Did the Confederacy ever officially surrender?

Factual Questions
1

I realize this has a strong potential to degenerate into a debate, but I’m looking for historical facts not polemics.

Robert Lee surrendered to Ulysses Grant on 9 April 1865. Obviously this was a major event in ending the American Civil War. But Lee was not surrendering on behalf on the Confederacy; he was just surrendering the Army of Northern Virginia that he commanded.

Richmond had fallen on 2 April and President Jefferson Davis and the Confederate government had evacuated the city. Davis and his cabinet temporarily located themselves in Danville, Virginia but they were soon forced to flee before the advancing Union forces and travel through as yet unoccupied portions of the Carolinas and Georgia.

Following Lee’s example, other Confederate generals also began to surrender in the next few weeks. But Davis continued to urge armed resistance right up until he was captured by Union troops on 10 May. On that date, Andrew Johnson, the recently inaugurated American president, declared armed resistance in the South had effectively ended.

Johnson’s announcement was a little premature. Confederate troops in Palmito Ranch, Texas launched a successful attack on 12-13 May and it was not until 23 June that Stand Watie became the last Confederate general to surrender his forces at Doaksville, Oklahoma. The American Civil War officially ended on 20 August 1866 via a Presidential declaration.

But you’ll notice that while the war did effectively end by the various military capitulations, the Confederate government never formally surrendered. Davis certainly did not and, as far as I can tell, the Confederate Congress was too disbursed by April 1865 to issue a surrender.

My question then is did I miss something? Was there ever a point when some Confederate politicians were sat down and made to sign an official document of surrender?

2

You ask an interesting question. Here is the full text of the Surrender Document, signed April 9, 1865:

The following day, Lee issued this Farewell Order:

Lincoln recognized this nuance himself, in a speech on April 11, 1865. It began:

It ended:

And to pile on, a letter from General Grant to General Lee, dated April 7, 1865, read:

Federal troops captured President Davis at Irwinville, Georgia, on May 10, 1865. He was arrested and charged with treason. The United States v. Jefferson Davis convened in Richmond on Nevember 26, 1867, but was postponed because Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States, could not attend. Davis was released on his own recognizance after bond had already been posted of $100,000 — a lot of money in those days.

In a bizarre twist, Chase later opined to Davis’ attorneys (comprised of both Northern and Southern litigators) that, in his opinion, the third section of the 14th amendment nullified the indictment of Davis.

He reasoned that, by losing his voting rights, Congress had already punished him for treason, and that therefore he could not be tried twice.

I guess, if you want to pin a date and an event on it, the War ended on May 4, 1865, when President Davis met with his cabinet members in Washington, Georgia, and disolved the Confederate government.

3

Innocent question from an Australian friend…

Is it true that due to the massive disruption in trade between the continents, various countries in Europe were seriously considering sending a massive ‘neutral’ armed force to actually ‘force’ the warring parties to stop at about the 3/4 point in the Civil War, and that it didn’t go ahead because President Lincoln gave an undertaking to surreptitiously ‘prop up’ the South financially so as to avoid total economic ruin of America as a whole (excluding Canada that is)?

4

Boo Boo Foo, I have no idea where that idea came from. I sincerely hope (and I don’t know, not having anything to do with Austalia, though I’d like to visit there) that this is not taught in schools.

It is completely false.

Now, getting past that, early on in the War Between the States (that’s the ole’ Southern term for it) there were fears that Britain and/or France would intervene to prop up . This could effectively end the Union’s naval advantage, propr up the South with outside help and aid, and turn the tide of the war decisively to the South. Napoleon the III was particularly interested in this, but he wouldn’t move without Britain. Despite a diplomatic crisis (basically a pissing match between one Yankee captain and all England) that gave Britain an excuse to sign up, Lincoln’s diplomacy and the fact that Britain did not want to fight overrode British cotton clothing maker’s impulse to protect their supply. Ironically, they did just fine buying from India.

By the 3/4 mark of the war, we weren’t trying to prop up the Confederacy, as it was the public policy to ruin it economically. Hence the blockade, the unofficial policy of looking the other way when troops foraged from farms and took a few souveneirs, and Sherman’s destruction of every damnable rail tie from Atlanta to Charleston. Its hard to imagine what Lincoln could have done to help out the Confederate economy Aeven if he cared to.

Mexico, though you seemed to forget it, is also part of America and would not benefit. Likewise the Panamanian states.

And… honestly, Britain quite possibly would have been slaughtered in a a fight with the full American armed forces on our home turf. By the end of the Civil War, we had the best, most experienced armed forces in the world. We’d have been invincible if we’d gone with the repeating rifles.

5

No.

6

There was much informal Euoropean aid to the South by way of building and fitting out merchant raiders and blockade runners, often up to, and including, the financing, provisioning, and manning of some such vessels. This provided a major sore point between the UK and the Union.

7

Given the unpreparedness of the North at the start of the Civil War, the enormous numbers of casualties on both sides and the near total devastation of the South by the end of the war, I suppose it’s an easy jump to assume that the North must also have been devastated as well. Not so.

First, the war was fought almost entirely on Southern ground. For most of the North the war was much like Vietnam: a distant battle in which their boys were dying but which gave no sense of personal danger. Robert E. Lee’s two major incursions into Northern territory – Antietam in Maryland and Gettyburg in Pennsylvania – may have caused hysteria in the public and a rise in enlistments but did relatively little devastation and that mostly to rural areas.

Over the four years of the war, the North built itself into an economic powerhouse through war contracts, much as the US did during World War II. Life went on to an astounding extent. A history of the North for those years could be written without regard to the war and would read exactly like any other four years of the second half of the 19th century.

For two major examples, the Homestead Act led thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, to migrate westward in search of land without disrupting the war effort one whit, hardly the mark of a desperate people trying to conduct a war or of a government needing bodies. (Imagine the South giving away land in Texas to draw off thousands of families.) And even more oddly, immigration was enormous during the war, with, I believe, more than a million, many of whom were Irish, coming to the North. You just don’t find massive in-migration in lands that are being economically devastated and war-torn. In fact, many of the immigrants joined the Northern army – either voluntarily or as substitutes (men could get out of service by paying $300 and finding a willing body to go in their place) – so the cohort of young men in the North was perhaps stronger at the end of the war than in the beginning, completely avoiding the usual decimation of a generation that even winners of wars normally find.

Heck, the US even joined the Universal Postal Union in 1863. War? What war?

At the end of the war, the North had in place a huge economic engine of factories, railroads, telegraph lines, and merchant ships, had completely eliminated an economic rival in the South, and had opened up a devastated half-country desperate for new goods.

As Lee once said (roughly), it is a good thing that war is so terrible or we should become too fond of it. For the North, the Civil War pushed a country torn by internal dissent and unable to truly progress into being a unified industrial powerhouse that would soon start to surpass Europe. Ironic, but history is full of irony.

8

Exapno Mapcase wrote:

Good point. The North was not hurting economically. Another example: construction of the Transcontinental Railroad commenced in 1863.

As for Europe intervening late in the war, that would have been an impossibility. The development of ironclads rendered older European vessels obsolete. So by the late stages of the war, not only did the US have the most highly-trained and best-equipped army in the world, it also had the most modern navy.

9

Didn’t the Civil War sort of begin on one man’s property-and later the armistice was signed in his house?
Wilbur McClean?

10

Wilmer McClean. Part of the first Battle of Bull Run (Manassas) was fought on his farm. Then he moved to Appomatox Courthouse, and Lee surrendered to Grant in his home. (Just think, the Confederacy could have won, if only he had moved to Boston…)

11

That’s right! WILMER. Okay. I read an historical novel told from the view point of his step-daughter, Osceola.

12

Thank you gentleman for your answers - and no offence intended. My question was based on an incorrect recollection of a 10 hour television documentary series on the Civil War and my apologies for such a poor understanding.

Your responses have been extraordinarily educational and I thank you.

P.S. I always thought the quote about it being a good thing that war is so terrible was actually a Napolean quote. Any knowledge on this anyone?

13

McLean was so upset about what had happened at Bull Run that he moved to a place that he was sure would never be involved in any further warfare. If he had moved to California, maybe;) .

Shelby Foote said it best when he talked about the economic might of the North. To paraphrase: “The North fought with one hand behind it’s back. If it had brought it’s full weight to bear on the South, the Confederacy would have been smashed to bits in 6 months.”

Of course, he was much more eloquent then that. he says this bit during the Civil War miniseries by Ken Burns.

14

If you do a Google search, the overwhelming number of responses point to Lee. He said it at the Battle of Fredericksburg, on 13 December 1862.

Some later generals seem to have repeated it but I didn’t see any evidence that earlier ones also said it.

15

Ha! No need to worry about that. You’d be lucky to hear America mentioned at all other than “it was involved in WW1, WW2 and Vietnam”. One year of ancient civilisations, two of Australian History (and there ain’t much there), one of good stuff (Federation (1901) to Hitler (end of WW2)) and then that’s it. Of course, you can do optional subjects for the final two years of school, but I don’t recall having any choices involving the American Civil War.

This was only one school, mind you, but I’d be surprised if anything approaching that level of detail was taught about the Civil War, because of course that would require overall discussion of the Civil War, factors leading up to it, foreign relations bla bla bla. Hell, I didn’t even know the CSA had a president until I looked up “Jefferson Davis” at dictionary.com not more than 10 minutes ago… and I’m interested in the whole deal. I was surprised a while back that the term “CSA” was ever used at all, so don’t go fearing that Aussies are going round thinking that the American Civil War may have been stopped three quarters of the way through because of failing economies but the Southern economy was propped up by the then American President Abraham Lincoln and thus the North won.

Hell, you should be pleased if people make the connection between “Abraham Lincoln” and “assassinated” or “Civil War” at all. A celebrity (Sam Newman, for those interested) answered on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” (hosted by his co-host of the Footy Show Eddie Maguire… it’s a long story) that Ol’ Abe was the first President of the United States… It was the first question. Only after sufficient prodding did he “get” the right answer.

16

As above, “I guess, if you want to pin a date and an event on it, the War ended on May 4, 1865, when President Davis met with his cabinet members in Washington, Georgia, and disolved the Confederate government.” This would be when for all intents and putposes the Confederacy ceased to exist as an opposition government in that part of the US.

I would put it that such a government need not “surrender” like this or in some other formal manner to legally end the war. Doing so de facto by stopping hostilities and turning themselves over to the other side works. Remember that in the eyes of the central US government, the Confederacy was an insurgency. We would not have expected (say) the Branch Davidians or the Freemen of Montana or Timothy McVeigh to sit down at a table and draw up articles of capitulation.

This isn’t intended to debate state’s rights, whether or not the South had the right to secede, etc., but only to say that as far as the Union forces and government was concerned, the Confederates were an organized and armed band operating outside of the law as they saw it. Of course, we’re talking about political law as opposed to just criminal law.

17

Pshew, thats good. I mean no offense to any foreign dopers, but it ofentimes surprises me just how little other people know of American history. Being a History major myself, you see, I do study a lot of theirs, though Australia has had a relatively limited effect on the world. Don’t think they offer any Australian history courses. :frowning:

Particul;arly since the Union did not acknowledge the Confederacy’s existance as a separate political entity.

18

[Hijack]

Well, smiling bandit, as a history major you’d presumably agree that the interest of Australian history need not stem from the “effect on the world” Australia has had. I would have thought that, for an American historian, Australia has particular interest as another example of a country settled by Europeans in the modern period who displaced indigenous people, and who grappled with the strains induced by a shortage of (European) population and an abundant frontier. For instance the parallels (and distinctions) between exploitation of slave labour in the US and exploitation of convict labour in Australia, and the long-term effects of these practices on the respective societies, must be a fascinating area of study. Similary at the level of political history there must be an interesting comparison between the American experience of achieving independence through revolutionary struggle as against the Australian experience, more than a hundred years later, of achieving independence through a process of peaceful evolution.

Your college doesn’t offer a course in Australian history? A great pity.

[/hijack]

19

As for the failure to formally surrender, I sometimes get the feeling that South Carolina is just regrouping. :wink:

20

I’m afraid not. We don’t have such a program due to the fact that

  1. The school is flat broke. This is due to

    a) The state flat broke due to horrible fiscal management that would have gotten any corporate CEO’s executed, not fired.

    b) The high council o’er the school is busy giving themselves higher salaries.

Therefore, we’re lucky to have some cutting edge local history scholars as well as one brilliant teacher, Mr. Liulevicius (Loo-Lav-i-Chus), an expert on Germany and Eastern Europe. I took his class.