When was the war lost?

[damYankee]

I asked this question in another thread and thought it would be a good question for it's own OP.

When did the situation facing the South come to that point when surrender and the salvage of as much of it's national treasure, private property and blood of it's youth outweighed any hopes of defeating the North?

 

[Piedone]

It is the commander who dictates terms who decides when it is over.

Definitely not. It is the president´s decision - which Lee never got tired of stressing.

Lee had to overcome his own convictions to decide about capitulation at Appomattox.

I am pretty sure those convictions were indispensable for him to find some kind of justification for himself
(in 1861 he regarded secession as treason…)

One should rather lay the blame on the door of Jefferson Davis.

He was the president - he very well knew about the hopeless situation -

and he especially knew about Lee´s self-understanding
that military commanders were subordinate to political authority.

But he rather preferred to go on a kind of knight´s errant down the seaboard…
building dream castles until the very last moments of his getaway attempt….

hence passing responsibility in effect to Lee.

 

[atlantis]

Don't see the US going back on the EP terms making those conditions about the best the confederates could get.

 

[Belfoured]

No need to speculate.

All you have to do to understand Lee's analysis of the strategic situation is read his letters to Davis before the Pennsylvania incursion.

Rightly, he understood that the only hope for independence was to destroy civilian morale. His plan, which Davis rejected, involved concentrating the idle forces in the Carolinas at Culpepper under Beauregard.

A two pronged incursion would have forced the Army of the Potomac to defend Washington. The combined forces would have overwhelmed the defenders & possiblely taken Washington.

A look at the map will show why Lee was leery of getting trapped in & around Washington.

The defeat would cause a collapse of Northern morale & Lincoln's defeat in the fall. The Democratic admiration would sue for peace.

Lee rightly stated that the fighting season of 1863 was a nexus. From that point Union forces would only get stronger & Confederate weaker. He was correct. 1863 was the last time there would be a sufficient force to inflict a defeat that would break Northern morale.

There were 26 Confederate army commands. Lee wasn't the only general that Davis paid attention to.

I've always found it insulting to Lee's intelligence to assume that starting in the latter part of 1863 he thought the CSA could win - with the exclusive exception of getting the northern home front to tire of the war. He could read a map. We know of his reaction to Gettysburg in August 1863. We know what he told Jubal Early in 1864 about the result if Grant drove him back to Richmond. He had twice tried to force the issue by invading the North and twice had come up short. IMHO, his determination to continue fighting illustrated mostly that in the end he understood that he was a general subordinate to civilian command and so he was obligated to do so until in the position of having to surrender, so long as his government held out. For comparison we have the guy Lee defeated in the Seven Days who thought his role was to weigh in on policy and to criticize war measures by the administration. This doesn't mean that all of Lee's military decisions were "genius" - far from it, but nobody's are. I just think he was far too smart to clutch delusions about "hope" as the war progressed. There's a difference between deciding that you may be able to keep fighting without literally having to "surrender" until you're surrounded - as happened on April 9 - and believing that you can "win" the war.

 

[Belfoured]

Don't see the US going back on the EP terms making those conditions about the best the confederates could get.

Agree. That horse had left the corral.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

Don't see the US going back on the EP terms making those conditions about the best the confederates could get.

I concur. Lincoln can't do a walk back on the EP without doing immense damage to the Union war effort-not to mention how it would cost him politically with his own party

 

[damYankee]

Kearny the Magnificent, Agreed, Connelly's seminal "The Marble Man" opened my eyes to the agenda of those who put Lee up on that pedestal. I spent the first decade of my study of the Civil War unlearning the Southern Historical Society's false narrative of the causes & how the war was fought.

It does speak volumes of Lee's character that he would have put up with none of that during his lifetime.

AMEN! Lee would have been appalled

 

[Kearny The Magnificent]

I am not so sure that Lee really planned to conquer Washington.
This would have been easy to do after Bull Run.

First Bull Run or Second Bull Run?

Regardless, other than a brief window from after Lincoln's March 1861 inauguration to before the 7th New York and Massachusetts troops showed up in April, I'm not sure there was ever a time Washington could have been had "easily" with CSA troops in the vicinity.

 

[Piedone]

First Bull Run or Second Bull Run?

Regardless, other than a brief window from after Lincoln's March 1861 inauguration to before the 7th New York and Massachusetts troops showed up in April, I'm not sure there was ever a time Washington could have been had "easily" with CSA troops in the vicinity.

First Bull Run,
as far as I recall there was even a kind of war council about a move on to Washington after the battle - but it was called off because the disorganization of the forces (but I have to admit my knowledge here is rather superficial…)

 

[Kearny The Magnificent]

First Bull Run,
as far as I recall there was even a kind of war council about a move on to Washington after the battle - but it was called off because the disorganization of the forces (but I have to admit my knowledge here is rather superficial…)

Yes, Jefferson Davis showed up on the field late in the afternoon and met with Joseph Johnston + PGT Beauregard. Lee was not yet in command. They, in my opinion correctly, concluded that they needed to reorganize units that had suffered casualties (including lots of officers) and re-equip/resupply rather than press their luck. Lincoln had forced McDowell to leave troops behind to defend DC and Patterson's separate force also wasn't too far away.

 

[repman66]

Right after the first cannon fired on Fort Sumter

 

[Piedone]

Yes, Jefferson Davis showed up on the field late in the afternoon and met with Joseph Johnston + PGT Beauregard. Lee was not yet in command. They, in my opinion correctly, concluded that they needed to reorganize units that had suffered casualties (including lots of officers) and re-equip/resupply rather than press their luck. Lincoln had forced McDowell to leave troops behind to defend DC and Patterson's separate force also wasn't too far away.

Thank you for clarifying. Then it looks like they never had a chance at all to take Washington…

 

[JeffBrooks]

Regarding that controversy it is clear only Davis as commander in chief and president has the authority to surrender all forces and to negotiate peace.

Why did Lee, as general-in-chief, lack the authority?

 

[benmax]

South is a direction. At that time there were 4,000,000 people in that direction that did not give a fig for General Lee & what he fought for.

View attachment 577344
If this file folder is the war outside of Virginia, the stamp is the entire area of operations of the Armies of the Potomac & Northern Virginia. This is to scale.

The last Confederate general who surrendered his command was a Cherokee named Waite. Read more here.

Link:

Watie, Stand | Encyclopedia

Watie, Stand - The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture.

www.okhistory.org

It was the Southern Historical Society that, after his death, turned Lee into the "Marble Man" you allude to. In 1865 he was just another General who had surrendered his army to Grant.

We are a few days away from the anniversary of the end of the Civil War, April 2nd 1866.

Read Andrew Johnson's proclamation here.

Link:

April 2, 1866: Proclamation on the End of the Confederate Insurrection | Miller Center

millercenter.org

Firstly, you are correct.....I should be saying the Confederacy as opposed to the South which implies direction, which I will endeavor to do from now on.

Some interesting things that you have addressed.

1) The 4,000,000 people in the Confederacy you mentioned.....was their opinion valued by the total Confederate population? Who were these 4,000,000 people of the population?

So there is still the potential here that the other 5,000,000 people from the CSA DID give a "fig" about Lee.......yes?

2) I read the Andrew Johnson link you told me to read. It was a good recap of the War. Thank you for sharing that. May I ask how does this answer the OPs question?

3) The geographical comparison of the stamp and the folder is really clever and thank you for sharing that. I've never seen it presented that way. But the geography comparison doesn't really answer the OPs question..... which is the whole point.


The OPs question:

"........When did the situation facing the South come to that point when surrender and the salvage of as much of it's national treasure, private property and blood of it's youth outweighed any hopes of defeating the North?....."


The point was reached when Lee surrendered. The majority of the heart to see it worthy to fight on was lost with Lee's surrender. Others continued on, such as Stand Watie, that is certain.....but by then it was past "the point" as asked by the OP.

I would like to put a disclaimer here.......I am in no way a "fan-boy" of Lee. I am seeing the value of Lee through the eyes of a hopeful Confederate population for independence during the American Civil War. Lee gave the CSA good news from the East more than the Western Theater or the Coastal Theater.......even if it was the size of a stamp.

 

[damYankee]

Why did Lee, as general-in-chief, lack the authority?

He was not the president of the CSA, he had not to my knowledge communicated with Davis his plans to surrender the AoNV.
His authority was limited to military issues.
Where it gets cloudy is in the mechanics of a confederation founded on limited central powers where theoretically the states held equal power to the central government. Would each state have to approve any surrender?
In the end, I believe Gen. Wise had it right.

 

[JeffBrooks]

The reason the war went on longer than it needed to relates to something Churchill said, when he remarked that the "wars of the peoples" would be worse than the "wars of the kings".

If a king in the 16th Century lost a key battle in a war, he could simply say, "Okay, I lost. I'll pay you this many gold pieces and surrender this fortress and that province in exchange for peace." And the other king would say, "Sounds good. Nice doing business with you." And then they both go on being kings and not caring a whit what the people of their kingdoms think.

But the Civil War was a "war of the peoples", to use Churchill's phrase. Both the Union and Confederacy were republics, in that their leaders were elected and, therefore, had to justify their decisions and the consequences of those decisions to their people. Once it became clear that the Confederacy was doomed (take your pick as to when that was), the logical thing for President Davis and the Confederate government to do would be to seek peace on the best terms they could get. Had Davis been a king, perhaps he would have done exactly that. But since he was the elected leader of a republic, he couldn't do that, because it would mean acknowledging to the Southern people that the war had been a terrible mistake and all the men who had died had given their lives in vain. So as long as there was even the slimmest, slightest chance of a victory, they would keep rolling the dice rather than face the music.

The same thing is true of World War I. Once the stalemate was achieved on the Western Front, any rational and reasonable king would have simply said that the war was too much trouble and cost too much and made peace. But the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, and Russia either had elected governments or faced the possibility of revolution, so they lived in fear of retribution from their people if they failed to achieve victory after so much had already been lost. And so the unnecessary and stupid war went on for four years and killed millions and millions of people.

 

[damYankee]

The reason the war went on longer than it needed to relates to something Churchill said, when he remarked that the "wars of the peoples" would be worse than the "wars of the kings".

If a king in the 16th Century lost a key battle in a war, he could simply say, "Okay, I lost. I'll pay you this many gold pieces and surrender this fortress and that province in exchange for peace." And the other king would say, "Sounds good. Nice doing business with you." And then they both go on being kings and not caring a whit what the people of their kingdoms think.

But the Civil War was a "war of the peoples", to use Churchill's phrase. Both the Union and Confederacy were republics, in that their leaders were elected and, therefore, had to justify their decisions and the consequences of those decisions to their people. Once it became clear that the Confederacy was doomed (take your pick as to when that was), the logical thing for President Davis and the Confederate government to do would be to seek peace on the best terms they could get. Had Davis been a king, perhaps he would have done exactly that. But since he was the elected leader of a republic, he couldn't do that, because it would mean acknowledging to the Southern people that the war had been a terrible mistake and all the men who had died had given their lives in vain. So as long as there was even the slimmest, slightest chance of a victory, they would keep rolling the dice rather than face the music.

The same thing is true of World War I. Once the stalemate was achieved on the Western Front, any rational and reasonable king would have simply said that the war was too much trouble and cost too much and made peace. But the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, and Russia either had elected governments or faced the possibility of revolution, so they lived in fear of retribution from their people if they failed to achieve victory after so much had already been lost. And so the unnecessary and stupid war went on for four years and killed millions and millions of people.

Civil Wars are by nature "war's of the people" and by nature cruel, as we well know.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Why did Lee, as general-in-chief, lack the authority?

Firstly, you are correct.....I should be saying the Confederacy as opposed to the South which implies direction, which I will endeavor to do from now on.

Some interesting things that you have addressed.

1) The 4,000,000 people in the Confederacy you mentioned.....was their opinion valued by the total Confederate population? Who were these 4,000,000 people of the population?

So there is still the potential here that the other 5,000,000 people from the CSA DID give a "fig" about Lee.......yes?

2) I read the Andrew Johnson link you told me to read. It was a good recap of the War. Thank you for sharing that. May I ask how does this answer the OPs question?

3) The geographical comparison of the stamp and the folder is really clever and thank you for sharing that. I've never seen it presented that way. But the geography comparison doesn't really answer the OPs question..... which is the whole point.


The OPs question:

"........When did the situation facing the South come to that point when surrender and the salvage of as much of it's national treasure, private property and blood of it's youth outweighed any hopes of defeating the North?....."


The point was reached when Lee surrendered. The majority of the heart to see it worthy to fight on was lost with Lee's surrender. Others continued on, such as Stand Watie, that is certain.....but by then it was past "the point" as asked by the OP.

I would like to put a disclaimer here.......I am in no way a "fan-boy" of Lee. I am seeing the value of Lee through the eyes of a hopeful Confederate population for independence during the American Civil War. Lee gave the CSA good news from the East more than the Western Theater or the Coastal Theater.......even if it was the size of a stamp.

When the final Petersburg assault began, Lee occupied a few counties & commanded 44-50,000 soldiers that evaporated down to 28,000 in a few days. The puffery that created The Marble Man was decades away.

Richmond fell to the 25th USCT Corps. The government set fire to itself. Davis et al fled. There was no more reason to continue the fight.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Firstly, you are correct.....I should be saying the Confederacy as opposed to the South which implies direction, which I will endeavor to do from now on.

Some interesting things that you have addressed.

1) The 4,000,000 people in the Confederacy you mentioned.....was their opinion valued by the total Confederate population? Who were these 4,000,000 people of the population?

So there is still the potential here that the other 5,000,000 people from the CSA DID give a "fig" about Lee.......yes?

2) I read the Andrew Johnson link you told me to read. It was a good recap of the War. Thank you for sharing that. May I ask how does this answer the OPs question?

3) The geographical comparison of the stamp and the folder is really clever and thank you for sharing that. I've never seen it presented that way. But the geography comparison doesn't really answer the OPs question..... which is the whole point.


The OPs question:

"........When did the situation facing the South come to that point when surrender and the salvage of as much of it's national treasure, private property and blood of it's youth outweighed any hopes of defeating the North?....."


The point was reached when Lee surrendered. The majority of the heart to see it worthy to fight on was lost with Lee's surrender. Others continued on, such as Stand Watie, that is certain.....but by then it was past "the point" as asked by the OP.

I would like to put a disclaimer here.......I am in no way a "fan-boy" of Lee. I am seeing the value of Lee through the eyes of a hopeful Confederate population for independence during the American Civil War. Lee gave the CSA good news from the East more than the Western Theater or the Coastal Theater.......even if it was the size of a stamp.

In 1860 there were 4,000,000 slaves in the U.S. They were unlikely candidates for the cult of Lee worship. As to the rest…

My reply should be one of those cartoon maps that show Virginia the size of the file folder & everything else the postage stamp.

 

[benmax]

In 1860 there were 4,000,000 slaves in the U.S. They were unlikely candidates for the cult of Lee worship. As to the rest…

My reply should be one of those cartoon maps that show Virginia the size of the file folder & everything else the postage stamp.

That map idea you initially posted was just fantastic. Very clever indeed. No need to change it.

 

[Rhea Cole]

That map idea you initially posted was just fantastic. Very clever indeed. No need to change it.

Thanks. I came up with that while trying to give perspective a friend. I know that that an 8 1/2" X 11" piece of paper & a stamp are the correct proportions. A file folder & stamp were at hand. There is something about the file folder's tab that makes it work visually.