Who Won the Surrender?

[CSA Today]

But did Lee want any terms at all? I say no. If the siege at Petersburg didn't take the fight out of the man, nothing would except certain disaster. When he saw his empty wagons and the only road out of town blocked, he knew he'd have to accept whatever Grant gave him.

 

[War Horse]

That's the crux, isn't it? Could Grant have gotten more? For instance, could he have demanded Lee admit "We were wrong?" Could he have had Lee imprisoned as the price for not imprisoning the other officers and men of the ANV? Could he have included officer sidearms in the terms and taken Lee's sword?



There's nothing else Grant could have gotten from Lee?



Lee in fact suggested the two men settle the entire war, but that was beyond Grant's purview.




I think Lee got everything he wanted plus more.

I have always been shocked that Grant/Union asked no consequences of Lee personally. Yes, Grant could have received much more. Lee most likely would not of put himself before his men or himself and his corp commanders before the army. He walked out of the McLean home with much more than he could have hoped. Excellent article!!

 

[CSA Today]

Lee was a horrendous racist who disparaged most all blacks, all the time, before, during and after the war. Because Lee was always so careful to protect his own reputation, he may not have publicly approved of the KKK, but there's no evidence to suggest that he wouldn't have agreed with overturning Reconstruction and attempting to return blacks to a near state of slavery for the next 99 years.

This thread didn't take long to go off topic.

 

[War Horse]

Grant was an officer and a gentleman, and I don't think history would have been improved by his instead being punitive or hateful.

Grant/Lincoln and the Union for that matter had nothing to gain from harsh terms. I believe the overall goal was now shifting toward reconstruction. Extending an olive branch in the hopes of cooperation was as good of a place to start as any. Not to mention Johnston's army upon hearing of the terms Lee received would have been inclined to follow suite.

 

[Jamieva]

Grant's terms were a mere extension of how Lincoln wanted the country to come back together post war.

 

[18thVirginia]

This thread didn't take long to go off topic.

Not at all off topic--the OP writer mentions that the surrender negotiated allowed officers to be paroled with no other humiliations. Lee would have known that they'd be as implacable as he was about blacks in the South and that his officer class would do everything possible to return to power in the South.

Lee had, after all, a father who was a military hero and then a politician. He'd married into a family of the most famous American military hero, who became a revered political figure.

 

[JerseyBart]

This thread didn't take long to go off topic.

And at your suggestion, we are going to get it back on topic. Any future off topic posts will be deleted. The topic is who won the surrender not was Lee a racist.
Posted as moderator.

 

[CW3O]

Could this not be a case of both sides won to each sides benefit? Lincoln's, "Let em up easy" remark suggested he (representing the Union) wanted the most conciliatory terms possible in order to hasten/ease the reunification process. Hard to imagine more favorable terms being offered.

Lee had nothing to bargain with but emerged with more than could be rightfully expected. Saved face for Lee, a Confederate demi-god and demonstrated to the remains of his army that they would, in fact, be let up easy.

That reconstruction didn't work out quite as well is in the future of the OP question.

Answer: One side lost the war but both sides won the surrender

 

[americono]

Got to say Grant, "he held all the cards..." Is completely true. If Lee would of refused every offer that Grant gave he could of simply massacred the undermanned and under supplied Army of Northern Virginia. Lee was a military and I think he was taken back by Grant's more then generous offers for peace. At least if I was a West Point graduate, Army engineer, Decorate Mexican-American war veteran, West Point commander, and other minor post commanders I would be shocked to hear a peace offer like that.

 

[americono]

I really loved this post though, really "picked" my mind for a few minutes.

 

[War Horse]

Could this not be a case of both sides won to each sides benefit? Lincoln's, "Let em up easy" remark suggested he (representing the Union) wanted the most conciliatory terms possible in order to hasten/ease the reunification process. Hard to imagine more favorable terms being offered.

Lee had nothing to bargain with but emerged with more than could be rightfully expected. Saved face for Lee, a Confederate demi-god and demonstrated to the remains of his army that they would, in fact, be let up easy.

That reconstruction didn't work out quite as well is in the future of the OP question.

Answer: One side lost the war but both sides won the surrender

The nation lost when we were deprived of good old Abe steering the reconstruction ship. Grant was setting a fine table for him to work with at the surrender.

 

[jgoodguy]

IMHO, while interesting the topic is ultimately futile. At Appomattox the future was not known and the objective was Confederate surrender removing the CSA government from the game. That happened and thus the surrender was successful. Looking forwarded, the future was not known at the time. No surrender could have all sorts of outcomes, by accepting Lee's surrender all those outcomes collapsed to one. Grant and the North won the surrender.

The peace was another issue. But even then, the 2 big issues of the day, elimination of the Southern Nation and slavery was accomplished. It is a big what if to determine if something at the surrender could have changed the course of reconstruction and the Jim Crow era. I am of the opinion nothing could change that without creating big risks trying to solve an unknown problem at Appomattox.

So the North won the Surrender.

Asserting that the South won the peace, needs some credible alternatives or it is just as history would have played out given the realities of the time. Is the default path winning?

 

[cash]

As I understand it, Grant and Lincoln had spoken of the forthcoming inevitable defeat of Lee's army. If I recall rightly, he asked Lincoln about terms; to which Lincoln responded "Let'em up easy."

Lincoln wanted peace after the war, and as little residual hatred as possible. Grant knew that and therefore gave terms to Lee that he felt would help introduce the type of peace that Lincoln wanted. The economic destruction of the south, its catastrophic losses among white manhood, and loss of their slaves meant that the south was no threat for a long time to come. The north had every reason to be magnanimous, and nothing to lose by letting the disarmed ANV leave on parole.

I think that, civil war or not, we were still one people in most ways. By treating the surrendering rebels as countrymen rather than as national enemies, Grant did one of the greatest services that anybody has ever rendered to the nation.

Could Grant have demanded more and still "let 'em up easy?"

If we look at what happened during Reconstruction, which admittedly Grant couldn't see at the time, could it be that perhaps he let 'em up a bit too easy?

 

[War Horse]

IMHO, while interesting the topic is ultimately futile. At Appomattox the future was not known and the objective was Confederate surrender removing the CSA government from the game. That happened and thus the surrender was successful. Looking forwarded, the future was not known at the time. No surrender could have all sorts of outcomes, by accepting Lee's surrender all those outcomes collapsed to one. Grant and the North won the surrender.

The peace was another issue. But even then, the 2 big issues of the day, elimination of the Southern Nation and slavery was accomplished. It is a big what if to determine if something at the surrender could have changed the course of reconstruction and the Jim Crow era. I am of the opinion nothing could change that without creating big risks trying to solve an unknown problem at Appomattox.

So the North won the Surrender.

Asserting that the South won the peace, needs some credible alternatives or it is just as history would have played out given the realities of the time. Is the default path winning?

Very good points, however I do believe the terms offered the confederacy were posturing moves by the Lincoln administration. Again just JMHO. I would love to learn from members more knowledgeable on the subject.

 

[cash]

The question is less "Could Grant have gotten more?" and more "Should Grant have have taken more?" I think that answer is a pretty definative "Nope."

What more was going to be achieved by punative surrender terms than was actually achieved by non punative ones?

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

 

[cash]

Grant was in the position where he could have gotten more but then it would have flied in the face of Lincoln's "I'd let 'em up easy."

Would it? Could he have gotten more and still let 'em up easy?

 

[cash]

I don't believe Grant ever wanted to humiliate or try anybody. Seems to me to be a futile premise. How could the U.S. government try and convict the lower half of the country? And what good what it do? Grant got the ANV to stop fighting; that was his goal. And the ANV did indeed have to stack its arms and flags.

Should that have been his only goal?

 

[cash]

I'm sure he wanted to continue fighting; he just knew there was no point. His lone hope was making it to a) a supply train, and b) NC and Johnston. Neither of those were an option. He tried it on the 9th when he sent Gordon forward to see if he could get through. Gordon couldn't, and that was that. Prolonging the issue would accomplish nothing but more dead men.

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

 

[cash]

Nor am I. The country as a whole was better off with the conciliatory tone Lincoln and Grant set. It does bear mentioning that many ex Confederate leaders were involved in Jim Crow laws and discrimination, but I don't think that's something Grant could have put a stop to by imprisoning half the men in the South.

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

 

[War Horse]

Should that have been his only goal?

Leniency with the Army understandable, leniency with the leaders is something completely different. That is the path Grant took. It's still puzzling. I myself still can't believe Jefferson Davis didn't swing. I think the only other person more surprised than me would be Davis himself.