And if Gen. Lee hadn't surrendered at Appomattox...

[unionblue]

Here's a "what if" for everyone.

And if Gen. Lee hadn't surrendered at Appomattox..., by Glen W. Lafantasie.

http://www.salon.com/2010/11/21/south_civil_war_lee/

The article pretty much sums up "what if" scenarios for me.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

Can't see an ending that happy.

After Lincoln was shot - and I've posted this elsewhere - one Sgt among Sherman's troops wrote something like "the mood is very grim, and the feeling is held that if Johnston continues to fight, the worst acts of the past will be as nothing compared to what comes next."

Any insurgency depends on some friendly state to aid in the smuggling of supplies. Post Lincoln, no nation was going to sign up for that.

Nearly half the southern population had not yet been tapped to fight. Had the war continued, they would have and it takes very little no imagination to see that the pre-war "patrollers" would have become the hunted, and the areas of strongest support for secession would have instantly become the most dangerous areas to hold that view - for very nearly the same reason.

It's much less ugly on so many levels that it stopped when it did.

 

[diane]

Indeed it was better. Forrest, for instance, was like Capt Waddell of the Shenandoah. He'd heard Lee had surrendered but none of his superiors had confirmed it - he intended to fight until they told him not to. Who knows, France might have supported someone like him in the West.

 

[Union_Buff]

Thanks for posting this UB, it was a really interesting article

 

[tmh10]

That was a thought provoking piece. In my opinion the people of the North and South were very tired of the war by this time. There were of course exceptions that would have continued. The ANV was the major force left to the South and if Lee hadn't surrendered, Grant would have destroyed them. Lee didn't want the misery to continue.

 

[whitworth]

And if Gen. Lee hadn't surrendered at Appomattox...



I'd say it is a perfect question for any resident neo-confederate who is good at segmenting history into days.
Of course, Appomattox happened because Lee and Army of Northern Virginia was down to fighting to the last Confederate soldier in the field; the war for the independence of 13 Confederate states was long ago lost; the main supply depot at Richmond, on which armies depend, was already destroyed.
If Appomattox was the last battle, Lee might not have survived the week. And Lee had no choice in waiting for his army to be fit and ready for battle. And in asking the very question, one has to entirely forget about their last battle, three days prior, at Saylor's(Sailer's) Creek. It was so devastating, one would have to forget Saylor's Creek.


"With his army surrounded, his men weak and exhausted, Robert E. Lee realized there was little choice but to consider the surrender of his Army to General Grant. "

"II Corp and Anderson's Corp
Commanded by Lieutenant General Richard Stoddert Ewell
Surrendered on Thursday, 6th April
Saylor's ( Sailor's) Creek ( Harper's Farm, Hillsman Farm, Lockett Farm, Deatonsville)
At Sailor's Creek nearly one fourth of the retreating Confederate army was cut off by General Philip Henry Sheridan's Cavalry, and elements of the II and VI Corps. After the battle most of the Confederate troops surrendered, including Ewell and Brigadier Generals Seth Maxwell Barton, Montgomery Dent Corse, Dudley M. Dubose, Eppa Hunton, Joseph Brevard Kershaw, Custis Lee, James Philip Simms. The casualties were 1,000 killed 1,800 and 6,000 captured.
This battle is considered by many the death knell of the Confederate army. Lee upon seeing the survivors streaming along the road exclaimed 'My God, has the army dissolved.' "

 

[KeyserSoze]

If the Confederacy had resorted to guerrilla warfare then what would have happened to the southern civilian population and territory would have made Sherman's march look like a walk in the park.

 

[carson_reb]

A thought-provoking piece, indeed... but in an absurd way.

The notion that Lee might have been defiant even after defeat goes against the character of the man: A Virginia gentleman, first and foremost. Second, he wasn't nearly the ardent secessionist and fire-eater that other contemporaries of his time were. He resigned his commission from the U.S. Army only because his home state of Virginia, where his greatest political loyalty lay, had seceded, joined the CSA, and beckoned him home. I think he felt that to not serve his home would be a betrayal to what was most important to him. Only his loyalty to his home could top his loyalty to his oath as a U.S. Army officer to the Union.

Even if Lee had decided to keep running and fighting beyond Appomattox, the end would eventually come. The siege at Petersburg was the final nail in the Confederate Army's coffin. It so depleted supplies, provisions and men that the army was literally starving when it finally moved out in the spring of 1865 and headed west toward the rail lines. I don't think the ANV could have held out much beyond Appomattox. The Union blockade had been slowly squeezing the South to death. Food, clothing, weapons and ammunition were in ever shortening supply. And so were men to replace those who had fallen out of ranks.

Surrender was only a matter of time...I think weeks, and not months or years.

 

[FourLeafClover]

It is perhaps to his great credit that Lee commanded such great respect from his troops, that they would follow his example and lay down their arms.
Any other less charismatic leader, may have been leaving behind scattered remnants to continue on till the bitter end. And a bitter end it would have been. A drawn out slow death. As opposed to getting on ASAP with the repairing of wounds and forgiveness between brothers in arms.
The Lincoln assassination of course put a great spoke in the wheel of reparation for the South. But Lee was not to know that at Appomatox.
He did the best thing for his men, his State, The confederacy and USA as a complete nation.

 

[jgoodguy]

One needs to look at the war aims of the South and if guerrilla warfare would have help or even had a purpose. The war was not a war just to have a war, but for the independence of a slave state. A guerrilla war could not create a slave state even in miniature, nor even if successful create a slave state. All the slaves have run off or joined the enemy. The infrastructure of slavery was destroyed.

If the war had truly been for states rights or freedom or some similar goal, then a guerrilla war was a possibility. But it was for the creation of a slave state and without that objective, there was no purpose in continuing.

 

[Joshua Horn]

One needs to look at the war aims of the South and if guerrilla warfare would have help or even had a purpose. The war was not a war just to have a war, but for the independence of a slave state. A guerrilla war could not create a slave state even in miniature, nor even if successful create a slave state. All the slaves have run off or joined the enemy. The infrastructure of slavery was destroyed.

If the war had truly been for states rights or freedom or some similar goal, then a guerrilla war was a possibility. But it was for the creation of a slave state and without that objective, there was no purpose in continuing.

If what you are saying is correct, that they did not conduct guerrilla fighting because slavery was destroyed, do you have any evidence to back it up? Letters, diaries, speeches, etc saying lets give up, slavery is hopeless?

 

[ExNavyPilot]

Good article; interesting topic, thoughtful discussion, intelligent conclusion. Now back to the real world.

 

[footie]

A

If the Confederacy had resorted to guerrilla warfare then what would have happened to the southern civilian population and territory would have made Sherman's march look like a walk in the park.

And, we would still be fightingtoday.

 

[CSA Today]

One needs to look at the war aims of the South and if guerrilla warfare would have help or even had a purpose. The war was not a war just to have a war, but for the independence of a slave state. A guerrilla war could not create a slave state even in miniature, nor even if successful create a slave state. All the slaves have run off or joined the enemy. The infrastructure of slavery was destroyed.

If the war had truly been for states rights or freedom or some similar goal, then a guerrilla war was a possibility. But it was for the creation of a slave state and without that objective, there was no purpose in continuing.

I'm not quite sure of what to make of your rambling proposition, but don't you think a successful war of independence, whatever the characteristics of that war, would have more readily met the aims of the South?

As for your assertion that: " all the slaves have run off or joined the enemy," I think a more in depth study would show that most of the nearly four million slaves stayed home. Can you imagine the "contraband" problem for the Federal armies had millions of slaves dashed into their lines instead of thousands? You better believe that even the most radical of the Republicans had no plans to resettle any great number of runaway slaves in the North And as for the destruction of the infrastructure of slavery, that didn't occur until the occupation of the South at the end of the war.

"Historian Leon Litwak of San Francisco State College combed newspapers, letters and legislative records of pre-Civil War days for his North of Slavery, which contends that anti-black prejudice existed on a much wider scale than has been suspected. Litwak found less racism in the South than in the North and West, where many localities enacted laws to keep Negroes out. Americans outside the South objected to the spread of slavery not so much because they thought it was evil as because they were terrified that the despised black man would move to their part of the country."

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

...
As for your assertion that: " all the slaves have run off or joined the enemy," I think a more in depth study would show that most of the nearly four million slaves stayed home. Can you imagine the "contraband" problem for the Federal armies had millions of slaves dashed into their lines instead of thousands? ...

After Lincoln's assassination, there would have been calls to arm them and turn them loose.

Probably wouldn't have happened to that extent, but if I get a cold shudder when I think of that, it might be worth a pause.

Even just a million PO'd and vengeful ex-chattel would have upended things beyond all recognition.

 

[KeyserSoze]

"Historian Leon Litwak of San Francisco State College combed newspapers, letters and legislative records of pre-Civil War days for his North of Slavery, which contends that anti-black prejudice existed on a much wider scale than has been suspected. Litwak found less racism in the South than in the North and West, where many localities enacted laws to keep Negroes out. Americans outside the South objected to the spread of slavery not so much because they thought it was evil as because they were terrified that the despised black man would move to their part of the country."

I guess it would depend on your definition of racism, wouldn't it? If you take it as a general belief of the inferiority of blacks then the South was every bit as racist as the North, perhaps more so. The South went a bit further with the nearly universal belief that blacks were suited for slavery and nothing else and the almost complete lack of support for abolition of any kind. If your definition of racism depends on laws on the books, then I'm not aware of any Northern state that said blacks could not get an education or get business licenses or work in certain fields or socialize with whites or even be emancipated in the first place. I know of no Northern state that had a law on the books that said a free black leaving the state to get an education was forbidden to return, as Virginia had. Or a law like South Carolina's that required foreign ships calling at Charleston deliver all black crew members to the sheriff to be imprisoned for the duration of their stay, cost of imprisonment to be paid by the ship's captain. Does that make the South more racist or less? And if Litwack wants to say the North was racist because of laws passed to keep blacks from moving into a town, then every Southern state had laws on their books at one time or another forbidding free blacks to move into the state. Does that make them as racist or more racist?

 

[jgoodguy]

I'm not quite sure of what to make of your rambling proposition, but don't you think a successful war of independence, whatever the characteristics of that war, would have more readily met the aims of the South?

As for your assertion that: " all the slaves have run off or joined the enemy," I think a more in depth study would show that most of the nearly four million slaves stayed home. Can you imagine the "contraband" problem for the Federal armies had millions of slaves dashed into their lines instead of thousands? You better believe that even the most radical of the Republicans had no plans to resettle any great number of runaway slaves in the North And as for the destruction of the infrastructure of slavery, that didn't occur until the occupation of the South at the end of the war.

"Historian Leon Litwak of San Francisco State College combed newspapers, letters and legislative records of pre-Civil War days for his North of Slavery, which contends that anti-black prejudice existed on a much wider scale than has been suspected. Litwak found less racism in the South than in the North and West, where many localities enacted laws to keep Negroes out. Americans outside the South objected to the spread of slavery not so much because they thought it was evil as because they were terrified that the despised black man would move to their part of the country."

Assuming a guerrilla war also assumes Union occupation of the South, the former slaves would be under Union control and freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Now imagine a Union quite happy to arm the slaves and turn them lose on their former masters. Win Win situation. Cheap to arm them with rifles and ammo, lots of supplies left over and no white union soldiers get killed. What to do with the millions, confiscate the old white plantations and parcel out 50 acres and a mule.

Do you wish to assert the former slaves were happy with slavery and would voluntary have returned to it? I challenge you to answer a simple yes or no.

 

[jgoodguy]

I guess it would depend on your definition of racism, wouldn't it? If you take it as a general belief of the inferiority of blacks then the South was every bit as racist as the North, perhaps more so. The South went a bit further with the nearly universal belief that blacks were suited for slavery and nothing else and the almost complete lack of support for abolition of any kind. If your definition of racism depends on laws on the books, then I'm not aware of any Northern state that said blacks could not get an education or get business licenses or work in certain fields or socialize with whites or even be emancipated in the first place. I know of no Northern state that had a law on the books that said a free black leaving the state to get an education was forbidden to return, as Virginia had. Or a law like South Carolina's that required foreign ships calling at Charleston deliver all black crew members to the sheriff to be imprisoned for the duration of their stay, cost of imprisonment to be paid by the ship's captain. Does that make the South more racist or less? And if Litwack wants to say the North was racist because of laws passed to keep blacks from moving into a town, then every Southern state had laws on their books at one time or another forbidding free blacks to move into the state. Does that make them as racist or more racist?

The racism of the North allowed for free men. The racism of the South did not. Simple to judge the difference.

 

[jgoodguy]

After Lincoln's assassination, there would have been calls to arm them and turn them loose.

Probably wouldn't have happened to that extent, but if I get a cold shudder when I think of that, it might be worth a pause.

Even just a million PO'd and vengeful ex-chattel would have upended things beyond all recognition.

The margin of victory for the Union could have been the ex slaves that took up Union Arms.

Approximately 175 regiments composed of more than 178,000 free blacks and freedmen served during the last two years of the war. Their service bolstered the Union war effort at a critical time. By war's end, the men of the USCT composed nearly one tenth of all Union troops.

So figuring the Union would not arm them is unrealistic. Lots of captured CSA arms to arm them with. They are familiar with the country and they have motive. They have experience soldiers to train the rest. Provide them with supplies and a few white officers and you got an instant army.

 

[carson_reb]

One needs to look at the war aims of the South and if guerrilla warfare would have help or even had a purpose. The war was not a war just to have a war, but for the independence of a slave state. A guerrilla war could not create a slave state even in miniature, nor even if successful create a slave state. All the slaves have run off or joined the enemy. The infrastructure of slavery was destroyed.

If the war had truly been for states rights or freedom or some similar goal, then a guerrilla war was a possibility. But it was for the creation of a slave state and without that objective, there was no purpose in continuing.

The war continued on for more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863. Even as slaves began their exodus from masters' homes and plantations, the war labored on in spite of this. If the Confederacy had the kind of provisions, supplies and manpower that the much larger Union had, then you can bet your bottom dollar the war would have gone on indefinitely until one side ran out of steam, luck or both.