Famous Civil War General Was Once Stationed in Monterey and You Can Still See His Home

KSBW ^ | Jun 19, 2023 | Josh Copitch

[x]

Much depends on 1) whether keeping horses and sidearms (for officers) was a condition without which Lee (and Johnston and others) wouldn’t have surrendered or a generous concession by the victors that they didn’t have to make to receive the surrender of the defeated, 2) whether you are using “condition” to refer to the terms of the surrender or you recognize a difference between “conditions” and “terms,” and 3) what constitutes a negotiation: do the two sides have to sit down and hash out terms or does the victor’s presentation of terms, take them or leave them, constitute a negotiated and conditional surrender?

There’s a controversy about Japan’s surrender in WWII. The Allies demanded Japan’s unconditional surrender. We occupied their country and dissolved their government and military, yet we let them keep their emperor. Was that a condition or a concession? Was the surrender conditional or unconditional? I’d have to do more reading to come up with an answer.

Discussion is further complicated by “unconditional surrender” in the ancient world which made no guarantees to the defeated whatsoever. Cities could be destroyed, populations enslaved or massacred. Few “unconditional surrenders” in modern times are like that. In the modern sense of the term, Lee’s surrender does look a lot like an unconditional surrender.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Retaining sidearms and horses was a condition of surrender so your claim the surrender was unconditional doesn’t make sense.
Perhaps the use of quotes around the word unconditional was your way of acknowleding it was, in fact, conditional."

Yes, like the Japanese surrender in 1945 was said to be "unconditional", but in fact Japan did keep its emperor.
Also, in 1781, at the Battle of Yorktown, the British surrender was said to be "unconditional", but in fact there was a long list of terms which included officers keeping their sidearms, every soldier keeping his private property and prisoners to be fed the same rations as US soldiers.

jeffersondem: "Of course, that did not happen. The disaster at Appomattox is why the federal government debt is thirty trillion dollars; most acquired from non-defense spending."

Sure, I get it, you'd like to blame everything on Lincoln, but I can just as easily blame everything on, for example, Jefferson Davis.
If Davis had not ordered Fort Sumter "reduced", then there would be no Civil War and none of those other bad things which so vex you, would have happened.

So, don't blame Lincoln, blame Davis.

[jeffersondem]

“Yes, like the Japanese surrender in 1945 was said to be “unconditional”, but in fact Japan did keep its emperor.”

Not sure General Grant was anticipating the circumstances of Japan’s surrender when he interviewed General Lee, but I have no doubt Sherman would have welcomed the opportunity to drop an atomic bomb on Mt. Vernon.

As to your earlier claim that began: “Every CSA surrender was “unconditional” . . .”

That is not correct. No big deal. You were probably just repeating something you heard.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I have no doubt Sherman would have welcomed the opportunity to drop an atomic bomb on Mt. Vernon."

I'm certain Sherman was highly respectful of George Washington's memory since they shared several key values:

1. Both believed in the ultimate value of the United States as... well, united and states.

2. Both lead armies to defeat rebellions against the United States.
   
   • In Pres. Washington's case it was to defeat the 1792-4 Whiskey Rebellion.
     
   • In Sherman's case it was to defeat the 1861-5 Slavers' Rebellion.

3. Sherman's 1864 army of about 100,000 men was larger than Washington's of 13,000 in 1794, but the US 1864 population was nearly ten times larger than in 1794, so, relative to populations, they commanded the same size armies and, of course, both were victorious -- though, as it turned out, the Whiskey Rebels needed only to sober up, while Slaver Rebels took considerably more... ah... persuasion.

4. Both Washington and Sherman believed that slavery was wrong and should be gradually abolished.

5. Both believed that in peacetime the legalities of slavery were matters of individual states' authority.

6. Both offered the enemy's slaves freedom in exchange for military service.

That's why I don't think Sherman would blame George Washington for the US Civil War.

jeffersondem: "As to your earlier claim that began: “Every CSA surrender was “unconditional” . . .”"

Again, a matter of definitions -- famously, "Unconditional Surrender Grant" told Buckner at Fort Donalson that only "unconditional surrender" was acceptable, and I can't find any record of conditions allowed by Grant.

At Appomattox Court House, the words "unconditional surrender" were actually spoken by Union Gen. George Custer to CSA Gen. Longstreet.
But when Grant met with Lee, he proposed and Lee accepted the following:

"In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th inst., I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of N. Va. on the following terms, to wit:
• Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate.
  One copy to be given to an officer designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate.
• The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged, and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands.
  
• The arms, artillery and public property to be parked and stacked, and turned over to the officer appointed by me to receive them.
• This will not embrace the side-arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage.
  
• This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.[17]"

Notice, first, that these are Grant's conditions, not Lee's.
And, second, compare these terms to, for example, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which imposed a long list of punishments on defeated Germans, so by contrast, Grant's "unconditional" conditions seem mild, almost non-existent.

So I'd think the bottom line here, as our FRiend x pointed out, is that conditions allowed by the victor are not counted the same as those insisted on by the vanquished.

Feel free to correct me on this, if you can find examples of defeated Confederates imposing conditions on the victorious Union army.

Yes, of course, there is a larger point here, to which I readily agree, and that is the Confederate government itself never officially surrendered, conditionally or any otherwise.
And since the words "Confederate" and "Democrats" are synonymous for all practical purposes, that can help explain why Democrats have remained at war against the United States, our Constitution and our values, ever since.

😄

[jeffersondem]

"I see that the nonsense here is growing ever deeper and thicker. So let's add some facts to an otherwise fanciful tall tale. First of all, this is the core of Sherman's Order Number 120, in November 1864: “V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.”
So, Sherman based his Special Field Orders No. 120 (November 9, 1864) on Lincoln's General Orders No. 100 (the Lieber Code, April 24, 1863) for the Union Army. After Confederate surrenders, in June 1865 Sherman was assigned to the Military Division of Missouri, which covered all the land between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains, so Sherman was not involved in Reconstruction. On the subject of Confederate surrenders, there were many, spread over several months: “Confederate army units surrendered in various places on April 12, 16, 19, 20,21, 26, and 27. “Various Confederate units surrendered on May 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 26 and 30. “Confederate surrenders also occurred on June 2, 3 and 23. “On November 6, 1865 the CSS Shenandoah surrendered to HMS Donelgal at Liverpool England.
“On August 20, 1866, President Andrew Johnson declared what he called the “insurrection” officially over and peace restored. Every CSA surrender was “unconditional” including the delivery of weapons and disbanding of units, though, iirc, officers kept their sidearms and cavalry their horses.
As for alleged “crazies” sent after the war to rape, burn and pillage the South, we are now into the land of Lost Cause mythology, totally fanciful, utterly devoid of historical facts, the myths were intended to, and were successful in, solidifying “The South” politically as Democrats.Much depends on 1) whether keeping horses and sidearms (for officers) was a condition without which Lee (and Johnston and others) wouldn't have surrendered or a generous concession by the victors that they didn't have to make to receive the surrender of the defeated, 2) whether you are using “condition” to refer to the terms of the surrender or you recognize a difference between “conditions” and “terms,” and 3) what constitutes a negotiation: do the two sides have to sit down and hash out terms or does the victor's presentation of terms, take them or leave them, constitute a negotiated and conditional surrender? There's a controversy about Japan's surrender in WWII. The Allies demanded Japan's unconditional surrender. We occupied their country and dissolved their government and military, yet we let them keep their emperor. Was that a condition or a concession? Was the surrender conditional or unconditional? I'd have to do more reading to come up with an answer. Discussion is further complicated by “unconditional surrender” in the ancient world which made no guarantees to the defeated whatsoever. Cities could be destroyed, populations enslaved or massacred. Few “unconditional surrenders” in modern times are like that. In the modern sense of the term, Lee's surrender does look a lot like an unconditional surrender. Yes, like the Japanese surrender in 1945 was said to be “unconditional”, but in fact Japan did keep its emperor. Also, in 1781, at the Battle of Yorktown, the British surrender was said to be “unconditional”, but in fact there was a long list of terms which included officers keeping their sidearms, every soldier keeping his private property and prisoners to be fed the same rations as US soldiers.Sure, I get it, you'd like to blame everything on Lincoln, but I can just as easily blame everything on, for example, Jefferson Davis. If Davis had not ordered Fort Sumter “reduced”, then there would be no Civil War and none of those other bad things which so vex you, would have happened. So, don't blame Lincoln, blame Davis. I'm certain Sherman was highly respectful of George Washington's memory since they shared several key values: Both believed in the ultimate value of the United States as... well, united and states Both lead armies to defeat rebellions against the United StatesIn Pres. Washington's case it was to defeat the 1792-4 Whiskey Rebellion. In Sherman's case it was to defeat the 1861-5 Slavers’ Rebellion Sherman's 1864 army of about 100,000 men was larger than Washington's of 13,000 in 1794, but the US 1864 population was nearly ten times larger than in 1794, so, relative to populations, they commanded the same size armies and, of course, both were victorious — though, as it turned out, the Whiskey Rebels needed only to sober up, while Slaver Rebels took considerably more... ah... persuasion.
Both Washington and Sherman believed that slavery was wrong and should be gradually abolished.
Both believed that in peacetime the legalities of slavery were matters of individual states’ authority.
Both offered the enemy's slaves freedom in exchange for military service. That's why I don't think Sherman would blame George Washington for the US Civil War.Again, a matter of definitions — famously, “Unconditional Surrender Grant” told Buckner at Fort Donalson that only “unconditional surrender” was acceptable, and I can't find any record of conditions allowed by Grant. At Appomattox Court House, the words “unconditional surrender” were actually spoken by Union Gen. George Custer to CSA Gen. Longstreet. But when Grant met with Lee, he proposed and Lee accepted the following: “In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th inst., I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of N. Va. on the following terms, to wit: Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate. One copy to be given to an officer designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate.
The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged, and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands. The arms, artillery and public property to be parked and stacked, and turned over to the officer appointed by me to receive them.
This will not embrace the side-arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage. This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.[17]” Notice, first, that these are Grant's conditions, not Lee's. And, second, compare these terms to, for example, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which imposed a long list of punishments on defeated Germans, so by contrast, Grant's “unconditional” conditions seem mild, almost non-existent.
So I'd think the bottom line here, as our FRiend x pointed out, is that conditions allowed by the victor are not counted the same as those insisted on by the vanquished.
Feel free to correct me on this, if you can find examples of defeated Confederates imposing conditions on the victorious Union army. Yes, of course, there is a larger point here, to which I readily agree, and that is the Confederate government itself never officially surrendered, conditionally or any otherwise. And since the words “Confederate” and “Democrats” are synonymous for all practical purposes, that can help explain why Democrats have remained at war against the United States, our Constitution and our values, ever since."

Net: You and my other good friend Brother x make the case that unconditional surrender is the exact same thing as surrender with conditions.

Just such was predicted in the novel written in 1948 by the English author George Orwell.

Said he, paraphrasing: in a future dystopian society words will not merely be changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be.

This is not surprising; just frightening.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Net: You and my other good friend Brother x make the case that unconditional surrender is the exact same thing as surrender with conditions.
Just such was predicted in the novel written in 1948 by the English author George Orwell."

And yet, we're mainly talking about the Civil War here, which was some 40 years before George Orwell was even born.

I didn't invent the term "unconditional surrender", it was around even in the Revolutionary War, used by US Gen. Washington at the Battle of Yorktown.
What exactly George Washington, or Ulysses Grant, or even Franklin Roosevelt, meant when they said, "unconditional surrender", we can only judge by the results.

Lincoln told Grant to go easy on Lee and so Grant agreed to reasonable conditions, not because Lee demanded them, but because Lincoln had told him to.

I don't think George Orwell had anything to do with those conversations.

😀

[jeffersondem]

“And yet, we're mainly talking about the Civil War here, which was some 40 years before George Orwell was even born.”

Orwell's novel was looking forward but informed by earlier events including the 1940s.

His cautionary tale may have been targeting those who would find the need - for whatever reason - to claim that unconditional surrender means the exact same thing as surrender with conditions.

He was concerned about those that would twist the truth into its opposite. Orwell is as current as this thread.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "His cautionary tale may have been targeting those who would find the need - for whatever reason - to claim that unconditional surrender means the exact same thing as surrender with conditions."

Since you are obviously the expert on "unconditional surrenders", I would invite you to inform us, from your expertise, exactly what each of these men intended by the term "unconditional surrender" and whether you believe that was, in fact, what they achieved:

1. US Gen. George Washington at the 1781 Battle of Yorketown, VA.

2. US Gen. Ulysses Grant at the 1862 Battle of Fort Donelson, TN.

3. US Gen. Ulysses Grant at the 1865 Battle of Appomattox Court House, VA.

4. US President Franklin Roosevelt's WWII stated terms for surrender of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.

I'll be most interested to learn your thoughts on the subject, and how they may, or may not, be related to George Orwell's 1940s era warnings.

[jeffersondem]

“I'll be most interested to learn your thoughts on the subject (unconditional surrender), and how they may, or may not, be related to George Orwell's 1940s era warnings.”

The prefix “un-” means, so far as I know, not.

So, a new word with that prefix means the opposite of the original.

Unconditional surrender is the opposite of conditional surrender. Don't think of those two words as synonyms.

As to Orwell and his book, he was concerned about sinister forces abusing language for manipulative purposes.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "As to Orwell and his book, he was concerned about sinister forces abusing language for manipulative purposes."

So, do you mean by that, that some or all of the uses I cited above were "sinister forces abusing language for manipulative purposes"?

[jeffersondem]

“So, do you mean by that, that some or all of the uses I cited above were “sinister forces abusing language for manipulative purposes”?”

Please remind me what we are arguing?

I know your post 37 caught my eye with the claim every CSA surrender was unconditional.

I effectively refuted that with my post 40.

You conceded the point in your post 46 and provided documentation: Grant didn't ask Lee for unconditional surrender because President Lincoln told him (Grant) to obtain reasonable surrender.

I will not insist on your unconditional surrender on this point. Just go on home and live peacefully and the history forces will not disturb you.