Why No Confederate Surrender Between Fort Fisher & Appomattox?

Joshism

Captain
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
In 1861, 1862, and 1863 the war seemed very winnable for the Confederates.

In 1864, things seemed bad for the Confederates, but they had a reasonable chance of winning by dragging the war out to cause Lincoln's defeat at the polls.

But then we come to January 1865:

  • Lee is still locked with Grant at Petersburg. The ANV is bleeding deserters, especially in the wake of Sherman's March to the Sea, and Lee knows it.
  • Sheridan has laid waste to the Shenandoah Valley and crushed the Confederate forces there.
  • Sherman has taken Atlanta and Savannah, making a morale-crushing and resourced-destroying march across Georgia in the process.
  • The only Confederate army of any significant size besides Lee's has been utterly wrecked at Franklin and Nashville. The rements start moving east to the Carolinas to confront Sherman, but the Confederate command knows how few are left.
  • Price's last ditch raid in Missouri has utterly failed.
  • Fort Fisher falls on January 15, 1865. The loss of Wilmington closes the last Confederate port of any vaguely meaningful size east of Galveston.
Between January 15 and April 9, 1865 the Confederates entertained various schemes such as Johnston's counterattack against Sherman at Bentonville, Lee's goal of escaping Petersburg to combine with Johnston against Sherman then Grant, enlistment of black soldiers in the Confederate army, and - at least in passing at Appomattox - dispersing the armies to conduct guerrilla warfare. At the Hampton Roads Conference on February 3, 1865 the Confederates still insisted on independence.

By early 1865 what cards did the Confederates seriously think they still had left to play that could result in victory (defined as they defined it: independence)? There was certainly a grass-roots peace/surrender movement in some areas, but why was there no serious pro-surrender faction in the Confederate government? Were the Confederates simply stubborn?

Does the behavior of Confederate leaders in 1865 in the face of an utterly hopeless situation tell us anything about their willingness to unilaterally secede and wage war in 1861?
 
For Lee at the least, surrender was seemingly not an option as long as he had the possibility of movement open to him. Recall that he rejected Grant's first call to surrender during the Appomattox campaign, despite the already near certain result before him.
 
Lee held a council of war of sorts to discuss guerrilla warfare at Appomattox, but he never intended to implement it. He knew the game was up, and he knew the country would be worse off if the fighting continued. Not long after the surrender he sent a letter to Davis telling him that continuing the fight in that manner wouldn't achieve independence. Lee may have kicked it around with his generals, but he knew he wasn't going that route.

As far as why they continued fighting when it looked as bad as it did I think it was a simple refusal to accept matters as they were. Foreign recognition was out and the Confederate armies were no longer in any condition to even make it too painful for the Union, let alone defeat them. Chalk it up to the same thing that any defeated army goes through before it has no choice but to quit.
 
By early 1865 what cards did the Confederates seriously think they still had left to play that could result in victory (defined as they defined it: independence)? There was certainly a grass-roots peace/surrender movement in some areas, but why was there no serious pro-surrender faction in the Confederate government? Were the Confederates simply stubborn?

Jefferson Davis certainly was. Even AFTER the fall of Richmond, he issued this statement to the people of the Confederacy (while he himself was on the run):

"We have now entered upon a new phase of a struggle the memory of which is to endure for all ages and to shed an increasing luster upon our country. Relieved from the necessity of guarding cities and particular points, important but not vital to our defense, with an army free to move from point to point and strike in detail the detachments and garrisons of the enemy, operating on the interior of our own country, where supplies are more accessible, and where the foe will be far removed from his own base and cut off from all succor in case of reverse, nothing is now needed to render our triumph certain but the exhibition of our own unquenchable resolve."

- Jefferson Davis, April 4, 1865

Source: http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=104

Does the behavior of Confederate leaders in 1865 in the face of an utterly hopeless situation tell us anything about their willingness to unilaterally secede and wage war in 1861?

Yes, I believe so. The Confederacy was based largely on delusion, which was largely a result of the Southern states isolating themselves for decades from the rest of the world and repressing any opposing viewpoint. Southern leaders deluded themselves into believing that Cotton was King, that slavery was a blessing for themselves and their slaves, that one good old Southern boy could whoop ten pasty-faced Yankee mechanics, that Europe would come begging at their knees to support them in a war, etc., etc., etc. Given this history of delusion, I don't think it's at all surprising that it would continue even after the war had been obviously lost (and even for decades afterwards).
 
By early 1865 what cards did the Confederates seriously think they still had left to play that could result in victory (defined as they defined it: independence)? There was certainly a grass-roots peace/surrender movement in some areas, but why was there no serious pro-surrender faction in the Confederate government? Were the Confederates simply stubborn?

Does the behavior of Confederate leaders in 1865 in the face of an utterly hopeless situation tell us anything about their willingness to unilaterally secede and wage war in 1861?

I think it says more about being unwilling to give up on a cause for which they had given so much until there really was no other choice. As long as they could find a sliver of hope, no matter how unlikely, they were going to keep going. They had sacrificed too much, and too many had lost their lives, for them to do otherwise.
 
I think it says more about being unwilling to give up on a cause for which they had given so much until there really was no other choice. As long as they could find a sliver of hope, no matter how unlikely, they were going to keep going. They had sacrificed too much, and too many had lost their lives, for them to do otherwise.

HOPE in a Righteous cause, It seems. Regardless of the debate that would take place after and the 150 years hense. Remember their up bringing, their education, their geographical beliefs and loyalties. Either right or wrong in hind sight. Look at all the Battles and Wars since that have turned on a brave stand or the death of a Leader or the intercept of critical information. These men had history to look back on as well. How did the Founders beat the Greatest army and navy in the world with such a rag tag group. How did the Greeks turn the Persians the first time, I believe a storm wiped out enough ships to where the battle was called. Could be off there a bit as I write from memory. Read Medal of Honor accounts from Vietnam where men held the line when lesser would have fallen back. We can say they should have done this or that but at the time, who really can say. Hind sight is always 20 /20.
 
Last edited:
Davis was incredibly irresponsible in 1865. He should have been negotiating a surrender by March instead of pretending that the war was not over. Everything that happened in the last weeks of the war shows how out of touch he was.
Indeed, the man was delusional. All those thousands of lives lost in the last few weeks of the war are are on his head.
 
I think it says more about being unwilling to give up on a cause for which they had given so much until there really was no other choice. As long as they could find a sliver of hope, no matter how unlikely, they were going to keep going. They had sacrificed too much, and too many had lost their lives, for them to do otherwise.
It's a very common human behavior. People would rather do anything than admit they were wrong and cut their losses. The problem is that their whole identity has gotten caught up in the cause. For this reason, giving up their previous stand feels like self-annihilation. Since the ego has a self-preservation instinct, most people simply will not do this.
 
Last edited:
I do think military history do show that miracles can happen...
Was Washington in a better situation before Trenton?

So I understand Lee waiting out the winter and then trying to slip south to join up with Johnston...
But I also think it is to his credits that when he was finally cornered, he didn't try to take as many federals with him as he could...
 
So I understand Lee waiting out the winter and then trying to slip south to join up with Johnston...
But I also think it is to his credits that when he was finally cornered, he didn't try to take as many federals with him as he could...
I think what Lee really deserves the most credit for at that point was the decision to not transform it to a guerrilla war.

Of course, there actually did end up being a guerrilla war (the guerrillas being the Ku Klux Klan), but that was not Robert Lee's doing.
 
Davis was incredibly irresponsible in 1865. He should have been negotiating a surrender by March instead of pretending that the war was not over. Everything that happened in the last weeks of the war shows how out of touch he was.

This is why I consider John C. Breckinridge to be one of the great heroes of American history. When he assumed office as the Confederate Secretary of War, he recognized immediately that the war was lost and turned all his energies to bringing about peace as honorably as possible and with the minimum loss of life to both sides. Imagine how much worse the situation would have been had he adopted the same attitude Davis adopted.
 
It is nearly impossible to view the outcome of a past war without thinking how wasteful and redicules it was for the loser to continue the struggle knowing what we do.
But that is not the way history happens. Neither Grant or Lee could predict the future. But that wasn't thier intent, nor would it have served their purpose.
We can compare Davis or Lee to Washington, but it really doesn't matter, the situation was totally different, technology had improved, rail roads, telegraph, steam powered boats, and there was no ocean separating the two belidgerants.
We can glorify the past, and usually we do, but that is not fair to those who served on either side, history is not preordained, it is suffered through, it is not a given.
 
I do think military history do show that miracles can happen...
Was Washington in a better situation before Trenton?

So I understand Lee waiting out the winter and then trying to slip south to join up with Johnston...
But I also think it is to his credits that when he was finally cornered, he didn't try to take as many federals with him as he could...

I think also that Lee was very respectful and mindful of the hierarchy, and especially the idea that the military was subordinate to the civilian leadership. It was not his prerogative to surrender his command because Fort Fisher fell, or because Lincoln was reelected, or because of any events that occurred outside of his department, without orders from his civilian superiors. He could and would only surrender at their command, or when the situation within his own department became untenable.
 
Davis was incredibly irresponsible in 1865. He should have been negotiating a surrender by March instead of pretending that the war was not over. Everything that happened in the last weeks of the war shows how out of touch he was.
Sort of like Hitler in his last days in the Bunker, moving imaginary Panzer division counters around on his map board when the Russians were already in Berlin.
 
IMO part of the answer goes back to the American Revolution. The Revolutionary leaders, particularly Washington, were highly esteemed at the time of the Civil War. How many times did American armies get beat on the field of battle, but continue to hold on and fight on until the British gave up. While there were different circumstances, especially the lack of direct European aid, the Southern leadership continued to believe all they had to do was hang on until the Yankees gave up.
 
When defeat means the loss of territory and money, but not the government itself, it is not so difficult to accept defeat. (Ex: French loss of islands during various wars with Britain; British loss of the American colonies, many of the early-modern wars in Europe)

But when defeat means the total loss of the government, society, and everything that makes life normal, it is much harder to accept. (Ex: Britain's potential loss to Germany after Dunkirk, Japan's loss in WW2, Germany's loss in WW2, USSR's potential loss in WW2, the Colonial's potential loss in the Revolution) The Confederate defeat is in this category and so defeat was very hard to accept.
 
Back
Top