The People... or the State.

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Actually I've been trying to get out of here while I made my last 3 or 4 posts so I was in a hurry trying to search online for Lincoln speeches and documents. I must head out now and head in to work but later this evening I'm going to search all my downloaded Lincoln war time speeches and proclamations to see if he used "states in rebellion" more than the two times I've already posted. Either way, later tonight I'll post what I found or advise if I didn't find anything else.
I look forward to that. Prior to this, it was my impression that Lincoln never referred to States in rebellion because his position was they never seceded. Sounds interesting.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
I look forward to that. Prior to this, it was my impression that Lincoln never referred to States in rebellion because his position was they never seceded. Sounds interesting.
You were correct and I was not. Other than the two examples I earlier provided, I could not find "states in rebellion" mentioned in any of Lincoln's proclamations or address/correspondence to Congress. Anything I found pertaining to rebellion was in reference to "persons" or "people" of states in insurrection or rebellion.
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,324
The surrender terms at Appomatox were strictly confined to military matters only. Grant did not have the authority to treat on issues of secession, status of the seceded states, and related affairs. In contrast, Sherman subsequently blundered in setting surrender terms with Joe Johnston for the Army of Tennessee, which considered political matters such as recognizing existing state governments and providing for the maintenance of property rights. When President Johnson and the cabinet were advised on these terms, they were roundly condemned and disavowed and Sherman was forced to deliver the same kind of terms to Johnston that Grant offered to Lee.
Thank you for this information. Question ; In cases were the army command surrenders but there is no official surrender by government officials is this considered a official legal surrender of that country,esp. when the government as not rendered the authority of those military officials to conduct such authority?Could those countries be still at war if such actions occur ? Since Davis was still the official representative of the Confederate government even with the fall of Richmond and the army of Lee and Johnson but with other forces which had not surrendered and the Confederate government had not officially agreed to any Federal treaty on the non legality of their actions which lead to the war then the right still exist.Lincoln nor any of the government mention that after the war(.One defeats a army but not the philosophy which lead to the event,it still lives .BOOK=Heirs of the Founders-the second generation of American giants= H.W. Brands pg 358=370 ) It was not just slavery but the politics from both sides.
 

jackt62

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,158
Location
New York City
I can' speak on the legal ramifications where an army command surrenders without official government recognition, but given Lee's immense stature and good relationship with Jefferson Davis, he was able to force the issue without any negative consequences. Despite the surrender of the ANV, Davis still believed that the war should be carried on, so it is not surprising that he reacted negatively to Joe
Johnston's subsequent surrender of the Army of Tennessee. But with that reality, Davis and the confederate government essentially disbanded very soon after.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top