Appomattox Day

[Albany Rifles]

9 April marks the date of Lee's Army of the Northern Virginia's surrender to US Grant's Armies of th ePotomac & James at Appomattox Courthouse, VA in 1865.

 

[Lees]

@Albany Rifles

The War didn't end on April 9th. I am surprised so many have let this statement go without reply. But maybe I shouldn't be, seing's how so much fake history is being taught today.

There were still other Southern armies in the field.

The last battle of the War Between The States was at Palmetto Ranch Texas. And the Confederates won. That was May 12-13, 1865.

Aug. 20, 1866 is usually the date assigned officially for the end of that war.

And as Lincoln was killed on April 14, 1865, your Death Certificate is in error.

Plus, before you assign death to the Confederacy, there was still the Reconstruction to be carried out. And that was nothing but a conintuation of that war with the South fighting underground. Which, we, the South, won, by the way.

Lees

 

[Officer of Engineers]

As someone with no dog in this fight (a Canadian), allow me to answer for AR,

@Albany Rifles

The War didn't end on April 9th. I am surprised so many have let this statement go without reply. But maybe I shouldn't be, seing's how so much fake history is being taught today.

There were still other Southern armies in the field.

The last battle of the War Between The States was at Palmetto Ranch Texas. And the Confederates won. That was May 12-13, 1865.

Doesn't matter. The last effective army surrendered on 9 April. The rest were mop op operations.

Aug. 20, 1866 is usually the date assigned officially for the end of that war.

De facto dates and De jour dates.

And as Lincoln was killed on April 14, 1865, your Death Certificate is in error.

And has zero impact on the war.

Plus, before you assign death to the Confederacy, there was still the Reconstruction to be carried out. And that was nothing but a conintuation of that war with the South fighting underground. Which, we, the South, won, by the way.

Lees

Speaking as a military historian, this sounds extremely like India conquer her conquerors, Persia Islamisized the Mongols, and China Chinesed the Yuans. You're basically saying the South Southernized the South. The fact that you are Americans speaks volumes on who actually won the war and it ain't the South.

 

[Lees]

As someone with no dog in this fight (a Canadian), allow me to answer for AR,


Doesn't matter. The last effective army surrendered on 9 April. The rest were mop op operations.


De facto dates and De jour dates.


And has zero impact on the war.


Speaking as a military historian, this sounds extremely like India conquer her conquerors, Persia Islamisized the Mongols, and China Chinesed the Yuans. You're basically saying the South Southernized the South. The fact that you are Americans speaks volumes on who actually won the war and it ain't the South.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but it does to me. When one wants to boast the end of the Confederacy, he should get the dates right. And, Johnstons's army was larger than Lees and still in the field. And Kirby's army was still in the field also. Point being, Appomattox was not the end of the Confederacy.

So what? It has an impact on the false death certificate the poster presented. And I was clear that was what I was addressing.

No, I said the South won the battle of the 'Reconstruction'. I said the war of the Reconstruction was won by the South. The North was not able to do to the South what it set out to do.

Of course the South lost the military victory. But that was not the end. There would be 12 more years of resistance.

You say you're an historian. Yet your statements, 'Doesn't matter', and the dates are 'De facto and De jour', only lead to myth making. And there is enough of that already concerning the War Between The States.

Lees

 

[tbm3fan]

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but it does to me. When one wants to boast the end of the Confederacy, he should get the dates right. And, Johnstons's army was larger than Lees and still in the field. And Kirby's army was still in the field also. Point being, Appomattox was not the end of the Confederacy.

So what? It has an impact on the false death certificate the poster presented. And I was clear that was what I was addressing.

No, I said the South won the battle of the 'Reconstruction'. I said the war of the Reconstruction was won by the South. The North was not able to do to the South what it set out to do.

Of course the South lost the military victory. But that was not the end. There would be 12 more years of resistance.

You say you're an historian. Yet your statements, 'Doesn't matter', and the dates are 'De facto and De jour', only lead to myth making. And there is enough of that already concerning the War Between The States.

Lees

We all know Lincoln died on April 15th. However, AR is not off with that joking death certificate as things were pretty much finished with Lee out. I guess someone's didn't catch the irony.

Confederate government ended May 10th when Davis was captured. Individual forces continued to surrender in the following weeks.

This battle, you mention, had more to do with hubris, ego, and economics than anything else. The Union commander was new, was never in combat, and had command of a new Negro force. He wanted to prove his cajones with those soldiers even though there had been an accepted truce for quite awhile down there. The Confederate commander, on the other hand, wanted to protect a large shipment of cotton which was valuable to him. Absent those two main factors and nothing would have happened.

April 20, 1866? So a proclamation officially saying the insurrection ended? OE is right a de facto date or who cares as I say. Armies were no more long before that except maybe diehard Confederates.

As far as Reconstruction you are right. The South isn't much different today than it was then. Still heavily prejudiced in many regions populated by the my great, great, great granddaddy fought in the war ancestors.

 

[Lees]

We all know Lincoln died on April 15th. However, AR is not off with that joking death certificate as things were pretty much finished with Lee out. I guess someone's didn't catch the irony.

Confederate government ended May 10th when Davis was captured. Individual forces continued to surrender in the following weeks.

This battle, you mention, had more to do with hubris, ego, and economics than anything else. The Union commander was new, was never in combat, and had command of a new Negro force. He wanted to prove his cajones with those soldiers even though there had been an accepted truce for quite awhile down there. The Confederate commander, on the other hand, wanted to protect a large shipment of cotton which was valuable to him. Absent those two main factors and nothing would have happened.

April 20, 1866? So a proclamation officially saying the insurrection ended? OE is right a de facto date or who cares as I say. Armies were no more long before that except maybe diehard Confederates.

As far as Reconstruction you are right. The South isn't much different today than it was then. Still heavily prejudiced in many regions populated by the my great, great, great granddaddy fought in the war ancestors.

Pretty much finished, is not finished.

Yes, with Davis capture the Confederate government was no longer active.

As did the whole War Between the States, have more to do with hubris, ego, and economics. Still a War. Still a battle.

The 'insurrection' you speak of was by the North, not the South. Yes a proclamation officially saying the War ended was necessary. Why? Because the South never surrenedered. Only Jeff Davis could agree to the terms of surrender. And look hard as you might, you will find no signed surrender papers for the end of that War.

Yes, as I said, the North was not able to do what it wanted to with the South after the military conflict was over. Thus the Federal governament continues to this day their prejudicial and hateful 'Reconstruction' of the South. Only now, that 'Reconstruction' involves the whole nation of America.

Silly Yankees, couldn't see they were fighting against America. And when the South lost, America lost.

The chickens come home to roost.

Lees

 

[Steph]

It is very rare for defeated rebels to sign any document with their legitimate authority to cease hostilities. This would be a recognition of their political existence. Therefore, this only happens when they are victorious.

 

[Lees]

It is very rare for defeated rebels to sign any document with their legitimate authority to cease hostilities. This would be a recognition of their political existence. Therefore, this only happens when they are victorious.

1.) First of all, the South was not the Rebels. The North was. Why do you suggest the South were the Rebels?

2.) Second of all, who are you calling 'their legitiamate authority' and on what basis?

3.) Third of all, just because the North uses the 'excuse' that a signed surrender would recognize their political existence, doesn't mean that is true. Their political existence was a reality. They were a Confederacy of States with a Constitution and a President and a Cabinet.

4.) Fourth of all, that Confederacy of States was based upon the right of secession. A right that every state who freely entered that Union had.

Consider the 'Trial of Jeff Davis'. Once the South was militarily defeated and Davis caught, the North bragged how they were going to try him before the whole word and show the world what they do to 'traitors' by hanging him from a sour apple tree. And those yankee lawyers just hoped they would be the ones chosen to prosecute Davis.

But a silly problem arose...called the Constitution. With Lincoln gone, and civilian courts allowed back instead of despotic military executions, now the Constitution was once again in play. And those yankee lawyers were smart enough to see, this was a no win for them. Which means they saw Jeff Davis was not a traitor. The North was the traitor.

They tried to offer Davis a pardon, hoping he would take it. He would not. He wanted his day in court. He languished in prison under torturous conditions for two years waiting for his 'speedy' trial. Finally they, the North, through a dog and pony show, figured out a way to free Davis, which freed the North from being found guilty of treason and responsible for the some 800,000 deaths in that war.

The trial of Jeff Davis that was promised before the whole world, but never happened, proves the legitimacy of the Confederate States. The North would rather see the most hated man in the North go free instead of the truth being displayed before the whole world.

Lees

 

[Officer of Engineers]

1.) First of all, the South was not the Rebels. The North was. Why do you suggest the South were the Rebels?

You're got to be shitting me! By definition, rebels are the losing minority group defying the central authority. If they were victorious, they would be called Revolutionaries. The Confederacy were not Revolutionaries.

2.) Second of all, who are you calling 'their legitiamate authority' and on what basis?

Central and majority power and I don't mean population.

3.) Third of all, just because the North uses the 'excuse' that a signed surrender would recognize their political existence, doesn't mean that is true. Their political existence was a reality. They were a Confederacy of States with a Constitution and a President and a Cabinet.

4.) Fourth of all, that Confederacy of States was based upon the right of secession. A right that every state who freely entered that Union had.

Consider the 'Trial of Jeff Davis'. Once the South was militarily defeated and Davis caught, the North bragged how they were going to try him before the whole word and show the world what they do to 'traitors' by hanging him from a sour apple tree. And those yankee lawyers just hoped they would be the ones chosen to prosecute Davis.

But a silly problem arose...called the Constitution. With Lincoln gone, and civilian courts allowed back instead of despotic military executions, now the Constitution was once again in play. And those yankee lawyers were smart enough to see, this was a no win for them. Which means they saw Jeff Davis was not a traitor. The North was the traitor.

They tried to offer Davis a pardon, hoping he would take it. He would not. He wanted his day in court. He languished in prison under torturous conditions for two years waiting for his 'speedy' trial. Finally they, the North, through a dog and pony show, figured out a way to free Davis, which freed the North from being found guilty of treason and responsible for the some 800,000 deaths in that war.

The trial of Jeff Davis that was promised before the whole world, but never happened, proves the legitimacy of the Confederate States. The North would rather see the most hated man in the North go free instead of the truth being displayed before the whole world.

Lees

I'm not even going to address these last. They're propaganda. Again, I'm a Canadian military historian and by that, I mean I look at when a side loses it's centre of decisive action. For the ACW, that was Lee's surrender. The Confederacy, despite having surviving armies, left Grant's Army unchecked and pure freedom to move. No one was left to check Grant!

ALL Your remaining Armies were checked! Despite their victories. That's why they're called MOP UP Operations!

 

[Monash]

1.) First of all, the South was not the Rebels. The North was. Why do you suggest the South were the Rebels?

2.) Second of all, who are you calling 'their legitiamate authority' and on what basis?

3.) Third of all, just because the North uses the 'excuse' that a signed surrender would recognize their political existence, doesn't mean that is true. Their political existence was a reality. They were a Confederacy of States with a Constitution and a President and a Cabinet.

4.) Fourth of all, that Confederacy of States was based upon the right of secession. A right that every state who freely entered that Union had.

Consider the 'Trial of Jeff Davis'. Once the South was militarily defeated and Davis caught, the North bragged how they were going to try him before the whole word and show the world what they do to 'traitors' by hanging him from a sour apple tree. And those yankee lawyers just hoped they would be the ones chosen to prosecute Davis.

But a silly problem arose...called the Constitution. With Lincoln gone, and civilian courts allowed back instead of despotic military executions, now the Constitution was once again in play. And those yankee lawyers were smart enough to see, this was a no win for them. Which means they saw Jeff Davis was not a traitor. The North was the traitor.

They tried to offer Davis a pardon, hoping he would take it. He would not. He wanted his day in court. He languished in prison under torturous conditions for two years waiting for his 'speedy' trial. Finally they, the North, through a dog and pony show, figured out a way to free Davis, which freed the North from being found guilty of treason and responsible for the some 800,000 deaths in that war.

The trial of Jeff Davis that was promised before the whole world, but never happened, proves the legitimacy of the Confederate States. The North would rather see the most hated man in the North go free instead of the truth being displayed before the whole world.

Lees

Your argument is IMO wrong on a number of points. Firstly as it unfolded historically in legal terms the Souths succession was a act of armed Rebellion against the then legitimate government of the Union. BUT this did not have to be the case. Succession could have perhaps proceeded legitimately if only the Confederate States had first tried to argue their right to succeed before the Supreme Court of the United States - prior to taking up arms! It is a fact that the illegality of succession was only established at law after the war ended, not before it started.

So at the time of succession it was an open question whether or not an inferred right to succeed from the Union could be found within the Constitution. If the Court found in the Souths favor? Then the Confederacy would have had a legal foundation for it's actions and any attempt by the Federal Government to physically interfere with the succession process would have been illegal. In other words if the North had then chosen to pursue war as a means of preventing succession they would have been acting illegally. Unfortunately for the South it did not take this action and instead it went directly to force of arms. History could perhaps have turned out differently if the South hadn't acted so hastily.

Secondly it is fallacy that the mere act of drawing up a constitution, appointing a government and electing a President establishes a polity. Anyone anywhere can draw up a constitution and form a 'government'. That doesn't mean its legitimate under international law. What is required for legitimacy under international law is:

a) Recognition of it's legitimacy by a significant number of fellow States
b) The ability to exercise control over a clearly defined territory
c) The ability to engage in international relations i.e. sign treaties & join organizations made up of other States.
d) Stability and permanency. In other words a State cannot be said to exist if it's in a constant state of flux. It's government and borders have to remain relatively stable.

The Confederacy failed on three of those four points a) c) & d). As far as I can determine it was never recognized as a legitimate State by any foreign power. It also wasn't able to/didn't sign treaties with any other government and while it did have clearly defined territories it certainly lacked permanency - the confederacy was gone a mere four years after it was founded! These are all matters of historical record BTW, of fact!

 

[tbm3fan]

1.) First of all, the South was not the Rebels. The North was. Why do you suggest the South were the Rebels?

2.) Second of all, who are you calling 'their legitiamate authority' and on what basis?

3.) Third of all, just because the North uses the 'excuse' that a signed surrender would recognize their political existence, doesn't mean that is true. Their political existence was a reality. They were a Confederacy of States with a Constitution and a President and a Cabinet.

4.) Fourth of all, that Confederacy of States was based upon the right of secession. A right that every state who freely entered that Union had.

Consider the 'Trial of Jeff Davis'. Once the South was militarily defeated and Davis caught, the North bragged how they were going to try him before the whole word and show the world what they do to 'traitors' by hanging him from a sour apple tree. And those yankee lawyers just hoped they would be the ones chosen to prosecute Davis.

But a silly problem arose...called the Constitution. With Lincoln gone, and civilian courts allowed back instead of despotic military executions, now the Constitution was once again in play. And those yankee lawyers were smart enough to see, this was a no win for them. Which means they saw Jeff Davis was not a traitor. The North was the traitor.

They tried to offer Davis a pardon, hoping he would take it. He would not. He wanted his day in court. He languished in prison under torturous conditions for two years waiting for his 'speedy' trial. Finally they, the North, through a dog and pony show, figured out a way to free Davis, which freed the North from being found guilty of treason and responsible for the some 800,000 deaths in that war.

The trial of Jeff Davis that was promised before the whole world, but never happened, proves the legitimacy of the Confederate States. The North would rather see the most hated man in the North go free instead of the truth being displayed before the whole world.

Lees

OMG, a Southern Apologist still to this day and age. Yet, I did mention the great, great, great granddaddy bit. By the way where was that clause in the US Constitution. You do know what a clause is? I know I am expecting a lot so I won't hold my breath.

Color it any way you want but in the end it was about slavery which apparently, from what I am reading, you are Ok with. Of course my ancestors arrived, from Ireland, after the war so technically I have no horse in this race, but even still, you can't hide your beliefs from me under any guise.

 

[Lees]

You're got to be shitting me! By definition, rebels are the losing minority group defying the central authority. If they were victorious, they would be called Revolutionaries. The Confederacy were not Revolutionaries.


Central and majority power and I don't mean population.


I'm not even going to address these last. They're propaganda. Again, I'm a Canadian military historian and by that, I mean I look at when a side loses it's centre of decisive action. For the ACW, that was Lee's surrender. The Confederacy, despite having surviving armies, left Grant's Army unchecked and pure freedom to move. No one was left to check Grant!

ALL Your remaining Armies were checked! Despite their victories. That's why they're called MOP OP Operations!

No, by definition the victors get to 'name' the rebels. But in reality, the South was not the Rebels, the North was. The Southern States did not rebel against the Federal government. Each state seceded from the Federal government, that central power, which was it's right.

Your accusation of 'propaganda' is false. Everything I said was true. The reason Jeff Davis was never tried was that the trial would reveal the guilt of the North in that War. Thus they, in essence, just opened the doors and said, go away.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Your argument is IMO wrong on a number of points. Firstly as it unfolded historically in legal terms the Souths succession was a act of armed Rebellion against the then legitimate government of the Union. BUT this did not have to be the case. Succession could have perhaps proceeded legitimately if only the Confederate States had first tried to argue their right to succeed before the Supreme Court of the United States - prior to taking up arms! It is a fact that the illegality of succession was only established at law after the war ended, not before it started.

So at the time of succession it was an open question whether or not an inferred right to succeed from the Union could be found within the Constitution. If the Court found in the Souths favor? Then the Confederacy would have had a legal foundation for it's actions and any attempt by the Federal Government to physically interfere with the succession process would have been illegal. In other words if the North had then chosen to pursue war as a means of preventing succession they would have been acting illegally. Unfortunately for the South it did not take this action and instead it went directly to force of arms. History could perhaps have turned out differently if the South hadn't acted so hastily.

Secondly it is fallacy that the mere act of drawing up a constitution, appointing a government and electing a President establishes a polity. Anyone anywhere can draw up a constitution and form a 'government'. That doesn't mean its legitimate under international law. What is required for legitimacy under international law is:

a) Recognition of it's legitimacy by a least a majority of fellow States
b) The ability to exercise control over a clearly defined territory
c) The ability to engage in international relations i.e. sign treaties & join organizations made up of other States.
d) Stability and permanency. In other words a State cannot be said to exist if it's in a constant state of flux. It's government and borders have to remain relatively stable.

The Confederacy failed on three of those four points a) c) & d). As far as I can determine it was never recognized as a legitimate State by any foreign power. It also wasn't able to/didn't sign treaties with any other government and while it did have clearly defined territories it certainly lacked permanency - the confederacy was gone a mere four years after it was founded! These are all matters of historical record BTW, of fact!

No, secession is not armed rebellion. It is secession. What does the Declaration of Independence say? "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal status to which the laws of nature ande nature's God entitles them, a descent rerspect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

And each Southern state did just that. Peacefully.

a.) No state needs any other state to recognize it's secession. It's up to the State.

b.) A war was fought, over the South seceding. No time allowed for defined territory.

c.) A war was being fought, the South was blockaded. No opportunity to engage in international relations.

d.) A war determined the stability and permanancy. Not the opportunity to exist as a stable nation.

Your four points make no sense.

Lees

 

[Lees]

OMG, a Southern Apologist still to this day and age. Yet, I did mention the great, great, great granddaddy bit. By the way where was that clause in the US Constitution. You do know what a clause is? I know I am expecting a lot so I won't hold my breath.

Color it any way you want but in the end it was about slavery which apparently, from what I am reading, you are Ok with. Of course my ancestors arrived, from Ireland, after the war so technically I have no horse in this race, but even still, you can't hide your beliefs from me under any guise.

What clause are you looking for?

The war was over slavery, yes. But, it was over slavery which was protected by the Constitution. There is the rub. The South was doing nothing wrong. The South was not rebel or traitor. The North was.

How have I tried to hide my beliefs?

Lees

 

[Steph]

c.) A war was being fought, the South was blockaded. No opportunity to engage in international relations.

That is false.
The Confederation sent diplomats to France and Great Britain. They stayed in Europe for 4 years, seeking international recognition. That is at least an opportunity.

 

[Steph]

Everything I said was true. The reason Jeff Davis was never tried was that the trial would reveal the guilt of the North in that War.

What is your source for that ?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

The war was over slavery, yes. But, it was over slavery which was protected by the Constitution. There is the rub. The South was doing nothing wrong. The South was not rebel or traitor. The North was.

My God. You actually believe this shit! Nothing wrong with slavery? Everything is wrong with slavery. Even the original US Constitution.

 

[tbm3fan]

What clause are you looking for?

Never mind question asked and answered.

The war was over slavery, yes. But, it was over slavery which was protected by the Constitution. There is the rub. The South was doing nothing wrong. The South was not rebel or traitor. The North was.

Holy shit. So slavery was/is Ok still?

How have I tried to hide my beliefs?

Lees

Not anymore they are out in the open.

 

[TopHatter]

What clause are you looking for?

The war was over slavery, yes. But, it was over slavery which was protected by the Constitution. There is the rub. The South was doing nothing wrong. The South was not rebel or traitor. The North was.

How have I tried to hide my beliefs?

And now, nearly 165 years removed, how do you feel about the South's "cause", the defense of slavery and a society fundamentally based on white supremacy?

 

[Monash]

No, secession is not armed rebellion. It is secession. What does the Declaration of Independence say? "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal status to which the laws of nature ande nature's God entitles them, a descent rerspect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

And each Southern state did just that. Peacefully.

a.) No state needs any other state to recognize it's secession. It's up to the State.

b.) A war was fought, over the South seceding. No time allowed for defined territory.

c.) A war was being fought, the South was blockaded. No opportunity to engage in international relations.

d.) A war determined the stability and permanancy. Not the opportunity to exist as a stable nation.

Your four points make no sense.

Lees

To bad they didn't do it legally then isn't it! For the rest? Do your research before posting.

Your first point is total bollocks, the exact opposite of what intentional law says is the case. No State can exist unless others recognize it. Case in point Palestine.

Your second point is wrong because the territory of the the Confederacy was defined - by the preexisting borders of the member States. Who wrote it's Constitution, who then signed that constitution on behalf of the would be members? Who drew up all the maps showing the borders of the Confederacy at the start of the War? Some of which still exist and are held in museums and libraries. Who do you think did all of that? Lincoln? The Confederacy defined it's own borders. That's historical fact.

Your third point? Also wrong. Learn your own history! Look up men named William Yancy, Ambrose Mann and Edwin de Leon amongst others. They all represented the Confederacy in overseas diplomatic roles during the war. Without achieving anything!

Your last point? Wrong again, under international law the cause of the impermanence or instability is irrelevant. If other States don't recognize it's existence and a self proclaimed state collapses for any reason? To bad so sad.

As for my points not making any sense? Again to bad so sad. In summery that's what international law sets as the preconditions for recognition of a sovereign state, whether you like or not, whether you understand it or not.