Who Won the Surrender?

[ivanj05]

How about a less easy surrender rather than moving it to a punitive surrender?

Again, I ask you; What exactly do such terms accomplish that the actual terms did not, and at what additional cost?

 

[FarawayFriend]

And that was a choice he had, wasn't it? Would death be preferable to a dishonorable surrender?

But as he had in advance written a letter to Grant, asking for the terms of surrender, he knew there was were no dishonorable terms. So it was about time to make an end.

And isn't it just that generosity Lincoln and Grant showed that makes your Civil War so special? It were these larger than life characters who did not think in terms of humiliation and revenge who kindled my interest in your Civil War. And I think there are few people who leave Appomattox Courthouse National Military Park who think there should have been more punishment.

 

[cash]

Again, I ask you; What exactly do such terms accomplish that the actual terms did not, and at what additional cost?

Let's take one example. Suppose one of Grant's terms was an admission that secession and the confederacy's cause were wrong. That accomplishes a public admission of wrong from the confederacy's primary general officer. Does it necessarily cost anything?

 

[cash]

But as he had in advance written a letter to Grant, asking for the terms of surrender, he knew there was were no dishonorable terms. So it was about time to make an end.

And isn't it just that generosity Lincoln and Grant showed that makes your Civil War so special? It were these larger than life characters who did not think in terms of humiliation and revenge who kindled my interest in your Civil War. And I think there are few people who leave Appomattox Courthouse National Military Park who think there should have been more punishment.

Grant could have imposed more terms at the surrender. Such would not be unknown in history.

Could they still show generosity and have more stringent terms?

Just because few people think there should have been more punishment doesn't mean there shouldn't have been more stringent terms.

 

[FarawayFriend]

Grant could have imposed more terms at the surrender. Such would not be unknown in history.

Could they still show generosity and have more stringent terms?

Just because few people think there should have been more punishment doesn't mean there shouldn't have been more stringent terms.

Hmmmm, like what for example?

 

[cash]

Hmmmm, like what for example?

What about a public admission that the confederacy was wrong? Would that be such a bad punishment?

 

[Jamieva]

Let's take one example. Suppose one of Grant's terms was an admission that secession and the confederacy's cause were wrong. That accomplishes a public admission of wrong from the confederacy's primary general officer. Does it necessarily cost anything?

Depends. Do you then what reparations ala Germany after WW1?

 

[ivanj05]

Let's take one example. Suppose one of Grant's terms was an admission that secession and the confederacy's cause were wrong. That accomplishes a public admission of wrong from the confederacy's primary general officer. Does it necessarily cost anything?

Grant was not authorized to negotiate politcal issues with Lee. And I highly doubt Lee would have conceded to such a term. Furthermore, such an admission, given essentially at gunpoint, would simply create further discord between North and South. A proposition that Grant, and Lincoln, expressly were trying to avoid.

 

[FarawayFriend]

What about a public admission that the confederacy was wrong? Would that be such a bad punishment?

If you just hear the words, no.
If you have fought four years for it, have sacrificed your home and your health to The Cause, it would be the ultimate humiliation and would turn generosity into a bitter irony.

 

[Jamieva]

Grant was not authorized to negotiate politcal issues with Lee. And I highly doubt Lee would have conceded to such a term. Furthermore, such an admission, given essentially at gunpoint, would simply create further discord between North and South. A proposition that Grant, and Lincoln, expressly were trying to avoid.

I believe Lee would've responded he was not in position to do that either. It would had to have been removed or a surrender would not have been agreed to.

 

[JerseyBart]

Depends. Do you then what reparations ala Germany after WW1?

Granted that the whole country via taxes assumedly would be paying for reconstruction wouldn't reparations have hurt the whole country as it was United States money that paid for reconstruction whereas Germany paid for euro reconstruction, only hurting their economy?

 

[roberts]

This is a big "What if...."

Grant was in a position to make demands that Lee would have forced to accept but his crystal ball would not allow him see some of the future clashes you want him to avert. How valuable is a confession if it is coerced? How valuable is a pledge if it is made without sincerity or choice?

Making the surrender more harsh would have resulted in another rebellion in future years.

 

[cash]

Grant was not authorized to negotiate politcal issues with Lee. And I highly doubt Lee would have conceded to such a term. Furthermore, such an admission, given essentially at gunpoint, would simply create further discord between North and South. A proposition that Grant, and Lincoln, expressly were trying to avoid.

And yet, Grant did in fact insert a political issue into the terms by promising the US would "not disturb" the confederates as long as they observed their paroles and the law. So it's not impossible to have those words inserted into the terms.

 

[cash]

Depends. Do you then what reparations ala Germany after WW1?

How could there be reparations when we're talking about part of our own country?

 

[cash]

This is a big "What if...."

Grant was in a position to make demands that Lee would have forced to accept but his crystal ball would not allow him see some of the future clashes you want him to avert. How valuable is a confession if it is coerced? How valuable is a pledge if it is made without sincerity or choice?

Making the surrender more harsh would have resulted in another rebellion in future years.

Speculation.

 

[roberts]

Speculation.

I agree. The OP is all speculation.

 

[cash]

I agree. The OP is all speculation.

If that's what you believe, then you've misread it.

 

[dixieland1861]

To faraway friend our civil war did allot of bigger than life characters casue allot of our generals served in the same army and allot of them were friends

 

[marinegrunt]

Should that have been his only goal?

To end the war? Yes, I believe so. This was a different situation that say, Vicksburg. There Grant knew the men he was paroling would probably be exchanged and returned to action. In this case, they both knew the game was up. Grant could have given Lee the "unconditional surrender" routine and Lee would have had to accept it if he wanted to avoid useless bloodshed.

 

[marinegrunt]

And that was a choice he had, wasn't it? Would death be preferable to a dishonorable surrender?

I don't think he really had any other option than that. He was either going to surrender his men or use them up; either way, his army was finished.

Was the country really better off? We assume it was, but is our assumption right?

I believe so. If Lee had broken up his units and sent them into the mountains like Davis and Alexander wanted, I don't believe the other Confederate armies would have surrendered. While the ANV may have been done, there were still 175,000 Confederates in the field. Poorly shod and supplied, but they were still there. Lee ordering his men to abide by the terms of the surrender kept the guerrilla tactics out of play and ensured that the rest of the Confederate army would follow suit.