Major-General Bryan Grimes writes of the surrender at Appomattox.

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
grimes1.jpg


"As my troops approached their position of the morning, I rode up to General Gordon and asked where I should form line of battle. He replied, 'Anywhere you choose.' Struck by the strangeness of the reply, I asked an explanation, where upon he informed me that we would be surrendered. I then expressed very forcibly my dissent to being surrendered, and indignantly upbraided him for not given me notice of such intention, as I could have escaped with my division and joined General Joe Johnston, then in North Carolina. Furthermore, that I should inform my men of the purpose to surrender, and that whoever desired to escape that calamity could go with me, and galloped off to carry this idea into effect. Before reaching my troops, however, General Gordon overtook me, and placing his hand upon my shoulder, asked me if I were going to desert the army and tarnish my own honor as a soldier, and said that it would be a reflection upon General Lee and an indelible disgrace to me, if I, an officer in the rank, should escape under a flag of truce, which was then pending. I was in a dilemma and knew not what to do; but finally concluded to say nothing on the subject to my troops. Upon reaching them, one of the soldiers asked if General Lee had surrendered, and upon my answering that I feared it was a fact that we had been surrendered, he cast away his musket and holding his hands aloft, cried in an agonized voice, 'Blow, Gabriel, blow! My God let him Blow; I am ready to die!' We then went beyond the creek at Appomattox Court House, stacked arms amid the bitter tears of bronzed veterans, regretting the necessity of capitulation. Among the incidents ever fresh in my memory of this fatal day to the Confederacy is the remark of a private soldier. When riding up to my old regiment to shake by the hand each comrade who had followed me through four years of suffering, toil, and privation often worse than death, to bid them a final, affectionate, and, in many instances, an eternal farewell, a cadaverous, ragged, barefooted man grasped me by the hand, and choking with sobs said, 'Goodbye General: God bless you; we will go home, make three more crops and then try them again.' I mention this instance simply to show the spirit, the pluck and the faith of our men in the justice of our cause, and that they surrendered more too grim famine than to the prowess of our enemies."
 
It's always a bit weird to see examples of the Army of Northern Virginia planning on returning after exchange, not realizing it was over. The books tell us that day was the end, but there were a few more significant land battles fought after Gen. Lee surrendered. I wonder what Grimes thought when Johnston surrendered two weeks later.
 
Give me a break. Southern armies proved time and time again they were superior in fighting skill than those of the United States; the war was lost due to overwhelming resources and manpower.

Yeah, whatever


Perhaps the only exception is that of Braxton Bragg.

And Joe Johnston. And John Hood. And even Lee, who lost to lesser generals on several occasions. The rebel record in the west was defeat after defeat, retreat after retreat. And in the east Lee was never able to finish off his opponents.
 
Give me a break. Southern armies proved time and time again they were superior in fighting skill than those of the United States; the war was lost due to overwhelming resources and manpower.

Perhaps the only exception is that of Braxton Bragg.
I disagree. What they did have in spades that the Union soldier lacked was a fire in their bellies. In their mind, it was their home they were defending. That alone pumps you up. But as far as the ability to fight, both armies were trained in just about the same way and were most probably evenly matched. The only aspect that the South truly had an advantage in was cavalry. It took Northern horsemen three years to even match the South's ability on a horse and even then they still got whipped more than they won.

As far ar resources and manpower, that's what has won EVERY war. It is in this aspect that the Confederacy proved why it would fail. Quibbling about supplies going to troops from another state is probably the best example of this. Virginia troops shivered and starved while clothes and food sat in a depot in NC because the governor there wouldn't give it to anybody not from NC. It's not just the soldier's mettle that wins wars; it is the logistics and supply that keep him fighting. A failure on either part WILL eventually lead to defeat. Had they pooled their resources and quit fighting amongst themselves this might be a different discussion.

Bragg certainly did not help, though.
 
And Joe Johnston. And John Hood. And even Lee, who lost to lesser generals on several occasions. The rebel record in the west was defeat after defeat, retreat after retreat. And in the east Lee was never able to finish off his opponents.

This is a numbers game you're talking. If you were outnumbered to begin with, you have nothing left to attack with after you make your move. This was Lee's problem. If Lee had anywhere near the numbers McClellan though he had he would've become an even more dangerous man. Johnston was a master troop leader and tactician (look at 1st Manassas), and a master of the fighting withdrawal, which is not the same thing as a retreat. Again, if he had men, I think he would've been able to do a lot more damage offensively. Hood was...brave. And ultimately not suited for anything higher than a division level command.
 
Give me a break. Southern armies proved time and time again they were superior in fighting skill than those of the United States; the war was lost due to overwhelming resources and manpower.

Please provide some evidence of this claim. The fact that their armies were driven to surrender by inferiors certainly argues poorly for your statement.
 
Give me a break. Southern armies proved time and time again they were superior in fighting skill than those of the United States; the war was lost due to overwhelming resources and manpower.

Please provide some evidence of this claim. The fact that their armies were driven to surrender by inferiors certainly argues poorly for your statement.

Four years and an armed forces larger than the white male population of the eleven Confederates?
 
This is a numbers game you're talking. If you were outnumbered to begin with, you have nothing left to attack with after you make your move. This was Lee's problem. If Lee had anywhere near the numbers McClellan though he had he would've become an even more dangerous man. Johnston was a master troop leader and tactician (look at 1st Manassas), and a master of the fighting withdrawal, which is not the same thing as a retreat. Again, if he had men, I think he would've been able to do a lot more damage offensively. Hood was...brave. And ultimately not suited for anything higher than a division level command.

The ever popular "we would have won if we hadn't run out of bullets" song-and-dance. The Southern cause was doomed from the beginning. Yes, you lacked the industrial base to support your war but you should have thought of that to begin with. Yes, you lacked the numbers that the North had but again you had that whole "one Southern cavalier is the equal of 5 Yankee mudsills" attitude. But you also overlook that our founders also launched their rebellion under even more of a disadvantage than the South had. And our Founders won their rebellion while the South lost theirs. And why? Bcause the Founders, like the Union soldiers, had the confidence in their cause and the will to see it through to victory. Something the Confederates lacked.
 
You can agree but you have not produced evidence to support the claim which makes it a fairly lame boast.

If you have doubts as to the free population of the eleven Confederate States as compared to the population of the United States you can look here: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

If you have doubts about the size of armed forces of the North you can look here: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_furnished_losses.html

If you think the CSA had a greater war materiel producing ability than the USA I have no idea where to tell you to look.
 
The ever popular "we would have won if we hadn't run out of bullets" song-and-dance. The Southern cause was doomed from the beginning. Yes, you lacked the industrial base to support your war but you should have thought of that to begin with. Yes, you lacked the numbers that the North had but again you had that whole "one Southern cavalier is the equal of 5 Yankee mudsills" attitude. But you also overlook that our founders also launched their rebellion under even more of a disadvantage than the South had. And our Founders won their rebellion while the South lost theirs. And why? Bcause the Founders, like the Union soldiers, had the confidence in their cause and the will to see it through to victory. Something the Confederates lacked.

To say Confederates did not have confidence in their cause means you are totally ignoring all the diary writings and letters of the time.
 
If you have doubts as to the free population of the eleven Confederate States as compared to the population of the United States you can look here: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

If you have doubts about the size of armed forces of the North you can look here: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_furnished_losses.html

If you think the CSA had a greater war materiel producing ability than the USA I have no idea where to tell you to look.

I have no doubt that they were soundly beaten by a force that was supposedly inferior. I think not! The Confederate armies were beaten from the very beginning in the west and actually only managed to successfully defend a small area of Virginia for a short time before ultimately being defeated in the east as well.
 
Back
Top