Petersburg/Richmond Petersburg

[mattros]

Why didn't Lee end the war after Grant crossed the James?

 

[Elennsar]

Lee didn't exactly have authority to end the war.

 

[ole]

Well said, Elennsar. Lee could only surrender his arny -- not the Confederacy. Lee's surrender was not the end, but the beginning of the end. It was over.

 

[PatW]

Surrendering when the Army of the Potomac crossed the James would have been premature. In order to win, the Union needed Lincoln to win reelection. For that to happen, the US Army had to show persuasive evidence that it was going to put down the rebellion. Even if Petersburg meant an ignorable end, the CSA could still win if they looked viable enough to discourage the northern electorate.

On top of that, Lee had one more military option. He formed a mobile striking force under Jubal Early. He turned Early loose on the valley. Early doing a good Stonewall impersonation rampaged through a series of inferior Union commanders. It even looked briefly as if it would work, but then Grant put a large force under Sheridan and Early's force was virtually annihilated in a series of battles.

Now the CSA would have been better served by getting the best terms they could in late 1864 when they still had credible bargaining power. But that was Jeff Davis's decision to make and not Lee's. By that time, poor old Jeff had slipped into an alternate reality where the CSA would ultimately prevail so a negotiated end was not going to happen.

As an aside, I doubt that Jeff had the power to terminate the CSA on his own, I do not think that the CSA congress would have gone along. It was dominated by southern aristocracy. The Southern aristocracy was probably far less likely to face facts than Jeff Davis.

 

[mattros]

A few points. Lee had command of the Army of Northern Virginia. He could have surrendered and ended the war. My point is: was there any military hope for the South winning once Grant crossed the James? If so, what hope was there, and if not, why did Lee keep on fighting?

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm sure some smarter person will give you a better answer but Lee was the General of one army. His was not the decision to "end the war". That was the decision of the civil authority - the government of the Confederacy. Lee kept fighting because that was his job.

(Realistically, was there hope after Grant was over the James? Not much - but it wasn't Lee's job to judge that)

 

[NedBaldwin]

A few points. Lee had command of the Army of Northern Virginia. He could have surrendered and ended the war. My point is: was there any military hope for the South winning once Grant crossed the James? If so, what hope was there, and if not, why did Lee keep on fighting?

Until he found himself surrounded at Appomattox, with an army that was melting away, Lee always held onto some hope, even if it wasnt remotely realistic.

 

[major bill]

Now the CSA would have been better served by getting the best terms they could in late 1864 when they still had credible bargaining power. But that was Jeff Davis's decision to make and not Lee's. By that time, poor old Jeff had slipped into an alternate reality where the CSA would ultimately prevail so a negotiated end was not going to happen.

As long as the Confederacy believed they might win the war, they probably could not bring themselves to accept any bargain the Union was willing to make. Although Confederate representative met with Lincoln, the Confederate demands were basically the same demands they made in 1861 and the Union demands remained the same as well. The problem being the situation on the ground had changed.

The Confederate military forces are commanded by the civilian government and only the civilian government can end the war. As long as General Lee had close contact with Jefferson Davis, Lee could not really even surrender his army without Davis's permission.

 

[ivanj05]

A few points. Lee had command of the Army of Northern Virginia. He could have surrendered and ended the war. My point is: was there any military hope for the South winning once Grant crossed the James? If so, what hope was there, and if not, why did Lee keep on fighting?

Millitary hope? Probably not. But political hope was most assuredly still there, if only barely so. But that political hope depended upon the armies of the Confederacy continuing a credible resistance. Lee was never going to surrender while his army remained capable of offering credible resistance, and he didn't.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Why didn't Lee end the war after Grant crossed the James?

Why would he?

Mid June 1864...

• The Confederacy had over 400,000 men in its armies (though this is on paper and is thus counting those that were absent).
• US position in Virginia was not much better than it had been two years before and Lee had beat back Grant's attacks so far.
• Since mid June 1862, two years earlier, the only really significant changes in territory were the loss of Vicksburg, Chattanooga and Little Rock.
  
• In early 1864 confederates had re-occupied Corinth MS, taken Plymouth NC, and driven back the US offenses in Arkansas and Louisiana.
  
• In Georgia, Johnston seemed to have bogged Sherman down around Marietta.
• Forrest had just crushed the latest attempt to get him at Byrces Crossroads
• The US only had small coastal footholds in Florida, Texas, South Carolina and North Carolina and fairly small positions in Mississippi (Vicksburg and Natchez) and Alabama (area north of TN river) and not much more in Louisiana (triangle formed by Port Hudson - New Orleans and Franklin) or Arkansas.

Why give up at that point?