Should Lee have surrendered after Lincoln's Re-election?

Should Lee have surrendered?

  • Yes

    Votes: 81 76.4%
  • No

    Votes: 25 23.6%

  • Total voters
    106
Lee himself said "We must destroy this army of Grant's before it reaches the James River otherwise it will become a siege and then it is a mere question of time." . Grant's army was on the James well before the election and Lincoln's re-election guaranteed that the CSA would have to fight at least another four years to win. They had as much chance of doing that as I had of beating Mike Tyson in his prime in a boxing match. Lee's holding out only guaranteed that the war would lose thousands of more lives for no real purpose.
 
From a military viewpoint: yes. In fact, he should have surrendered far earlier. The moment the Mississippi was lost, it was pretty much over anyway. Nothing left but needless carnage in a war the South could not, by that point, win by any means. Granting that he might not have been able to realize just how bad the situation was, he should have at least known it after Gettysburg. That was his attempt to land a "decisive blow". Instead, the Union landed a blow right in his guts, and he never recovered. A man should know when he's beaten. If he'd offered a negotiated surrender after Gettysburg, it would have meant the war would be over very quickly. Even if Davis had been fool enough to fight on without Lee and his forces, the war would be over shortly. Countless lives would have been spared.

On the other hand... I'm not sure what this would mean for slavery. While the Emancipation Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Would Lincoln be willing to accept slavery's continued existence as the price of peace? I 'm almost certain of it, even though he wouldn't have liked it. And even if he somehow managed to abolish slavery... there would be no reconstruction. Blacks in the South would remain slaves in all but name. So from a humanitarian viewpoint, I'm less than certain a 1864 surrender by Lee would have been a good thing.

I'll refrain from voting for now.
 
From a military viewpoint: yes. In fact, he should have surrendered far earlier. The moment the Mississippi was lost, it was pretty much over anyway. Nothing left but needless carnage in a war the South could not, by that point, win by any means. Granting that he might not have been able to realize just how bad the situation was, he should have at least known it after Gettysburg. That was his attempt to land a "decisive blow". Instead, the Union landed a blow right in his guts, and he never recovered. A man should know when he's beaten. If he'd offered a negotiated surrender after Gettysburg, it would have meant the war would be over very quickly. Even if Davis had been fool enough to fight on without Lee and his forces, the war would be over shortly. Countless lives would have been spared.

On the other hand... I'm not sure what this would mean for slavery. While the Emancipation Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Would Lincoln be willing to accept slavery's continued existence as the price of peace? I 'm almost certain of it, even though he wouldn't have liked it. And even if he somehow managed to abolish slavery... there would be no reconstruction. Blacks in the South would remain slaves in all but name. So from a humanitarian viewpoint, I'm less than certain a 1864 surrender by Lee would have been a good thing.

I'll refrain from voting for now.

I was speaking strictly from a military viewpoint which was under Lee's influence. He could control what he could do but not what Lincoln would do.
 
No.
The order to surrendered or not needed to come for the CSA government.
Generals do not get to decided when to surrender based on politics or who their enemy elects.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The question of loyalty to the chain of command

The question of loyalty to the chain of command and civilian government in a rebellion seems somewhat misplaced, but in a strictly legalistic sense, he could not "surrender" his army absent the US forces forcing such a surrender due to military action - think Buckner at Fort Henry, or McCown at Island Number 10.

Having said that, morally, yes, he should have - of course, morally, he should not have rebelled in the first place, much less for the cause of the rebellion. But that's a different issue, and requires a Lee vastly different than he was historically.

However, having said that, he could have taken an action after Gettysburg that would have been within his legal options as a commissioned officer, albeit of a rebellion:

He could have resigned, and made public that he was resigning in protest of Davis' government continuing to resist.

Given the generally low level of tolerance for dissent in the CSA, I'd guess he would have ended up in Libby Prison pretty damn quickly, but it certainly would have made a point.

Best,
 
The question of loyalty to the chain of command and civilian government in a rebellion seems somewhat misplaced, but in a strictly legalistic sense, he could not "surrender" his army absent the US forces forcing such a surrender due to military action - think Buckner at Fort Henry, or McCown at Island Number 10.

Having said that, morally, yes, he should have - of course, morally, he should not have rebelled in the first place, much less for the cause of the rebellion. But that's a different issue, and requires a Lee vastly different than he was historically.

However, having said that, he could have taken an action after Gettysburg that would have been within his legal options as a commissioned officer, albeit of a rebellion:

He could have resigned, and made public that he was resigning in protest of Davis' government continuing to resist.

Given the generally low level of tolerance for dissent in the CSA, I'd guess he would have ended up in Libby Prison pretty damn quickly, but it certainly would have made a point.

Best,

The CSA MIGHT survive a while if Lee resigns after Gettysburg stating it was impossible to win. After Lincoln's re-election it would start a stampede out the door. How many soldiers in the AONV will fight on if General LEE himself says it was hopeless? Longstreet would resign soon afterwards as he wanted to do so after Gettysburg. Who would lead the AONV then? Ewell? A P Hill? Neither was up to the job.
 
Yes but only in the sense that he should have surrendered from the beginning because his cause was hopeless to begin with.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes, it is an interesting potential POD, isn't it?

The CSA MIGHT survive a while if Lee resigns after Gettysburg stating it was impossible to win. After Lincoln's re-election it would start a stampede out the door. How many soldiers in the AONV will fight on if General LEE himself says it was hopeless? Longstreet would resign soon afterwards as he wanted to do so after Gettysburg. Who would lead the AONV then? Ewell? A P Hill? Neither was up to the job.

Lee resigns after Gettsyburg, stating publicly he is doing so because the war is unwinnable and the best course for the Davis Administration is to pursue a peace treaty....

Very unlikely, of course, but it does raise some interesting issues.

Davis might take command in the field himself.

Best,
 
Lee resigns after Gettsyburg, stating publicly he is doing so because the war is unwinnable and the best course for the Davis Administration is to pursue a peace treaty....

Very unlikely, of course, but it does raise some interesting issues.

Davis might take command in the field himself.

Best,

What about after Lincoln's re-election? Would you agree with me it would start a stampede out the doors?
 
Why should he resign if the north re-elect Lincoln?
I have never heard of an state ever surrendering due to the out come of the enemies election.
Are you saying if George B. McClellan won the election, Lee and Davis would surrender their state and power back to the Union.
 
Why should he resign if the north re-elect Lincoln?
I have never heard of an state ever surrendering due to the out come of the enemies election.
Are you saying if George B. McClellan won the election, Lee and Davis would surrender their state and power back to the Union.

No, what I am saying is that made it very obvious that it was militarily hopeless. Lincoln's re-election guaranteed four more years of war. The South could not hold out another four years. If Little Mac got elected then maybe some kind of negotiated settlement could be worked out. Not likely, but possible. Lincoln's re-election made any victory by the CSA impossible. It isn't Lincoln himself but what that meant that should have caused Lee to give up.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
I think the divisions within the rebellion's leadership

What about after Lincoln's re-election? Would you agree with me it would start a stampede out the doors?

I think the divisions within the rebellion's leadership would be made manifest, to reflect the divisions within the rebel states' population(s); in a lot of ways - demographically, politically, economically, and, of course, geographically - the confederacy was a very "brittle" place.

Even setting aside the most obvious overt divides (Unionist vs. rebel, white vs. black, upper south vs lower south, etc.) the confederacy - as a society - was riven with divisions, obvious and otherwise; if someone with the reputation and influence of Lee had resigned, essentially "opting out" late in 1863, the impact is potentially huge...

Images of the Russian forces late in 1917 come to mind...so yes, something of a sauve qui peut would certainly be a possibility.

Best,
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I think the proper question should be whether Jefferson Davis, not Lee, should have surrendered.

But yes, the South should have thrown in the towel after Lincoln's reelection, for that event made clear that the Confederacy had absolutely no chance left. Interestingly, when John C. Breckinridge was brought in as Secretary of War in January of 1865, he made it his mission to prepare for the surrender he saw as inevitable and to persuade Davis (a man not very open to persuasion) that he should give up the fight and flee the country. When Breckinridge sent a circular around to the main military commanders and department bureau chiefs, Lee responded to Breckinridge by saying that they needed to seek terms with the enemy as quickly as possible.
 
I think the divisions within the rebellion's leadership would be made manifest, to reflect the divisions within the rebel states' population(s); in a lot of ways - demographically, politically, economically, and, of course, geographically - the confederacy was a very "brittle" place.

Even setting aside the most obvious overt divides (Unionist vs. rebel, white vs. black, upper south vs lower south, etc.) the confederacy - as a society - was riven with divisions, obvious and otherwise; if someone with the reputation and influence of Lee had resigned, essentially "opting out" late in 1863, the impact is potentially huge...

Images of the Russian forces late in 1917 come to mind...so yes, something of a sauve qui peut would certainly be a possibility.

Best,

It would have also sent Union morale soaring. The South's top general resigning would greatly encourage Union troops.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep, there is that...echoes of von Rundstedt's

It would have also sent Union morale soaring. The South's top general resigning would greatly encourage Union troops.

Yep, there is that...echoes of von Rundstedt's supposed "make peace, you fools" comment.

Of course, even von Rundstedt did not have the personal fortitude to circulate his opinion publicly; my guess is neither would Lee.

Not many profiles in courage when it comes to surrender, other than at the bitter end.

Best,
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Of course, even von Rundstedt did not have the personal fortitude to circulate his opinion publicly; my guess is neither would Lee.

For very different reasons. Lee was a gentleman who respected civilian control over the military. Rundstedt, by contrast, did not want to hanged by a razor wire.
 
Yep, there is that...echoes of von Rundstedt's supposed "make peace, you fools" comment.

Of course, even von Rundstedt did not have the personal fortitude to circulate his opinion publicly; my guess is neither would Lee.

Not many profiles in courage when it comes to surrender, other than at the bitter end.

Best,


Obviously he didn't otherwise it would have happened.
 
Not many profiles in courage when it comes to surrender, other than at the bitter end.

There are lots of situations where soldiers fight to the bitter end of a war rather than surrender.

For instance, a U.S. armored division established a bridgehead over the Elbe River in late April 1945. They were driven back by a German counterattack. Why would Germans do it?

Part of the reason, I think, is that the longer a war has gone on, the greater the emotional investment in the cause. To surrender means to abandon the cause, and to write off all the sacrifices made for it. It is extremely difficult, by several accounts. Lee himself said at Appomattox that he "would rather die a thousand deaths".

Then there was the last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine XI. When the Turks broke through the walls, he cried out, "The city has fallen and I am alive!" Then he tore off his imperial purple cape and charged into the melee, sword in hand; his body was never identified.

It's much easier if the cause is truly discredited. The Italians didn't have much trouble with the surrender in 1943.
 
Top