms and taken Lee's sword?

Grant was in the position where he could have gotten more but then it would have flied in the face of Lincoln's "I'd let 'em up easy."

 

[PatW]

The fact is that U.S. Grant wrote the terms of surrender. Grant wanted an end to the war. He saw vindictive treason trials as being counter productive to the goal of a unified nation. He wrote the terms to prevent treason trials. Grant also wanted the surrendered soldiers to go home and rebuild their lives as citizens. Sending them to POW camps would be a waste of time. Lee accepted Grant's terms as is.

I believe that Lee accepted that the CSA was a dead duck. Like Grant, Lee wanted a unified USA. Lee saw the generosity of Grant's terms and accepted them. Lee did more than accept the terms, he supported them. Neither Grant nor Lee saw this as a competition and the nation won as a result.

 

[marinegrunt]

He gave up:

1. Treason trials for Lee, his officers, and his men.
2. The Army of Northern Virginia in prison camps.
3. The entire Army of Northern Virginia undergoing the humiliation of stacking arms and turning over their flags.
4. Anything else he might have thought of to demand.

I don't believe Grant ever wanted to humiliate or try anybody. Seems to me to be a futile premise. How could the U.S. government try and convict the lower half of the country? And what good what it do? Grant got the ANV to stop fighting; that was his goal. And the ANV did indeed have to stack its arms and flags.

 

[marinegrunt]

He could have fought to the bitter end. What did Longstreet tell Lee when Lee worried about Grant demanding terms Lee could not accept? And what was Lee's reaction to what Longstreet said?

I'm sure he wanted to continue fighting; he just knew there was no point. His lone hope was making it to a) a supply train, and b) NC and Johnston. Neither of those were an option. He tried it on the 9th when he sent Gordon forward to see if he could get through. Gordon couldn't, and that was that. Prolonging the issue would accomplish nothing but more dead men.

 

[marinegrunt]

I think Grant was following the policy of his commander in chief, as Blackhatted says above. I've heard that some people suggest that there should have been punitive measures taken against the military leadership to get a better result from Reconstruction, but I'm not convinced of it.

Grant's generous sharing of rations, its the kind gesture of a winner to a loser.

Nor am I. The country as a whole was better off with the conciliatory tone Lincoln and Grant set. It does bear mentioning that many ex Confederate leaders were involved in Jim Crow laws and discrimination, but I don't think that's something Grant could have put a stop to by imprisoning half the men in the South.

 

[Carronade]

Grant was just as concerned with reconciliation as he was with victory. Taking the surrender of the opponent's most famous army and general was a dramatic accomplishment, but ultimately it was a means to an end. Grant gave away nothing that compromised his and his nation's ultimate objective.

 

[FarawayFriend]

Once Lee made the decision to surrender he entered into a competition with Grant over the terms of the surrender. Who won that competition?

I have never seen the surrender as a form.of competition and honestly I think both men were too worn and tired to start a boyish competition about who gets more.

Everyone. In the end it was the best thing that could come from the situation.

Exactly! If seen this way, both were winners. Grant has won the war, Lee has achieved that his men could return with honour, both have achieved that no man had to feel crushed. You can do nothing better to yourself than do something good for someone else. And I can only repeat that Chamberlain's famous and wonderful gesture of "Honour greeting honour" did express exactly the thought that the winning/losing game was finally over.

 

[JerseyBart]

Excellent question and responses. In my opinion, it being that Lincoln and Granted either wanted to and did or just did "let them up easy" the south won the surrender. The south seceded over slavery, started a bloody 4 year war over it and with some punishments just returned to the union and still almost had it entirely their way for the next 99 years in terms of race relations.

 

[marinegrunt]

Excellent question and responses. In my opinion, it being that Lincoln and Granted either wanted to and did or just did "let them up easy" the south won the surrender. The south seceded over slavery, started a bloody 4 year war over it and with some punishments just returned to the union and still almost had it entirely their way for the next 99 years in terms of race relations.

When you look at it that way, Lee wins. But I don't really believe Lee would have approved of what happened in the 99 years after the end of the war. He may have ben biased, as almost every single American was, but I don't think he would have sanctioned the KKK.

 

[JerseyBart]

When you look at it that way, Lee wins. But I don't really believe Lee would have approved of what happened in the 99 years after the end of the war. He may have ben biased, as almost every single American was, but I don't think he would have sanctioned the KKK.

Absolutely. I may have broadened the op too much into confederate south v. Union.

 

[marinegrunt]

Absolutely. I may have broadened the op too much into confederate south v. Union.

Lee actually advocated for blacks to be relocated from Virginia. I have to look up the interview but I do believe it was post war. I still give the win to Grant; the war ended. But when you look at what could have happened in the American South postwar maybe the Confederates made out a lot better than they should have.

 

[OpnCoronet]

To me, the most telling argument is that Lee did not want to surrender at all. From the fact of the necessity for his surrender, flows everything that happened after the surrender.
As has already been noted by others, there was no real negotiation, Gr4ant stated the terms, Lincoln allowed him to offer and made a few minor adjustments at Lee's req. those adjustments coincided(did not conflict with)with Grant's own feelings and would not have changed the fact of surrender if he had refused.

 

[JerseyBart]

Lee actually advocated for blacks to be relocated from Virginia. I have to look up the interview but I do believe it was post war. I still give the win to Grant; the war ended. But when you look at what could have happened in the American South postwar maybe the Confederates made out a lot better than they should have.

They certainly did make out like bandits.

 

[FarawayFriend]

They certainly did make out like bandits.

Or like true gentlemen...

 

[18thVirginia]

When you look at it that way, Lee wins. But I don't really believe Lee would have approved of what happened in the 99 years after the end of the war. He may have ben biased, as almost every single American was, but I don't think he would have sanctioned the KKK.

Lee was a horrendous racist who disparaged most all blacks, all the time, before, during and after the war. Because Lee was always so careful to protect his own reputation, he may not have publicly approved of the KKK, but there's no evidence to suggest that he wouldn't have agreed with overturning Reconstruction and attempting to return blacks to a near state of slavery for the next 99 years.