Who Won the Surrender?

[ivanj05]

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.

There is a world of difference between that term and what you proposed. You are essentially asking Grant to force Lee at gunpoint to take responsibility for the sins of the Confederacy. That wasn't in Grant's character, it wasn't Grant's responsibility, Lee wouldn't have agreed to it without a fight, and it was at total cross purposes with what Lincoln wanted for the end of the war.

And above and beyond all that, such a term would have accomplished nothing positive whatsoever.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

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

Is a military commander the one to demand an answer to a political question? I ask this not knowing one way or the other.

 

[cash]

Is a military commander the one to demand an answer to a political question? I ask this not knowing one way or the other.

Just as Grant inserted a political issue into the terms of surrender by promising former confederates will not be disturbed by the United States, it seems to me that a small statement such as "Recognizing the confederacy was wrong, ..." would be possible.

 

[cash]

There is a world of difference between that term and what you proposed. You are essentially asking Grant to force Lee at gunpoint to take responsibility for the sins of the Confederacy. That wasn't in Grant's character, it wasn't Grant's responsibility, Lee wouldn't have agreed to it without a fight, and it was at total cross purposes with what Lincoln wanted for the end of the war.

And above and beyond all that, such a term would have accomplished nothing positive whatsoever.

Actually, the difference is what Grant actually did was far bigger. He guaranteed there would be no treason trials.

 

[War Horse]

Just as Grant inserted a political issue into the terms of surrender by promising former confederates will not be disturbed by the United States, it seems to me that a small statement such as "Recognizing the confederacy was wrong, ..." would be possible.

Don't you think that is the one thing Lee would rather die than do? Even if he did, don't you think it would have been viewed as nothing more than propaganda? I just don't see Lee doing this.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Militarily, Lee was out of options. His army couldn't have survived another fight. If Grant required Lee to make some sort of statement from the position of strength Grant had, Lee could have later repudiated it, claiming, correctly, that he was forced to make such a statement under duress.

Grant could have taken all the senior officers, Lee, his surviving corps and divisional commanders prisoner, and paroled the rest. Lee wore his best uniform believing he could end up Grant's prisoner. What happened to these men, especially after Lincoln was murdered, I'm not sure. But Lincoln himself didn't want show trials or anything like that. It wouldn't have encouraged the other forces to surrender, although I doubt it would have prolonged things much longer.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Cash, I think you're approaching this from the standpoint: Reconstruction failed, in large part because of southern white resistance, and there was something Grant could have done at Appomattox that could have changed that. OK, but I'm not sure what that would be.

 

[Drew]

There is a world of difference between that term and what you proposed. You are essentially asking Grant to force Lee at gunpoint to take responsibility for the sins of the Confederacy. That wasn't in Grant's character, it wasn't Grant's responsibility, Lee wouldn't have agreed to it without a fight, and it was at total cross purposes with what Lincoln wanted for the end of the war.

And above and beyond all that, such a term would have accomplished nothing positive whatsoever.

Agree with this 100%. The problem with the entire argument is that it's emanating from a thoroughly modern tantrum that has nothing to do with 1865.

If U.S. Grant is sitting on a cloud, reading this thread on his iPad, he's surely convinced we are all crazy.

 

[marinegrunt]

Agree with this 100%. The problem with the entire argument is that it's emanating from a thoroughly modern tantrum that has nothing to do with 1865.

If U.S. Grant is sitting on a cloud, reading this thread on his iPad, he's surely convinced we are all crazy.

I should hope the wi-fi is better up there than it is in NYC.

 

[cash]

Cash, I think you're approaching this from the standpoint: Reconstruction failed, in large part because of southern white resistance, and there was something Grant could have done at Appomattox that could have changed that. OK, but I'm not sure what that would be.

First, I'm challenging our assumptions about the surrender. We assume what Grant did was best for the country. I'm not taking that for granted. I'm asking if there was a better path.

Second, I look at what each man got from the surrender and what he gave up. If we only compare what each man wanted to what he got, then both won. If we add in what each man could have gotten, then it seems to me Lee comes out the winner because Grant could have gotten more from him. It really doesn't matter if Grant wanted to get more or not. It really doesn't matter if Grant felt himself constrained or not.

What if Grant had left out the part about former confederates not being disturbed by the United States?

Third, I'm looking at Reconstruction and seeing how the surrender terms played into white terrorist violence during that time. To me, that reinforces the idea that Lee won the surrender.

 

[JerseyBart]

Deleting 91-96...discuss the topic and/or why you think it is speculation or don't post at all. Thread bans are next. We can be adults. I just know it.
Posted as moderator.

 

[marinegrunt]

First, I'm challenging our assumptions about the surrender. We assume what Grant did was best for the country. I'm not taking that for granted. I'm asking if there was a better path.

Second, I look at what each man got from the surrender and what he gave up. If we only compare what each man wanted to what he got, then both won. If we add in what each man could have gotten, then it seems to me Lee comes out the winner because Grant could have gotten more from him. It really doesn't matter if Grant wanted to get more or not. It really doesn't matter if Grant felt himself constrained or not.

What if Grant had left out the part about former confederates not being disturbed by the United States?

Third, I'm looking at Reconstruction and seeing how the surrender terms played into white terrorist violence during that time. To me, that reinforces the idea that Lee won the surrender.

But what you're forgetting is that Lee had no idea how bad it would get. Maybe Grant did, but that was not anywhere near where his thinking was or should have been. His mission was to force the Confederacy to stop fighting; he did so.

 

[cash]

But what you're forgetting is that Lee had no idea how bad it would get. Maybe Grant did, but that was not anywhere near where his thinking was or should have been. His mission was to force the Confederacy to stop fighting; he did so.

I'm not saying Lee favored the terrorist violence in Reconstruction. What I'm saying is the surrender terms, to some extent, supported the idea among former confederates that they should have a free hand in doing whatever they wanted with African-Americans.

As Elizabeth Varon shows in her book, Appomattox, former confederates interpreted government interference to protect African-Americans as "disturbing" the former confederates, something Grant promised wouldn't happen. They interpreted the 14th and 15th Amendments, which sought to give African-Americans political rights as "disturbing" them by disturbing the racial hierarchy.

Grant certainly fulfilled his mission, but even so, the surrender terms he gave Lee allowed, to a certain extent, what followed.

 

[marinegrunt]

I'm not saying Lee favored the terrorist violence in Reconstruction. What I'm saying is the surrender terms, to some extent, supported the idea among former confederates that they should have a free hand in doing whatever they wanted with African-Americans.

As Elizabeth Varon shows in her book, Appomattox, former confederates interpreted government interference to protect African-Americans as "disturbing" the former confederates, something Grant promised wouldn't happen. They interpreted the 14th and 15th Amendments, which sought to give African-Americans political rights as "disturbing" them by disturbing the racial hierarchy.

Grant certainly fulfilled his mission, but even so, the surrender terms he gave Lee allowed, to a certain extent, what followed.

Perhaps so, but those terms were not intended to allow former Confederates to reestablish themselves as ****s (which we should remember was the belief system of most Americans); they were intended to reconcile two halves of a nation. Ex-Confederates hijacked that conciliatory attitude and ran with it when they saw that the federal government was more interested in peace than the rights of freedmen. But that wasn't an intended result of Grant and Lee's negotiations. You can't give Lee a win and Grant a loss when neither was playing a game.