Talk:American Civil War

Timeline of Major Events of the Conclusion of the American Civil War and Amnesties

Separate item on Presidential Reconstruction

I am posting this in a separate thread in order not to unduly lengthen the end of the war thread or distract from any further comments or opinions in that thread. I think it could be useful to the discussion in that thread, however, and may provide facts to use in this article or other articles such as Conclusion of the American Civil War and citations to support the facts whether by anyone who finds this information useful or possibly by me at a later date. I plan to post soon a separate thread on historians' statements about the end of the American Civil War after I do a little more research.

This list includes release dates of all Confederate cabinet members who had been imprisoned after the war according to Faust, Patricia L., ed. Historical Times Illustrated History of the Civil War. New York: Harper & Row, 1986. ISBN 978-0-06-273116-6.

Full citations to the short references in each item are at the end of the list. Some of the more well known or notable events have more than one citation; some of them and others could be supported by additional citations, which would be superfluous in this thread and perhaps in any edit to an article.

April 2, 1865. Last meeting of the Confederate cabinet in Richmond, Virginia (Attorney General George Davis missing). The Confederate government leaves Richmond as the Union Army captures the Confederate lines at Petersburg, VA. Government records were sent away or burned. Long, pp. 663-664.

April 9, 1865. Gen. Robert E. Lee signs documents surrendering the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia to General-in-chief Ulysses S. Grant with headquarters with the Union Army of the Potomac at Appomattox Court House, VA. Long, pp. 670-671. The terms included: "The officers 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 to sign a parole for the men of their commands....This done each officer and man 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." Winik, p. 187.

April 11, 1865. President Abraham Lincoln issues a proclamation which insists that foreign countries end neutrality and, in diplomatic language, discontinue granting belligerent rights to the Confederacy. Here is the explanation by Stephen C. Neff in Justice in Blue and Gray Page 205: "In a companion proclamation to the one on port closure ["by exercise of sovereign right, as opposed to the belligerent method of blockade"] on the same day [April 11, 1865], Lincoln made it clear that the neutrality status of foreign countries was now expected to come to an end. Concretely, Lincoln stated that various restrictions on the treatment of Union ships in foreign ports, stemming from the application of foreign neutrality legislation, were expected to be discontinued – that the recognition of the Confederacy as a belligerent power by foreign states would not be tolerated. The United States, it was announced would now claim the full range of traditional peacetime privileges in foreign ports and would retaliate if they were not granted." Neff, page 205. The proclamation can be found at Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation 128—Claiming Equality of Rights with All Maritime Nations Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [1] It is apparently necessary to understand the diplomatic language used at the time for such matters to discern Neff's interpretation. Perhaps the proclamation might seem a little dense and technical without a familiarity with the meaning of the full rights of sovereign states and of neutrality and belligerent rights at the time, as understood at the time and explained by Professor Neff.

Neff immediately goes on to write at pages 205-206: "On May 10, 1865, President Johnson followed this up with a warning to foreign countries to stop offering hospitality of any kind to Confederate cruisers, coupling this with a threat of retaliation (in the form of refusing access to American ports to government vessels of noncooperating countries.)" Another sentence with regard to the May 10 proclamation is shown at the May 10, 1865 entry below.

April 12, 1865. Formal surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia ceremony takes place at Appomattox Court House. Long, p. 674.

April 12, 1865. Union forces under Maj. Gen. E. R. S. Canby occupy Mobile, Alabama, the last major city of the Confederacy to fall to the Union Army. Long, p. 673.

April 14, 1865. Union Army Brig. Gen. Robert Anderson raises the U.S. flag over the ruined Fort Sumter at Charleston, SC, which he had surrendered exactly four years previously. Long, p. 676.

April 14, 1865. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln is fatally shot at Ford's Theater in Washington, DC about 10:00 p.m. Long, pp. 675-676.

April 15, 1865. President Lincoln dies. Vice President Andrew Johnson takes the oath of office as President of the United States. Long, p. 677.

April 21, 1865. Col. John S. Mosby disbands his Confederate partisan rangers at Millwood, Clarke County, Virginia, previously part of Fauquier County, Virginia. Long, p. 680. Mosby said "We are soldiers, not highwaymen." Shelby Foote wrote "So much then for baleful predictions as to the postsurrender activities of Virginia's leading partisan...." Foote, III, p. 1000.

April 26, 1865. Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston refuses to obey Confederate President Jefferson Davis's order to disband his infantry and set a future rendezvous for the men to continue the fight as partisans. Johnston further refuses Davis's order to join Davis with as many cavalrymen as he could. Thomas, p. 304.

April 26, 1865. Gen. Joseph E. Johnston surrenders the Confederate Army of Tennessee at Bennett Place, Durham, North Carolina on the terms accepted by the Army of Northern Virginia after more comprehensive and generous terms negotiated by Gen. Johnston and Union Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman on April 18 were rejected in Washington, with Sherman receiving word of the rejection on April 24. Long, pp. 681-682, Foote, III, pp. 988-996.

April 26, 1865. Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Booth is mortally wounded by Union Army soldier Boston Corbett, is captured and dies. Assassination conspirator Davy Herold surrenders at the same time and place. Long, p. 682.

April 26, 1865. Last meeting of the full Confederate cabinet with Confederate President Jefferson Davis at Charlotte, North Carolina. Attorney General George Davis left the group which still intended to remove Confederate leadership west of the Mississippi River. Long, p. 683; Foote, III, p. 1002; Walmsley, pp. 336-349.

April 27, 1865. Sultana disaster. Long, p. 683, Foote, III, p. 1027.

April 27, 1865. Confederate States Secretary of the Treasury George A. Trenholm was ill and resigned. Confederate States Postmaster General John H. Reagan assumed his duties. Long, p. 683.

April 29, 1865. President Johnson ends trade restrictions in former Confederate territory east of the Mississippi River controlled by Union forces. Long, p. 684. Andrew Johnson, Executive Order Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [2]

April-July, 1865. Confederate prisoners of war are gradually released, most in June and July, after taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. The last Confederate prisoners of war were released in November from Fort Lafayette, in New York Harbor. Wagner, p. 600.

May 4, 1865. Lt. Gen. Richard Taylor surrenders Confederate forces in Alabama, Mississippi and eastern Louisiana based on the Appomattox Court House terms. Long, p. 685. McPherson, p. 485.

May 4, 1865. Confederate Colonel George C. Gibbs paroles the remaining Union prisoners of war at Andersonville Prison, GA. Rodriguez, pp.50-51.

May 4/5, 1865. Last meetings of some of the Confederate cabinet members and certain generals are held with Jefferson Davis who effectively dissolves the Confederate government. Walmsley, pp. 336-349.

May 6, 1865. With the consent of Secretory of War Edwin Stanton and Lt. General Ulysses S. Grant, Major General Henry Halleck issues an order that "From and after the 20th instant all persons found in arms against the authority of the United States in the State of Virginia and North Carolina, will be treated as robbers and outlaws." [3]

May 8, 1865. Paroles are given to Lt. Gen. Richard Taylor's Confederate forces at Citronelle, Alabama. Long, p. 686; Foote, III, p. 1000. Richard Taylor is paroled at Meridian, MS, May 11, 1865. Eicher, John H., p. 523.

May 9, 1865. Confederate Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest bids farewell to his troops. He urges them to surrender and obey Federal authority. Henry, p. 438, Foote, III, pp. 1001-1002. He was paroled at Gainesville, AL on May 10, 1865. Eicher, John H., p. 240.

May 9, 1865. President Johnson declares terms to reestablish the authority of the United States and execute the laws within Virginia; orders actions by named executive department officers; recognizes Francis H. Pierpont as Governor of Virginia. Long, p. 686. Andrew Johnson, Executive Order—To Reestablish the Authority of the United States and Execute the Laws Within the Geographical Limits Known as the State of Virginia Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [4]

May 10, 1865. Confederate President Jefferson Davis is captured by two Union Army cavalry regiments, 4th Michigan and 1st Wisconsin, at Irwinville, Georgia. Long, p. 687; Foote, III, pp. 1009-1011; Thomas, p. 305; McPherson, p. 485.

May 10, 1865. Small Confederate forces in Florida, Georgia and northern Arkansas surrender. Long, p. 687.

May 10, 1865. U.S. President Andrew Johnson issues a proclamation with the premises that "armed resistance to the authority of this Government in the said insurrectionary States may be regarded as virtually at an end" and "persons by whom that resistance, as well as the operations of insurgent cruisers, was directed are fugitives or captives." He orders US forces to "arrest the said [insurgent] cruisers and to bring them into a port of the United States, in order that they may be prevented from committing further depredations on commerce and that the persons on board of them may no longer enjoy impunity for their crimes." Long, p. 687. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 132—Ordering the Arrest of Insurgent Cruisers Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [5] Official Records, Series 3, Volume 5, p. 18. The British government officially withdraws belligerent rights from the Confederacy on June 2, 1865. Long, p. 692.

Stephen C. Neff in Justice Blue and Gray states at page 206: "This proclamation of May 10 - the very day of the capture of Jefferson Davis - also included an explicit statement that armed resistance was now 'virtually at an end' and persons in revolt were now reduced to the humble status of 'mere fugitives or captives.'" Note that the actual language is not "persons in revolt" but "persons by whom that resistance, as well as the operations of insurgent cruisers, was directed..." Neff wrote nothing about this applying to a larger group of soldiers or others or that it criminalized any acts by a larger group. Though he notes the "virtual" end of "armed resistance", he does not indicate this is the end date for the war. In fact, just before this on page 205 he states, among other things: "In practice, the war was brought to an end on a piecemeal basis, by way of a welter of specific measures by the Union government." Neff, p. 206.

May 10, 1865. Confederate Maj. Gen. Samuel Jones surrenders his forces at Tallahassee, FL. Long, p. 687.

May 10, 1865. Confederate guerrilla leader William Clarke Quantrill is fatally wounded in an action with an irregular Union force (the Shelby County Home Guard) near Taylorsville, Kentucky. Quantrill dies June 6 in Louisville. Long p. 687.

May 11, 1865. Confederate Brig. Gen. M. Jeff Thompson surrenders his brigade at Chalk Bluff, AR. Long, p. 687.

May 11, 1865. "General Orders No. 90 } War Department, Adjt. General's Office, Washington, May 11, 1865. Punishment of Guerrillas. "All the forces of the enemy east of the Mississippi River having been duly surrendered by their proper commanding officers to the Armies of the United States, under agreements of parole and disbandment, and there being no authorized troops of the enemy east of the Mississippi River, it is -- "Ordered', That from and after the first day of June, 1865, any and all persons found in arms against the United States, or who may commit acts of hostility against it east of the Mississippi River, will be regarded as guerrillas and punished with death. The strict enforcement of this order is especially enjoined upon the commanding officers of all U.S. forces with the territorial limits to which it applies. "By command of Lieutenant-General Grant: "E. D. TOWNSEND, "Assistant Adjutant General" The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series 1, Volume 46, Part 3, Page 1134. [6]. Accessed June 8, 2022, University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, [7]. Accessed June 8, 2022, University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, [8]..

May 12-13, 1865. Union Army Col. Theodore H. Barrett's force is defeated at the 2-day Battle of Palmito Ranch, Texas, the last land battle of any significant size in the war. Long, p. 688. Wagner, 328, 330. Eicher, David J., p. 843. Hunt, Jeffrey Wm. The Last Battle of the Civil War: Palmetto Ranch. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002. ISBN 978-0-292-73461-6. Dyer calls the second day as the Battle of White Hill. Dyer, p. 891 spells the word "Palmetto," as does Hunt, and adds "Battle of White's Ranch" as occurring on May 13 by the same Union force engaged at Palmetto Ranch, May 12-13.

May 13, 1865. Confederate governors of Arkansas, Louisiana and Missouri and a representative from Texas urge Gen. E. Kirby Smith to surrender. Brig. Gen. Joseph O. Shelby threatens to arrest him if he does. Long, p. 688.

May 14-27, 1865. Dyer lists seven skirmishes in Missouri between May 14 and May 27, 1865. He lists no casualties. Only one Union Army unit that was not a Missouri militia unit, a detachment of the 13th U.S. Cavalry, engaged in any of these skirmishes, the one near Waynesville on May 23. The skirmish at Switzler's Mill in Chariton County on May 27 is the last one listed by Dyer, p. 815, and the last one listed by Long at p. 690 other than his statement that there were operations in Texas against guerrillas for most of 1865. p. 691.

May 17, 1865. Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sheridan is given command of US forces west of the Mississippi River and south of the Arkansas River. Long, p. 688. Lt. Gen. Grant orders Sheridan to take 50,000 men to pacify Texas and parts of Louisiana still controlled by Confederate general Edmund Kirby Smith and to offer surrender on the same terms granted to Lee and Johnston. Grant's further desired actions against the French puppet ruler of Mexico, Maximilian, for aiding the rebellion were told to Sheridan verbally. Direct actions against Maximilian were restrained by Secretary of State William Seward who favored a more cautious approach. Chernow, pp. 554-557; Foote, III, pp. 1018-1019..

May 17, 1865. The last Confederate prison for Union prisoners of war at Camp Ford, Texas, is evacuated. Wagner, p. 600.

May 19, 1865. Confederate commerce raider CSS Stonewall surrenders at Havana, Cuba. Long, p. 689.

May 19, 1865. An order to Captain Henry Shook at McMinnville, Tennessee by Maj. Gen. Lovell Rousseau at Tullahoma, Tennessee (signed by Jno. O Cravens, Assistant Adjutant General) directed Shook to accept the surrender of "a number of bushwackers...[and] All other bands may be received in the same way." One exception was made: "Champ Ferguson and his band have been declared outlaws by Major-General Rousseau. The major-general commanding therefore directs that you do not accept the surrender of Ferguson or any number of his band and that you treat them as outlaws." The War of the Rebellion: Official Records, Series 1, Volume 49, Part 2, page 843 [9].

May 19, 1865. Brig. Gen. Henry Hobson, Lexington, KY, orders Major Bridgewater at Stanford, KY to capture and kill a gang of guerrillas operating near Somerset, KY. The War of the Rebellion: Official Records, Series 1, Volume 49, Part 2, page 843 [10].

May 20, 1865. Former Confederate Secretary of the Navy Stephen R. Mallory was arrested and charged with "treason and with organizing and setting on foot piratical expeditions." He was paroled with conditions on March 10, 1866. Denney, p. 570.

May 22, 1865. President Johnson ends restrictions at Southern ports except Galveston, La Salle, Brazos Santiago (Point Isabel) and Brownsville, TX on and after July 1, 1865. Long, p. 689. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 133—Raising the Blockade of Certain Ports Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [11]

May 22, 1865. Jefferson Davis is imprisoned at Fort Monroe, VA. Foote, III, p. 1013.

May 23, 1865. Grand Review of the Army of the Potomac in Washington, DC. Long, p. 689.

May 23, 1865. The pro-Union government of Virginia was established in Richmond, Long, p. 689.

May 24, 1865. Grand Review of Sherman's Army, the Military Division of the Mississippi. (Army of the Tennessee and Army of Georgia) in Washington, DC. Long, p. 689.

May 26, 1865. Confederate Lt. Gen. Simon B. Buckner on behalf of Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith enters terms of surrender for the Confederate Army of the Trans-Mississippi similar to those signed at Appomattox Court House by Gen. Robert E. Lee. Union Maj. Gen. Peter J. Osterhaus acted for Maj. Gen. E. R. S. Canby. The Army of the Trans-Mississippi was the last army of the Confederacy of significant size to remain in the field. Long, p. 690. Catton, Bruce in The Centennial History of the Civil War. Vol. 3, Never Call Retreat. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965 wrote at p. 445. "...and on May 26 he [E. Kirby Smith] surrendered and the war was over." In the case of United States v. Anderson, 76 U.S. 56 (1869) "The U.S. attorneys argued that the Rebellion had been suppressed following the surrender of the Trans-Mississippi Department, as established in the surrender document negotiated on May 26, 1865." Trudeau, p. 396. The Supreme Court decided that the "legal end of the American Civil War had been decided by Congress to be August 20, 1866 - the date of Andrew Johnson's final proclamation on the conclusion of the Rebellion." Trudeau, 397.

May 27, 1865. President Johnson orders "in all cases of sentences by military tribunals of imprisonment during the war the sentence be remitted and that the prisoners be discharged." Long, p. 690; Denney, p. 572, Foote, III, p. 1031. Andrew Johnson, Executive Order Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [12]

May 29, 1865. President Johnson issues a proclamation granting a general amnesty and pardon to "all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted,..." There are 14 limited categories of exceptions. The proclamation continues "Provided, That special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes, and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States." Long, pp. 691-692; Denney, p. 572. Eicher, David J., p. 844. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 134—Granting Amnesty to Participants in the Rebellion, with Certain Exceptions Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [13]

"Altogether he [Johnson] granted 13,500 special pardons out of about 15,000 applications." McPherson, p. 505.

May 29, 1865. President Johnson proclaims terms for reorganizing a constitutional government in North Carolina; William W. Holden appointed governor. Long, 691. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 135—Reorganizing a Constitutional Government in North Carolina Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [14]

May 29, 1865: The New York Times page 1 headline declares: "END OF THE REBELLION.; THE LAST REBEL ARMY DISBANDS. Kirby Smith Surrenders the Land and Naval Forces Under His Command. The Confederate Flag Disappears from the Continent. THE ERA OF PEACE BEGINS. Military Prisoners During the War to be Discharged. Deserters to be Released from Confinement. [OFFICIAL.] FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GEN. DIX. [15] The New York Times; May 29, 1865. Page 1. WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, May 27, 1865...."

May 29, 1865-end of 1865. "There were operations in Texas and on the Rio Grande by the Federal Army for most of the rest of 1865 against guerrillas and former Confederates escaping to Mexico." Long, p. 691.

May 31, 1865. Confederate Lt. Gen. John B. Hood was paroled one day after he was captured. Foote, III, p. 1021.

June 1, 1865. General Order No. 90 of May 11, 1865 takes effect: "General Order No. 90 of the War Department stated unequivocally that 'from and after the first date of June, 1865, any and all persons found in arms against the United States, or who may commits acts of hostility against it east of the Mississippi River, will be regarded as guerrillas and punished with death.'" Trudeau, p. 353.

June 2, 1865. Gen. E. Kirby Smith approves and signs the terms of surrender in the agreement of May 26 for the Army of the Trans-Mississippi aboard the steamer USS Fort Jackson (1862) in Galveston harbor. Foote, III, p. 1021; Long, p. 692.

June 2, 1865. Order for the Trans-Mississippi with similar terms for treating soldiers engaging in continued hostility in the Trans-Mississippi after reasonable time for notice of the surrender of the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department by Gen. E. Kirby Smith as in Lt. Gen. Grant's General Orders No. 90 of May 11, 1865 prescribing continued hostility east of the Mississippi after June 1, 1865 to be guerrilla, or outlaw, actions: "General Orders No. 24 } Headquarters Third Div., 7th Army Corps. Fort Smith, Ark. June 2, 1865 "I…............. "II. The Trans-Mississippi (rebel) Department having surrendered to General Canby on the 26th of May, requires that all soldiers in arms against the United States immediately report to the nearest military post, when they will be paroled on delivering their arms to the U. S. authorities. All such persons who remain in arms engaged in acts of hostility to the United States after a reasonable time to be informed of their surrender, will be regarded as guerrillas and outlaws, and when arrested will be shot. "By Order of Brig. Gen. Cyrus Bussey: "L. A. Duncan, Acting Assistant Adjutant-General" The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series 1, Volume 48, Part 2, Page 530. [16] Hathi Trust Digital Library, accessed June 12, 2022.

June 2, 1865. The British government officially withdraws belligerent rights from the Confederacy. Long, p. 692. There are a few exceptions and conditions, including holding any U.S. warship in the ports, harbors or waters of the U.K. or possessions to allow a Confederate ship already there to leave; allowing Confederate ships to divest their armaments and change flags but without U.K. protection and 24 hours rule. Army and Navy Journal, June 24, 1865 Page 695 Volume II Number 44 [17]

June 2, 1865. President Johnson orders "all military restrictions upon trade in any of the States or Territories of the United States, except in articles contraband of war--[as defined in the order] shall cease from and after the present date." Andrew Johnson, Executive Order—General Orders: 107 Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [18]

June 3, 1865. Confederate naval forces on the Red River surrender. Long, p. 692, Foote, III, p. 1027.

June 6, 1865. President Johnson issues orders of discharge of prisoners of war for all enlisted men, petty officers and officers of the rebel army not above the grade of captain and of the rebel navy not above the grade of lieutenant unless graduates of a US military academy, upon taking an oath of allegiance. Orders for discharge of higher officers who are prisoners are to be issued when the discharge under this order is completed. All "who desire will be permitted to take the oath of amnesty after their release." Andrew Johnson, Executive Order—General Orders: 109 Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [19]

June 12, 1865. Brevet Brig. Gen. William Gamble is ordered by Brig. General. John P. Slough to "send a squadron of the Eighth Regiment Illinois Cavalry to scout the country in the vicinity of Aldie [Virginia] to break up bands of marauders and guerrillas, and to ascertain the names of, and arrest, if possible, the persons concerned in the recent murders of Union people." The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series 1, Volume 46, Part 3, Page 1275. [20]. Accessed June 8, 2022, University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, [21].

June 13, 1865. President Johnson declares trade open in all territory east of the Mississippi River except for contraband of war. Long, p. 693. The order specified an effective date "on and after the 1st day of July next, subject to the laws of the United States, and in pursuance of such regulations as might be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury." Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 137—Removing Trade Restrictions on Confederate States Lying East of the Mississippi River Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [22]

June 13, 1865. President Johnson declares that Tennessee reorganized its government, suppressed the rebellion and he restored the State and lifted almost all disqualifications from its inhabitants. This is included in proclamation 137 noted in the previous item for June 13, 1865, [23]. More in Presidential Reconstruction entry at end of this timeline.

June 16, 1865. Lt. Gen. Grant vigorously objects to President Johnson that indictments brought against Gen. Robert E. Lee and other Confederate officers in Norfolk, VA violated the terms of the surrender and paroles of the men of the Army of Northern Virginia and other Confederate armies. He threatens to resign as General-in-Chief if the indictments are not dismissed. Chernow, pp. 552-553. General Grant replies to Gen. Robert E. Lee that he believes that the men who surrendered at Appomattox Court House can not be tried for treason as long as they observes the terms of their parole and he asked that Judge Underwood at Norfolk be ordered to quash all indictments filed against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series 1, Volume 46, Part 3, Page 1276.[24]

June 19, 1865. Two days after taking command of the District of Texas at Galveston, Union Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger announces to the people of Texas that in line with a proclamation by the "Executive of the United States, all slaves are free." Conner, p. 177.

June 19, 1965. U.S. Secretary of State William H. Seward sends a message to the British ambassador objecting to reservations and statements in the June 2 British statement ending belligerent rights for Confederate cruisers. He also wrote "It is hardly necessary to say that the United States do not admit what they have heretofore constantly controverted, that the original concession of belligerent privileges to the Rebels by Great Britain was either necessary or just, or sanctioned by the law of nations." Army and Navy Journal, July 22, 1865 Page 763 Volume II Number 48 [25]

June 20, 1865. At President Johnson's order, U.S. Attorney General James Speed orders the U.S. Attorney at Norfolk, VA to drop the prosecutions of Gen. Lee and other Confederate military officers. Chernow, p. 553. While the prosecution of Gen. Lee was not pursued, the indictment was not formally dropped until 1869 according to Noah Andre Trudeau. Trudeau, 358.

June 23, 1865. President Johnson ends the blockade of Southern ports. Long, p. 693. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 141—Raising the Blockade of All Ports in the United States Including Galveston, Texas Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [26]

June 23, 1865. Brig. Gen. Stand Watie surrenders his Native American (Indian) division near Fort Towson in Indian Territory, the last surrender of any sizable force of Confederate troops by a Confederate general officer. Long, p. 693.

June 24, 1865. President Johnson removes commercial restrictions from States and territories west of the Mississippi River. Long, p. 695. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 142—Removing Restrictions on Trade West of the Mississippi River Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [27]

June 28, 1865. The military operations of the Confederate commerce raider CSS Shenandoah end with the taking of 11 whaling ships in the Bering Sea. Long, p. 694. Wagner, p. 537. The Shenandoah is not surrendered to the British until November 6, 1865 in Liverpool, England. Long, p. 695.

June 28, 1865. At the order of Lt. Gen. Grant, the Army of the Potomac is demobilized; officers and soldiers not yet mustered out are reorganized into a provisional corps under Maj. Gen. Horatio Wright. The process was put into effect by GENERAL ORDERS, HDQRS. ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, No. 35. June 28, 1865. "By virtue of Special Orders, No. 339, current series, from the Adjutant-General's Office, this army, as an organization, ceases to exist....etc." By command of Major-General Meade: GEO. D. RUGGLES, Assistant Adjutant-General. Official Records of War of the Rebellion: Serial 097 Pages 1301-3. Chapter LVIII. [28]. ehistory, The Ohio State University, accessed June 8, 2022. Official Records, Series 1, Volume 46, Part 3, pp. 1301-1303. [29], accessed June 8, 2022, University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, [30].

August 29, 1865. President Johnson declares that contraband of war could be traded with States "recently declared in insurrection", Long, 695. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 145—Removing Trade Restrictions on Contraband of War Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [31]

September 14/21, 1865. Various Native American (Indian) tribes renounce Confederate agreements and sign treaties of peace and friendship with the United States. Long, p. 695.

October 11, 1865. Alexander H. Stephens, John H. Reagan, George A. Trenholm, Charles Clark and John Archibald Campbell were paroled by President Johnson. Long, p. 695. Andrew Johnson, Executive Order Paroling Alexander H. Stephens and Others Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [32]

October 12, 1865. President Johnson declares the end of martial law in Kentucky. Long, p. 695. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 146—Declaring an End to Martial Law in the State of Kentucky Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [33]

October 30, 1865. U.S. Secretary of State William Seward informs U.S. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles of Britain's Foreign Minister Earl Russell's message of October 18 relieving U.S. vessels of all the objectionable restraints included in Russell's June 2, 1865 message. Army and Navy Journal, November 4, 1865, p. 172 [34]

November 6, 1865. Confederate Navy Lt. James Iredell Waddell surrenders the CSS Shenandoah to the British authorities in Liverpool, England. Long, p. 695.

December 1865. Former Confederate Secretary of War James A. Seddon is released from prison. Current, Macmillan Compendium, p. 942.

January 1, 1866. Former Confederate Attorney General George A. Davis is released from prison. He had not been arrested until November 1865 and spent only a few weeks in prison. Davis, pp. 381-385

January 1866. Former Confederate Secretary of State and Senator Robert M.T. Hunter is paroled. Current, Macmillan Compendium, p. 550.

March 10, 1866. Former Confederate Secretary of the Navy Stephen R. Mallory is paroled. Current, Macmillan Compendium, p. 668.

April 2, 1866. President Johnson declares the insurrection over (except in Texas). Long, p. 696. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 153—Declaring the Insurrection in Certain Southern States to be at an End Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [35]

August 20, 1866. President Johnson issues a proclamation announcing the end of the American Civil War in all States including Texas. Long, pp. 696-697. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 157—Declaring that Peace, Order, Tranquillity, and Civil Authority Now Exists in and Throughout the Whole of the United States of America Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [36]

May 13, 1867. Jefferson Davis is released on bail. Davis, p. 386; Foote, III, pp. 1038-1039.

September 7, 1867. President Johnson extends the amnesty of 1865 in a proclamation in which he declares that he did: "hereby proclaim and declare that the full pardon described in the said proclamation of the 29th day of May, A. D. 1865, shall henceforth be opened and extended to all persons who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late rebellion, with the restoration of all privileges, immunities, and rights of property, except as to property with regard to slaves, and except in cases of legal proceedings under the laws of the United States; but upon this condition, nevertheless, that every such person who shall seek to avail himself of this proclamation shall take and subscribe the following oath and shall cause the same to be registered for permanent preservation in the same manner and with the same effect as with the oath prescribed in the said proclamation of the 29th day of May, 1865..."

There were fewer limited exceptions than in the May 29, 1865 proclamation. The categories in the September 7, 1867 proclamation were high ranking Confederate executive officers and generals above the grade of brigadier or naval officers above rank or title of captain, Confederate agents in foreign countries, Confederate governors of States, persons who mistreated lawful prisoners of war, persons who were in confinement or custody of in the civil, military or naval service of the United States when they seek to obtain the benefits of the proclamation, or are out on bail, and any person who engaged in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln or any plot or conspiracy connected with it. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 167—Offering and Extending Full Pardon to All Persons Participating in the Late Rebellion Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [37]

"Probably only some three hundred persons fell into these excluded groups. Moreover, this proclamation, like its predecessor, was supplemented by the continued granting of individual pardons. Eventually, nearly all of the civilian leaders of the Confederacy received pardons with two notable exceptions: Jefferson Davis and Secretary of War John Breckenridge (who was living abroad at the time), both of whom obstinately refused to request individual pardons." Neff, p. 225.

July 4, 1868. President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation in which he stated that he did "hereby proclaim and declare, unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion, excepting such person or persons as may be under presentment or indictment in any court of the United States having competent jurisdiction upon a charge of treason or other felony, a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves, and except also as to any property of which any person may have been legally divested under the laws of the United States." Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 170—Granting Pardon to All Persons Participating in the Late Rebellion Except Those Under Indictment for Treason or Other Felony Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [38]

There was "no requirement of a loyalty oath of any kind and only one excluded category – persons presently facing treason or other felony charges such as Jefferson Davis." Neff, p. 225.

December 5, 1868. The Chief Justice of the United States Salmon P. Chase, sitting as circuit justice, could not agree with trial judge John C. Underwood on whether the 14th Amendment precluded the prosecution of Jefferson Davis and the case should be dismissed on the basis that the amendment already inflicted punishment on Davis by depriving him of the right to hold office. They sent a "certificate of division" to the U.S. Supreme Court for decision and adjourned the trial to await action by the Court. Hagen, p. 224; Nichols, p. 284. William C. Davis states that Chase quashed the indictment. As the other cited sources show, Chase merely, and improperly, told Jefferson Davis's attorneys that he accepted their arguments as a basis to do so, virtually assuring them of a favorable hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court.

December 25, 1868. President Johnson issued a universal amnesty proclamation in which he declares that he did: "hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof." Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 179—Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [39]

"This finally put a stop (as noted above) to the Davis treason trial. Practically the only persons outside the circle of mercy were the convicted Lincoln murderers – and even three of them were given individual pardons, in Johnson's final days in office in March 1869, for services performed for their fellow inmates and jailors during an outbreak of disease in their prison." Neff, p. 225.

February 11, 1869. The U.S. Government enters a nolle prosequi in the case of United States v. Jefferson Davis. ("Nolle prosequi ... is legal Latin meaning 'to be unwilling to pursue'. In Commonwealth and US common law, it is used for prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a criminal case before trial or before a verdict is rendered.") Hagen, p. 225; Nichols, p. 284. Icenhauer-Ramirez, p. 318.

United States v. Anderson, 76 U.S. 56 (1869) The syllabus of the decision accurately summarizes on page 56 the court's holding as follows: "As respects rights intended to be secured by the above-mentioned Abandoned or Captured Property Act, "the suppression of the rebellion" is to be regarded as having taken place on the 20th of August, 1866, on which day the President by proclamation declared it suppressed in Texas "and throughout the whole of the United States of America," that same date being apparently adopted by Congress in a statute continuing a certain rate of pay to soldiers in the army "for three years after the close of the rebellion, as announced by the President of the United States by proclamation bearing date August 20, 1866."[40]

Per Noah Andre Trudeau, pages 396-397 about the Anderson case: "The U.S. attorneys argued that the Rebellion had been suppressed following the surrender of the Trans-Mississippi Department, as established in the surrender document negotiated on May 26, 1865. Anderson's lawyer, in turn, argued that the end of the war was a legislative matter, not a military one, and that Congress had previously recognized President Johnson's August 20 proclamation as the first official declaration that the Civil War had ended everywhere. The Supreme Court ruled that Nelson Anderson was entitled to recompense from the United States government for his cotton. The court's key determination was that the legal end of the American Civil War had been decided by Congress to be August 20, 1866 - the date of Andrew Johnson's final proclamation on the conclusion of the Rebellion. For legal purposes at least, the end of the Civil War was a matter of record." Trudeau, pp. 396-397.

Presidential Reconstruction:

In addition to the proclamations with terms for reorganizing the government of Virginia (May 9 above) and North Carolina, (May 29 above), on June 13, 1865. President Johnson declares that Tennessee had reorganized its government, suppressed the rebellion and he restored the State and lifted disqualifications from its inhabitants as part of Proclamation 137. "And I hereby also proclaim and declare that the insurrection, so far as it relates to and within the State of Tennessee and the inhabitants of the said State of Tennessee as reorganized and constituted under their recently adopted constitution and reorganization and accepted by them, is suppressed, and therefore, also, that all the disabilities and disqualifications attaching to said State and the inhabitants thereof consequent upon any proclamation issued by virtue of the fifth section of the act entitled "An act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports and for other purposes," approved the 13th day of July, 1861, are removed." However this did not include "any of the penalties and forfeitures for treason heretofore incurred under the laws of the United States or any of the provisions, restrictions, or disabilities set forth in my proclamation bearing date the 29th day of May, 1865, or as impairing existing regulations for the suspension of the habeas corpus and the exercise of military law in cases where it shall be necessary for the general public safety and welfare during the existing insurrection ." Long p. 693. Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 137—Removing Trade Restrictions on Confederate States Lying East of the Mississippi River Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [41]

In addition, between June 13, 1865 and July 13, 1865, President Johnson proclaimed terms for reorganizing constitutional governments in other Confederate states and appointed provisional governors in the following proclamations: June 13, 1865: Mississippi, Long, p. 693 [42]; June 17, 1865: Georgia, Long p. 693 [43]; June 17, 1865: Texas, Long p. 693 [44]; June 21, 1865: Alabama, Long, p. 693 [45]; June 30, 1865: South Carolina, p. 694; [46]; July 13, 1865: Florida, Long 694; [47].

In a special message to the U.S. Senate on December 18, 1865, President Johnson advised: "As the result of the measures instituted by the Executive with the view of inducing a resumption of the functions of the States comprehended in the inquiry of the Senate, the people of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee have reorganized their respective State governments, and "are yielding obedience to the laws and Government of the United States....The proposed amendment to the Constitution, providing for the abolition of slavery forever within the limits of the country, has been ratified by each one of those States, with the exception of Mississippi..... In Florida and Texas the people are making commendable progress in restoring their State governments...." [48].

References

• Chernow, Ron. Grant. New York: Penguin Press, 2917. ISBN 978-1-59420-487-6.
• Conner, Robert C. General Gordon Granger: The Savior of Chickamauga and the Man Behind "Juneteenth". Havertown, PA: Casemate Publishers, 2013. ISBN 978-1-61200-186-9.
• Current, Richard N., ed., The Confederacy. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1993. ISBN 978-0-02-864920-7. Macmillan Compendium. Sections from the four-volume Macmillan Encyclopedia of the Confederacy.
• Denney, Robert E. The Civil War Years: A Day-by-Day Chronicle. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., 1992. ISBN 978-0-8069-8519-0.
• Dyer, Frederick H. A Compendium of the War of Rebellion: Compiled and Arranged From Official Records of the Federal and Confederate Armies, Reports of the Adjutant Generals of the Several States, The Army Registers and Other Reliable Documents and Sources. First published 1908 by Dyer Publishing.
• Eicher, David J. The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006 (paperback edition). ISBN 978-0-684-84944-7.
• Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8047-3641-1.
• Faust, Patricia L., ed. Historical Times Illustrated History of the Civil War. New York: Harper & Row, 1986. ISBN 978-0-06-273116-6.
• Foote, Shelby. The Civil War: A Narrative. Vol. 3 (III), Red River to Appomattox. New York: Random House, 1974. ISBN 978-0-394-74622-7,
• Hagan, Horace Henry. [49] United States vs. Jefferson Davis. The Sewanee Review. Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr., 1917), pp. 220-225 .Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Open access.
• Henry, Robert Selph. "First with the Most" Forrest. Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Publishing Company, 1987. OCLC 16620013. First Published 1944 by Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis. OCLC 190282.
• Hunt, Jeffrey Wm. The Last Battle of the Civil War: Palmetto Ranch. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002. ISBN 978-0-292-73461-6.
• Icenhauer-Ramirez, Robert.. PhD Dissertation. [50] “No Traitor has been Hung: The United States of America v. Jefferson Davis 1865-1869." Copyright 2014. The University of Texas at Austin, May 2014 p. 318. Published as Icenhauer-Ramirez, Robert. Treason on trial : the United States v. Jefferson Davis. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2019. ISBN 978-0-8071-7080-9.
• Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123.
• McPherson, James M. Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982. ISBN 978-0-394-52469-6.
• Neff, Stephen C. Justice in Blue and Gray: A Legal History of the Civil War. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-674-03602-4.
• Nichols, Roy Franklin. [51] United States vs. Jefferson Davis, 1865-1869. The American Historical Review. Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jan., 1926), pp. 266-284. Open access.
• Official Records of War of the Rebellion: Serial 097 Pages 1302-3. Chapter LVIII. [52] ehistory, The Ohio State University, accessed June 8, 2022.
• Official Records of he War of the Rebellion: Series 1, Volume 46, Part 3, pp. 1301-1303. [53], accessed June 8, 2022, University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, [54]. Accessed June 8, 2022, University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, [55].
• Official Records: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series 1, Volume 46, Part 3, Page 1134. [56]. Page 1275. [57]. Accessed June 8, 2022, University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, [58]. Accessed June 8, 2022, University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, [59].
• Official Records: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series 1, Volume 48, Part 2, Page 530. [60] Hathi Trust Digital Library, accessed June 12, 2022.
• Peters, Gerhard and John T. Woolley, [61] The American Presidency Project, Abraham Lincoln Papers. Retrieved June 7, 2022.
• Peters, Gerhard and John T. Woolley, [62] The American Presidency Project, Andrew Johnson Papers. Retrieved June 5, 2022.
• Rodriguez, Alicia. Andersonville. in Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History, edited by David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000. ISBN 978-0-393-04758-5.
• Thomas, Emory M. The Confederate Nation, 1861–1865. New York: Harper & Row, 1979. ISBN 978-0-06-014252-0.
• Trudeau, Noah Andre. Out of the Storm: The End of the Civil War, April–June 1865. Boston, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1994. ISBN 978-0-316-85328-6.
• Wagner, Margaret E., Gary W. Gallagher, and Paul Finkelman. The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, Inc., 2009 edition. ISBN 978-1-4391-4884-6. First Published 2002.
• Walmsley, James Elliott.[63] "The Last Meeting of the Confederate Cabinet." The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. Vol. 6, No. 3 (Dec., 1919), pp. 336-349. Open access.
• Winik, Jay. April 1865: The Month That Saved America. New York: HarperCollins, 2006. ISBN 978-0-06-089968-4. First published 2001.

Footnote: Stephen A. Neff is a professor of law and the University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh School of Law in Scotland. A page of the university web site notes: "Stephen Neff's primary research interest is the history of public international law. He is the author of a book on the historical development of international economic law. His current focus is the history of the law of neutrality...." [64] Retrieved June 7, 2022.

Davis

Kind of difficult to follow the debate here, but I did notice one glaring omission in the lede. First let me say, I have a strong Union bias about the Civil War -- i.e. the south fired on the American flag and sought to divide the Union so it could keep the institution of slavery in place. This bias, however, would not effect any writing I would do in the article. Having said that, I noticed that Jefferson Davis is not mentioned once in the lede, while Lincoln is mentioned three times, as he should be -- but Davis, the president of the Confederacy, at least has to be mentioned once. I haven't seen any viable reason why his name doesn't occur there. All major topics need to be summarized in the lede. Leaving Davis' name out of the lede will only invite neutrality issues and raise serious questions about the quality of the authorship in the article overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Good catch, see [65] CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Good to see you can collegially revise an opinion after our earlier discussions. I was beginning to think you reverted my contributions as a personal attack, without any reasoned explanation, only asserting a preemptory dismissal. "[I object to] using that space to write about topics that I do not believe warrant coverage in the lead, like Jeff Davis, America after reconstruction, and so on." CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 11:22 am, 6 September 2022; "I am thoroughly opposed to quoting Jeff Davis in the lead." CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 6:30 pm, 5 September 2022.

Thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian I fear we've gotten on the wrong foot here. We have worked together collegially on this article for years. I'd like to see that continue. I appreciate your efforts to improve the lead, but disagreed with your latest round of edits for the various reasons I've discussed, key is which the upset of various hard won consensuses. But otherwise I think we're doing a good job following Wiki policy. Per WP:BRD, you made a bold change to the lead, it was reverted, and now we're discussing it. I know we both have this articles best interest at heart, and I hope to continue working with you on it in an understanding manner. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

- Then, perhaps only the offending Intro paragraph #4 should have been reverted rather than all my contributions blanked without discussion. To summarize the recent exchange,

• Talk section "Secession in the WP editorial voice" ran 9:01am 27 Aug. to 8:14am 28 Aug with a consensus by Alanscottwalker, Hog Farm, MattMauler and myself that Secessionists in the Southern states used "Ordinances of Secession" to precipitate war, and the term “declared secession" accurately conveys the unilateral belligerency of the Secessionsts against the constitutional succession of President A.Lincoln certified by Joint Session of Congress chaired by Vice President John C. Breckinridge. The consensus was unanswered for 9 days.
• TVH used “declared secession” consensus |here 17:59 Sep 5 with the Note: "Per Talk, term 'declared secession' to align with WP Confederate States of America article. …unobjected to for 9-days. Prior to any revert, discuss at Talk to find consensus there, without an Edit War here." That was the Note at the post, ignored by all reverting parties subsequently, without discussion at "Secession in the WP editorial voice" or elsewhere on Talk.
• This passage was then reverted twice without discussion at either instance, blanking all TVH contributions indiscriminately in the Intro, and TVH got a Revert Warning with an article-bar threat --- without specific links to any offending TVH revert; there are none identified to date. This sequence did not appear to me to be wp:BRD at first glance. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I was not a part of any consensus that change is needed. Allow me to clarify: "Declared secession" is accurate, sure, but my earlier comments make clear that I do not believe there is any need to avoid using the simple term "seceded" in the article. RS use it, so we can too. I don't know if I would have reverted it (Maybe. I would have to look at the diff more carefully), but since there is virtue in keeping wording that has long been agreed upon, I do not see a need to change it just to avoid "secession in the WP editorial voice". It doesn't mean "declared secession" can't be used anywhere; I am just saying that we certainly can't change all instances of "seceded" because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of the word that differs from RS.--MattMauler (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC draft elements

@CaptainEek and Gwillhickers: To maintain collegiality, perhaps an RfC is required in order to formalize the Talk Page consensus of 28 August, with the following 3 elements:

- (a) It is better Editorial practice and better historiography to name historic actors participating in an event (Unionists, Secessionists, Republicans, Democrats, voters) rather than inanimate abstractions (social forces) or political fictions (states) -

-- Note: After Jacksonian Democracy with universal white male suffrage was adopted in the states, voters were understood to be the sovereign people in each state, and only three: VA.TN.TX had referendums to ratify state secession. Therefore 77% of sitting delegations in the C.S. Congress were not representing the People in each "state", but the Secessionists there, alone. According to the language of the time, the Confederate government cannot be fairly described as made up of "states"; it was made up of Secessionists...unless the counter-factual, a state law ending universal white male suffrage. None was passed to my knowledge, although in Virginia, men in uniform were barred from voting by law, so Jefferson Davis never got a "soldier vote" in VA for Congressional support as Lincoln did in KY.MO.WV.MD.DE slaveholding states, Davis allies had Secessionist votes only in VA; Unionist voters were jailed in the Confederacy, unlike Southern sympathizers voting for Democrat Gen. McClellan and anti-war U.S. Congressmen. The two examples of anti-war C.S. Congressmen were expelled.

- (b) The WP Editorial voice here should remain wp:neutral without signaling "Constitutionality" for one side or the other throughout the article, and

- (c) The ACW article should align with the terminology used at Confederate States of America, such as "Secessionist Democrats declared secession in thirteen States” to send delegations to the Confederate Congress who then unanimously appointed Jefferson Davis its President for five years.

- Example alternate phrasing: (a) Secessionists in thirteen States declared Ordinances of Secession, or (b) At their Ordinances of Secession, Secessionists in thirteen State assumed State offices to withdraw the state-elected delegation from the U.S. Congress wherever they could. Post-Civil War, Congress restored vacated state delegations as each state conformed to the amended U.S. Constitution, ratifying the 13th and 14th Amendments to free slaves and grant citizenship of the soil to all.

Any suggested RfC wording? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis and the end of the Confederacy

The existing passage needs revision. At end of the Intro paragraph #3 relating the course of the war, the first half of paragraph #4 should summarize the end of the conflict.

The level of convoluted historiography and laying out alternate dating details do not belong in an Introduction. "A wave of Confederate surrenders followed. President Lincoln was assassinated just five days after Lee's surrender. As a practical matter, the war ended with the May 26 surrender of the Department of the Trans-Mississippi, but the conclusion of the American Civil War lacks a clean end date. Land forces continued surrendering past the May 26 surrender date until June 23."

A more suitable revision, to include Jefferson Davis’contribution to healing the nation by his acceptance of the U.S. Constitution comprised of "We the People", replacing the Articles of Confederation among "Sovereign States":

"With the major rebel armies surrendered by the end of Spring 1865 with field paroles, and the 1868 universal amnesty to restore U.S. citizenship for all participants in the Confederacy, organized Rebel resistance to US Constitutional authority ended; as Jefferson Davis’ memoir pronounced, "The Confederacy …disappeared. …[Each States’] history henceforth became a part of the history of the United States." Davis|1890|p=503

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Direct quotations should be used sparingly or not at all in the lead paragraphs. I know discussion took place recently about including mention of Jefferson Davis, but quoting his 1890 memoir to characterize the end of the war seems unwarranted IMO.--MattMauler (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with MM above. Direct quotations don't generally belong in leads unless they're super focused and kept quite short, and I don't think quoting Davis in the lead is particularly useful. Hog Farm _Talk 13:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah: when I added Jeff Davis, it was because mentioning him as the president is an important fact. But using a pretty reprehensible man with an obviously biased opinion as the only direct quote in the lead? No. Further, this revision entirely undoes the careful compromises and phrasing written as a result of the end of the war RfC. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Hog Farm: Intro quotes must be "super focused and quite short". AGREE with Hog Farm on the principle. The proposed Davis quote is 'focused and quite short'.  Done

2. Matt Mauler: "Direct quotes should be used sparingly; AGREE with Matt Mauler on the principle. The proposed edit is meant to be 'the one quote' in the Introduction.  Done

3. @CaptainEek: As a summary statement for the Intro, how does Davis describing the Union preserved and State histories going forward as U.S. history violate the article's wp:BALANCED account of the course of the War?

The sentiment in this Davis quote is NOT "obviously biased". If you believe an historical character to be "reprehensible", consider not commenting on, or reverting, anything on the subject. There is a danger of becoming wp:DISRUPTIVE with that self-acknowledged mental approach to history in this instance.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the most written about subjects in American history. There must be many better sources we could quote than Davis himself. Davis is not inclined to give a neutral accounting of the Confederacy, and is a primary source. Surely we could find a secondary source if we were going to use a quote in the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: Lincoln's assassination, "is one of the most written about subject in American history." is an interesting speculation on your part, but it is NOT germane to the Article topic here: the American Civil War.

- You must know that few if any reliable sources published in peer-reviewed academic journals attribute Lincoln's assassination to the Confederate Government's prosecution of the war, Spring 1861 to Spring 1865.

- The assassination takes place a week after Lee surrenders and while J.Davis is fleeing south incommunicado. Apparently some Secessionist sympathizers in the DC theater scene had previously accepted payments from Confederate intelligence operatives to spy on U.S. officials attending theater productions, but there is yet to be found any C.S. Government directive to assassinate ... despite decades of popular speculation-fiction.

- If I am mistaken, please report a reliable source on the subject -- that conforms to WP standards -- to confirm the C.S. Government authorized Lincoln's assassination in pursuit of its war aims, so it can be connected to this ACW article as somehow relevant in the Introduction, as opposed to say, Reconstruction era. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

?? You have just twisted my words. As to Lincoln, the only thing I have said is The assassination of Lincoln is non-negotiable in my view. It is one of the most important events of the war, as established by the wide amount and depth of coverage. Lincoln's death shifts the outcome of reconstruction in a massive way. It currently has a single, short sentence, which is appropriate. My use of most written about refers to the Civil War as a whole, and why we shouldn't use a Davis quote. The death of Lincoln was inexorably linked to the Civil War, even if it wasn't the Confederacy that pulled the trigger. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom's last chapter finishes with a discussion of Lincoln's last speech, and the last line is At least one listener interpreted this speech as moving Lincoln closer to the radical Republicans. "That means N---r citizenship," snarled John Wilkes Booth to a companion. "Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make." pp851-852, followed immediately by Lincoln's assassination in the epilogue, along with the end of the war, on p. 853. It has a very short sentence in the lead, its a very big event. It is a useful summary. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

WEASEL “territory” misleads the reader

wp:ERROR: The link provided above in this thread by @CaptainEek: to here goes to a passage that misrepresents the continuously shrinking Confederacy when from its first months, it purported to represent 13 states. It continued to do so throughout the entire course of the conflict, as graphically depicted in the maps for Union control of the South in Martis 1994 “Confederate Congress”.

As the Intro now reads, the passage misleads to infer an expansive popular support and territorial control that did neither exist, nor persist for four years: ” The Confederacy, under President Jefferson Davis, came to control at least a majority of territory in eleven out of the then 34 U.S. states. Four years of intense combat, mostly in the South, ensued.

1. This partisan wp:PUFFERY will mislead the international reader. The weasel first of all drops the case of 1861 KY and MO, two-fifths of the five Border States, or 2.3 millions free population ("Without Kentucky the game is lost." - Lincoln) – HOWEVER, the C.S. Congress maintains full delegations for all 13 states claimed over the course of “Four (4) years of intense combat”, so how can WP Editors NOT include them as the historic Confederacy did by an Intro misdirection using wp:WEASEL: “came to control (sic) at least a majority of territory in eleven (sic) out of the then 34 U.S. states”?

2. The reference to territory is wp:PUFFERY to the modern reader. Texas is THEN a large territory with a small population comparable to modern Maine. In 1860 it has 2-Representatives, making it larger than 1-free NB and 1-slave FL, but smaller than 3-VT and 3-NH (now 1-Representative states).

3. "Four years of intense combat…mostly in the South, ensued" misleads, because over half of the populations represented in the C.S. Congress, by 1863 had become Union garrisoned: Border States MO, KY, WV, and Mississippi Valley states TN, AK, MS & LA, along with FL ports (according to both the 1860 U.S. Census, and the 1861 C.S. Congressional District apportionment @ Martis, 1994).

The passage should read,

"The four-year Confederacy never controlled the entire territory of its expansive claims. Throughout the conflict it shrank. Every port captured became a terminal on the Underground Railroad, every Union advance brought more scouts, cooks, farmers, teamsters, railroad labor. By 1865 pockets of Confederate resistance remained in Virginia, North Carolina, and along the Texas frontier, numbering fewer than the Union's black soldiers and sailors who served."

See Archives accounting here. Texas was a “frontier” state by the U.S. Census definition of population per square mile. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd ditch the third sentence about "every port" and "every Union advance". I've taken enough article through higher levels to know that that sentence will be challenged on encyclopedic tone if this is ever taken to GA or FA, and it provides the impression that every Union advance brought about useful things for the Federals. Also, your final sentence is inaccurate, ignoring things such as Mobile, Alabama (surrendered in April); Columbus, Georgia (Battle of Columbus in April); Charleston, South Carolina (abandoned/captured February); Shreveport, Louisiana; Camden, Arkansas; etc. It would be better to simply mention that the Confederacy had lost most of its claimed territory by 1865, without attempting to name regions. Hog Farm _Talk 13:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: See subsection "ports benefitted" below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Loser 'eventually' (sic) loses territory

What would this version achieve that the current lead doesn't? The third paragraph already details the course of the war and how the Confederacy quickly shrank. It is not shocking to the reader that in wars, the loser will eventually lose territory. I don't see how we are misleading by stating that at the outset of the conflict, they controlled 11 states. Obviously by the end they didn't control all 11 anymore. The paragraph is engagingly written though, I think it might fit fine in the body somewhere, but not the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: 1. There is nothing "eventually" about it. In TWO (2) short years, the time of a freshman one-term Congressman's term, the Confederacy loses control of half of the population represented in the C.S. Congress -- for the 4-year duration of the war.

- If it is obviously TRUE that the 13, and not 11 (sic), represented in the C.S. Congress were NEITHER resident taxed NOR militarily controlled by the Confederate Government for four (4) years, then there should be NO objection to removing the wp:PUFFERY asserting "four years of heavy fighting in 11 (sic) states, yes?

- As it stands in the Article, the partisan overstatement is wp:ERROR in this way: "The Confederacy, under President Jefferson Davis, came to control at least (wp:weasel) a majority of territory in eleven out of the then 34 U.S. states. Four years of intense combat, mostly in the South, ensued.

NO. By the end of two (2) years fighting, in 1863, over half of the South is garrisoned, without any further "heavy fighting" to be had over the remaining course of the War. As discussed previously these garrisoned states include all, or the majority of population in MO.KY.WV.AR.TN.MS.LA, over half of Jeff.Davis' C.S. Senate by my reconning considering the enfranchised free white males who were the Southern people, voting; by Feb 18, 1864 opening 1st Session, 2nd C.S. Congress, Confederacy House had LOST 40.6% 'Union occupied', 9.4% 'Union disrupted'. (Martis 1994, p.51)

SOURCED CONCLUSION: In the first two years of conflict, fifty percent (40-50%) of the Confederate population was lost to the Union progress of arms. That is worth a subordinate clause of description in a wp:BALANCED article Intro. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

- The WP Editor consensus at a search for "The South (U.S.) is found at Southern United States. The region is comprised of the 13 "Old Confederacy", plus DE.MD.OK. The reader familiar with the WP use of South will be misled by the overstated wp:PUFFERY which in the case amounts to wp:ERROR "over four years of intense fighting, mostly in the South" of 13 represented Confederate states, or 16 (sic) states to the eyes of the modern reader familiar with WP editor consensus.

2. See subsection intro para surrender sequencing below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

For one, I'm not thrilled that you separated my comment out into a new section and then put a (sic) after eventually, which as far as I can tell spelled right. Second, the wording is "four years of heavy fighting ensued, mostly in the South", not "in the 11 states". And again, the entire third paragraph details the course of the war, and how the Confederacy shrank throughout the war. Third, not sure why you're fighting over this, since your version of the lead keeps the four years language, and only changes "heavy fighting" to "fierce fighting"? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I for one, am not against coherent discussion.It is customary at Talk to separate different discussion topics by subheads, as each deserves distinct consideration. It shortens subtopic areas to allow Editors to see them with a quick glance at the Table of Contents, then each can choose which element they wish to chime in on, coherently in a way that others can follow without parsing through the entire screen(s) top to bottom searching by Editors posting rather than subsection topics of discussion.

"Eventually" is not misspelled, it is substantively incorrect. In the first two years of war, half the Confederacy's population represented in the C.S. Congress (13 states as sourced, not Editor-POV 11) is lost to it --- by February 1864, at the convening of its 1st Session, 2nd Congress (Martis 1994, p.51). In just two years, catastrophic loss was suffered, and NOT wp:puffery "eventually" (sic). Without geographic references to regions familiar to the general reader provided in the Revision, a new reader of Civil War history will NOT understand the cities listed as lost by the Confederacy mark a continuous, accelerated shrinking of its military reach and popular support.

Yes, the revision keeps the "four-years fighting" text. You must have noticed, each of the five paragraph revisions keeps most of the previous text and substance. I am not sure why you are fighting over this, since so much of the existing Intro text remains unchanged in the proposed revisions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Union garrisoned forts benefitted the Union

1. @Hog Farm: Beginning with Fort Monroe, name one Union garrisoned port that did NOT receive escaped slaves to farm for the garrison and blockading ships' crews, enlist as sailors even before emancipation, and as soldiers thereafter, etc.?

- I do not understand how An imaginary counter-factual will never be used to successfully challenge an Article from achieving GA. To wit: Administrator: "I imagine it is possible that there may have been a Union garrisoned port where enslaved blacks nearby did not find sanctuary, but no such example exists, therefore Good Article status DENIED based on my imaginary notion: revise and repeat the application."

- If that is NOT so, to help me better understand WP Administrators, based on your extensive experience here at Wikipedia, please name one (1) example of an Administrator reasoning that way, among those (many) "enough article(s)" you've taken "through higher levels". Likewise for the point about escaping slaves sought sanctuary within every Union offensive, even when it subsequently withdrew, as in the Union Valley campaigns.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree on the ports - any Union-held port would have attracted escaping slaves. The Union advances likewise generally brought escaping slaves although stuff like Streight's Raid brought about no ultimate sanctuary. If you can find a source that does support the use of every here, then I have no objection, but I'm worried that attempts to make the writing more forceful will unintentionally stray from sources. Hog Farm _Talk 15:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Intro surrender-sequence by region

2. @Hog Farm: Thank you for the constructive input. A regional account is appropriate rather than the extended kinds of detailed enumeration we see in the present Paragraph #3, which is inappropriate for an Introduction, and also too long as an Intro paragraph as it stands. But I have found accepting information into Notes meets many Editor concerns, and I propose to collegially do so here, to acknowledge your good input.

Critique Answered: "[Y]our final sentence is inaccurate, ignoring things such as..." see Note below in REVISION #1:

By 1865 pockets of Confederate resistance at the Army Corps level remained in Virginia, North Carolina, and along the Texas frontier, numbering fewer than the Union's black soldiers and sailors who served.

- Thank you for the collegial input, your revision is ACCEPTED as a "friendly amendment". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: - I guess when in 1865 are you wanting to refer to? See, for instance, File:Civil war 1861-1865.png. At the outset of 1865, the Confederates still controlled most of the Carolinas, part of Virginia, and chunks of the Deep South and the Trans-Mississippi. By the time of the major surrenders, it was closer to the original phrasing, although, among other things, the Union never viewed taking over Florida as much of a priority. I still think it's best to go vaguer in the lead, to avoid opening this sort of can of worms. A simple statement that the Confederates had lost the vast majority of its territory by, say April 1865, would be the level of detail a lead needs to go into, and the blow-by-blow detail of territorial losses can be done in the body. FWIW, I'm much less familiar with the events out east, and am primarily interested in the Trans-Mississippi West. 15:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Para #4 Consensus for 'course of the war'

Mock up: Para #4 Course of the War

Here's the latest draft for mock up: "During 1861–1862 in the Western Theater, the Union made significant permanent gains in the Mississippi River Valley along its great rivers and captured New Orleans by sea. In the Eastern Theater, Union victory at the Battle of Antietam in September 1862 repelled Lee’s invasion of the North at Maryland, and Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation substantially increasing Union manpower from freed slaves. In 1863, the Union Blockade of Confederate-held port cities became effective, and Vicksburg fell, giving Union control of the entire Mississippi River to cut off Texas cattle. Federals turned back Lee’s second invasion at Gettysburg. The year 1864 saw Atlanta fall and Sherman’s March to the Sea. Capturing Charleston SC cut off the Gulf States from Richmond. In Spring 1865 Petersburg and Richmond fell, and the Confederate armies fleeing south in Virginia and retreating north in North Carolina surrendered with a Union parole to go home in peace.

• The Intro paragraph on the course of the war should include the consensus topics, be shorter (150 words), and include a mix of events and strategic context to engage readers to pursue the following sections here at American Civil War and elsewhere. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC); Note added. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus does exist for Intro paragraph #4 in both the existing text and proprosed revision.

They include these key elements, with the revision more concisely written by 40 words. The concise revision does NOT CaptainEek: "Entirely rewrote the lead, upsetting consensus wording and topics..." as noted at his undiscussed revert.

The conforming consensus includes:

(a) Western Theater including TX,

(b) Eastern Theater including WV,

(c) Emancipation Proclamation & manpower,

(d) the Union Blockade, ports & New Orleans,

(e) the Mississippi River campaign & Vicksburg, Valley Riverboats and Army maneuver,

(f) Lee's incursions at Antietam and Gettysburg; Union repelling them,

(g) Sherman's March to the Sea, Richmond-Petersburg isolation,

(h) Surrender of Lee's Army of Virginia.

The revision omits none of these existing key elements. Instead, it conforms to the consensus of previously workshopped "Course-of-the-War" summary. This could have been readily explained here in the #Fourth new Intro paragraph Talk-section provided, without any need for an un-discussed revert prior to disrupting the Article page. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

- - It works as is, we do not need to much detail in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian First, reverts don't need to be discussed, its literally in the name of WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, it got reverted, so far no one has agreed with it. Second, consensus is more than just about topics, its about wording. I have provided extensive reasoning for why I don't like the various lead changes. I agree that there is consensus, for the current version, not your version. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes you said a revision 40-words shorter than the existing AND sharing all the existing elements was "bloated".

I collegially asked you to please underline the passages in the revised test that were "bloated" here at Talk in the green text provided.

You have not yet responded over a couple of days. You can't be making up specious reasons for a revert without any substance or logic in a fit of wp:OWN: I do not believe that is so, so I just need to give you a chance to explain yourself in wp:GOOD FAITH, which I am very willing to do here.

Oh, and you could help me out with the grammar errors that you alluded to, I missed them. It happens from time to time. No problem, your corrections are welcome, they are just "friendly amendments". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I already told you that my concern of bloat was for the lead in general, and that I did not agree with you cutting down this paragraph in exchange to make the rest of the lead longer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you have made another presumptive assertion without any evidence. The subject of the discussion was Intro Paragraph #4 on the course of the war, but you just made that up to attack my revision without warrant or reason. Now, for another time, you rhetorically purport to be critical of "bloat" without any instance of it, there is no specific passage indicated.

- I do believe my writing can be improved, but it is hard to make it more concise if you say "bloating" or "lengthy" passages in there --- but you repeatedly cannot find any instance when given the wp:good faith opportunity to do so, to help me out with revising my writing. Fifty years ago I went through basic military training, I get what you are doing, you want me to be persistent, resourceful, and self-reliant, to overcome artificial obstacles you place in my path to contribute here, so that I can prepare for the real thing.

- I enjoy thinking through things, just as a general proposition. But now you are dealing with a 73-year old with some life-experience. My good CaptainEek, could you perhaps, be less "Sergeant Instructor" here at Talk and while reverting me, and more Wikipedia Collegial? Help me out. Show me where I need to rewrite a passage rather than summarily dismiss my contribution. If there is no good reason to disallow my contribution, accept it without a whiff of wp:ownership.

- To return to Para #4, your second stated objection was that the revision left something out, yet I have showed the consensus milestones, you added no others --- and none are left out from the previous well-workshopped consensus; I adopt the consensus milestones in the revision. However, the Revision uses a more concise delivery of major developments using well-known regions and strategic evolution with the agreed-upon-milestones, abandoning only the numbing list of Generals and Battles and lengthy enumeration of Generals and Battles -- familiar only to the devoted Civil War hobbyist, which we both are.

- By your reiterating a variation of the unsubstantiated "bloat" critique, I take it you have no further substantive objection to my Revision. A wall of text enumerating our favorite Generals out of strategic context strips the enumerated listing of any compelling interest for the visitor to read on into the article, or to investigate others at WP that make the Wikipedia experience so rich -- but we can encourage them if we just give them a chance to get through the longest, driest paragraph in the Introduction, as it is now written. wp:Other stuff published elsewhere is not an answer. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Defense of existing Intro para#4 text

Alright, I'll give some more specific criticism here with input on the various battles that have been fought over wording. I am pointing out two key wordings from the current version that have been fought over and reached consensus:

• The last sentence, which currently ends with ...setting in motion the end of the war. Wording secured as part of the end of the war RfC.
• The emancipation proclamation explainer, declaring all slaves in states in rebellion to be free, which made ending slavery a war goal, which has gone through various permutations to get to this stable version.

Those probably aren't the only ones, but they are the recent ones I remember. Otherwise, I again apologize about my misplaced bloat mention. Again, that objection was to the lead in general getting longer, while this key paragraph got shorter. I'll finish with my main reason to keep the paragraph the way that it is: the current version reads better. I think the prose is much more engaging, and much closer to the FA level than your suggested alternative. WikiProse is so often boring, and much work has gone into making this lead engaging to read. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"setting in motion the end of the war"

First, at the last RfC --- given the context of that discussion then, I would have joined you in an attempt to bring the extended Editors' exchange to a close with the summary adopted: ...setting in motion the end of the war. It served its Editorial consensus purpose to allow Talk page discussions to move forward to other concerns. I AGREE to that purpose, as far as it goes.

Now, I propose the next step forward, to summarize the HOW of "the-end-of-the-war", but NOT as merely an Editorial substitute for an extended list of controversial end-date-skirmishes. The Revision will substitute the amorphous "setting in motion the end of" open hostilities by uniformed regulars, to a summary phrase iterating the stages uniting the Union. It is an "exceptional" way the U.S. had used before to treat a defeated mass rebellion. For an extended discussion, see Jay Wink 2006 April 1865: The Month That Saved America.

Following George Washington's example at the Whiskey Rebellion, the Government issued a blanket "universal" pardon to all participating in the Rebellion. That restored their U.S. citizenship, excepting only Congressional restrictions on their rights to hold office among señor Confederate officers. Federal or State office-holding would require them to again swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which many had failed to do in the "the-late-unpleasantness" -- the genteel Southern expression for the recently previous event(s) among our fellow citizens.

Existing: The Confederates abandoned Richmond, and on April 9, 1865, Lee surrendered to Grant following the Battle of Appomattox Court House, setting in motion the end of the war.

- Revision text with a reference to Johnston and a summary explanation of the HOW armed conflict ended at the American Civil War, cited at the National Archives "Surrenders, paroles, and amnesty for many Confederate combatants would take place...":

Revision: In Spring 1865 Petersburg and Richmond fell, and the Confederate armies fleeing south in Virginia and retreating north in North Carolina surrendered with a Union parole to go home in peace.

This is now the twice-amended revision under Editors review since the RfC, with only four (4) more words -- total post-RfC revisions still 20 words shorter -- it adds Johnston's surrender to Lee's, removes the amorphous "leading to", drops the Editor-controversial April 9 date (Ed: fewer dates are Intro-better), and the Revision NOW adds an explicit description of the HOW peace was restored. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian and CaptainEek: While we can appreciate the consensus version in paragraph four, we must remember that this doesn't mean that we must get an act of congress, per group ownership, anytime other editors want to add various points. An RfC is usually called for when someone wants to make major changes, but I don't see the few points of clarity that TVH wants to add as anything that calls for that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Gwillhickers Well I still don't think this version of this sentence is better: it removes the specifics. It doesn't mention the generals, it doesn't mention the date. And it ignores the hard work of the end of the war RfC. But if you believe TVH has the superior version then I will concede this change. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Not trying to get into some contest about whose version is "superior" and have the utmost respect for well thought out consensus -- just wanted to mention that a few points added to the consensus version might do well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I rather think mentioning "Appomattox" like mentioning "Sumter" is useful summary, but I would drop "setting in motion the end of the war" altogether from the end of that paragraph, and let the next paragraph deal with the follow month(s)/ending issues. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Works for me, implemented. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, don't want to revert something that was discussed, but the few words, "setting in motion the end of the war." is actually, imo, a good point of context. It's certainly understood by history buffs, and of course scholars, that Appomattox ended the war, but I think it's safe to assume that young students and such don't quite know or appreciate the resultant aftermath, yet, which is why they come to Wikipedia, first, to get the low-down. Don't see any issue with mentioning "set in motion". It's good prose, and of course a fact. I would re-include that definitive point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Restored, I do like it as a transition, and as a useful explainer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Describing Reconstruction

@Maurice Magnus The partially successful descriptor has been used to describe Reconstruction in the lead for some time. I don't see why we can't use it, we have the benefit of hindsight and history, and I think it is useful to describe to the reader whether this attempt to "bind up the nation's wounds" (as Lincoln so sagely put it) worked or not. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek I don't know why I didn't get an email about your comment, but I did get an alert. Even if we used "partially successful," Reconstruction wasn't partially successful at the time that the nation entered it. If we do make reference to its degree of success in the introduction, then I think that we should note that it became a failure after federal troops were withdrawn in 1877.Maurice Magnus (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus I guess I don't get the logic of why we have to describe its success at its outset. Most ventures are successful to begin with, its only after time that their actual success becomes known. Nor do I see why we'd need to mention the end of Reconstruction. I think its enough to mention that it started, and that it was overall a mixed success. The country was reunited, the Southern states were reincorporated, but only limited rights were granted to the freed slaves. That's a partial success, which also means its a partial failure. No need to dive into the details. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we don't have to describe its degree of success at its outset or mention the end of Reconstruction. I agree that it's enough to mention that it started, but I disagree that we should mention that it was overall a mixed success. In the end, it was a failure. Black people in the South could not vote and were terrorized, causing millions to migrate north. But the more important point is that this is an article on the American Civil War, and Reconstruction came after the Civil War. Therefore, we should not even mention it beyond the sentence we have now: "The war-torn nation then entered the Reconstruction era in an attempt to rebuild the country, bring the former Confederate states back into the union, and grant civil rights to freed slaves." That sentence says in effect that, after the Civil War came Reconstruction, and if you want to know about that, click on Reconstruction era. I'd leave it just as it is. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Historical record versus nostalgic fantasy

As y'all know, now that you have sourced access here at Talk to information not contaminated by specious “Lost Cause misdirection” or a commercial “false moral equivalence” for book sales among nostalgic fantasists,

(a) states cannot lawfully leave a democratic republic without following its Constitutional procedures because "the one people" of the Declaration are sovereign, and NEITHER a "divine monarch", NOR any legal (abstract) political fiction called a "state";

It is the People in each nation who are sovereign in a democratic-republic,

- NOT rebellion which never exceeded a 30% minority of the free white males among the One People of the United States of America, acknowledge at the Ratification of the US Constitution, and by a majority of the People’s elected representatives at every state admission to the Union.

- NOR -- for the Wikipedia international readers who have no interest in either the Lost Cause fiction, or book sales among the Sons of the Confederacy -- the foreign invaders imposing unconstitutional rule by force of arms over nearly 20% of the national population at the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Military occupation of cities and town, closing Ukrainian Orthodox Churches recognized by the Cosmopolitan Patriarch of Constantinople, and forcing all schooling to be done in Russian rather than the national Ukrainian language, is all done in violation of the Ukrainian, “European”, democratic-republican Constitution.

-NOR is Russian deportation of 3 millions of Loyal Ukrainian Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking population to Russia while taking away their Ukrainian passports, and not issuing them Russian passports,

- NOR is a Russian-printed unconstitutional "cession referendum" administered by armed soldiers uniformed in foreign uniform, going house to house, who witness the open (not secret) ballot collected at the home of residents in states - a procedure in violation of the Ukrainian democratic-republic's Constitution and condemned in international law, the sitting European Union, and the United Nations as I understand it.

(b) States in the Union with Rebels disrupting US elections from Fall 1861-Spring 1885 were not "returned to the Union" in any way, there was NO Congressional Act Re-admitting them because those same states in the Union never left.

- U.S. Congressional state delegations beginning 1866 were seated as qualified citizens in each state meeting qualifications by Acts of Congress voted to accept the US Constitution as amended over the time period Rebel force of arms prevented voters in US Federal elections numbering at least half of those in the 1860 presidential election for Congress and the Presidency from November 1862 to November 1864.

- For now, I will leave it to you to correct the glaring wp:ERROR found in the phrase, “bring the former Confederate states back into the union”; remove this and other errata found and identified. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A person who steals from you does not legally own it, but the police still return it to you if they recover it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Thank you for understanding the need to correct the Neo-Confederate wp:ERRORs laced throughout this article. "A [Rebel] who steals [territory and population] from [the USG's "One People"] does not legally own it, but the [Sovereign People resident there] still return it to you if they recover it."

1. The Sovereign People* in Southern states occupied by Confederate armies 1861-1865 had their elections for the Congress forcibly denied by Secessionist.

2. Shortly after liberation from Rebel occupation, those loyal to the Constitution seated their state delegations to the U.S. in Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee, ... at first in Rebel-controlled areas as individuals by requesting amnesty by taking an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Government as Robert E. Lee did,

3. and then by accepting the Federal blanket amnesty of all those who had participated in or supported the Great Rebellion. The Confederate generation mid-1800s, then loyally voted in Federal elections, ran for state and federal office, and they all swore (or Quaker-affirmed) the U.S. Oath of Allegiance as executive, legislative or judicial officials of both state and federal government as required in the U.S. Constitution (Article VI). See Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar of Mississippi, for example.

- * "The police" in a democratic-republic are the lawful officers of constitutional government who hold a monopoly of armed force, and they are held responsible to the Sovereign People for their use of force in the community to the authority and direction of elected officials. "The police" are NOT self-appointed tribal militias on the Afghanistan model:

(a) 1861 Secessionist militias without officers appointed by the constitutionally elected Governor (Sam Houston, Governor of Texas, et alia),

(b) urban street gangs extorting shopkeepers on "their turf", or

(c) foreign drug cartels unlawfully stripping communities of their generational wealth and their posterity by murder

-- in the American Secessionist case, 600,000 of mostly young lives were lost in the Secessionist's vain attempt to extend a "state's right to slavery" in the Western Hemisphere into the 20th century -- even after the Christian Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople had condemned it here, and previously supported the end of serfdom in the Russian Empire proclaimed in 1856 and emancipated in March 1861.

- At the Virginia Secessionist Convention in Richmond, Unionists warned their slaveholding neighbors that slavery in Virginia could be preserved amidst worldwide commerce only under the protection of the U.S. Constitution as it was, and only as long as it artificially protected slavery here. Secessionists with their gerrymandered Convention districts allowed a majority of delegates to out-vote them, while they represented a minority of free white men in Virginia enfranchised to vote at the time.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

VACANT seats versus SECEDED states

What do RS say about it? Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources based on primary documents conform to the summary found in Chapter 11, p. 100 of Origins and Development of Congress (free download PDF) published by the Congressional Quarterly, Inc., "The Civil War all but eliminated the South from national politics and representation in Congress for eight years. Most of the 66 House seats held by the 11 secessionist states in 1860 remained vacant from 1861 to 1869."

- Agenda-pushing narratives have NO primary sources of the USG to show Acts of Congress allowing state secession, nor are there any to show Acts of Congress re-admitting states to the Union. They have ONLY Jefferson Davis memoirs such as Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (free online borrowing at Internet Archives) on which to stand and re-echo, and those self-justifying memoirs have insufficient reliability for use here by the international reader or for any serious student of the period consulting this Wikipedia article, regardless of

(a) any Lost Cause interpretations pressed into service for adoption as Texas K-12 schoolbooks, or

(b) commercially marketed books adapted to pump sales to the Atlanta Chapter of the Sons of the Confederacy, and their nephews and nieces.

- See also Kevin Martis 1988, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress 1789-1989. The secessionist-controlled states are not “lost” or expunged from the Union, the SEATS representing the “One People” of the United States (Declaration) in each Congressional delegation are designated "VACANT" in contemporaneous sources, 1861-1868.

If you do find an "Act of State Expulsion", or an "Act of State Re-admission" at the mid-1800s Great Rebellion in the United States, please do site either one of them for me. But I believe there are NONE to be found.

- Individual Members of Congress aiding the Rebel cause to overthrow the U.S. Constitutional order were expelled from their respective SEATS in the House or Senate. But their States were not removed from the Union, the SEATS were noted in the Journals of the U.S. Congress as VACANT.

- So say ALL reliable sources with supporting primary documents, as opposed to any convenient shorthand references meant for U.S. domestic consumption to avoid "refighting the Civil War" in corporate boardrooms or faculty lounges, which I do support in those contexts apart from a Wikipedia article of history intended for an international general reader or a student for instance, in a Ukraine bomb shelter under guided missile attack as he reads about the American Civil War here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

And, to be sure, whenever you would like, I can be more accommodating in my phraseology during our discussions, speaking for myself. I will be happy to do so if I can contribute to a wider discussion among interested colleagues, our fellow Wikipedian editors here present.

Full disclosure, I was partially raised by genteel Southrons, and we can all discuss "the late unpleasantness" of the mid-1800s in more detached terms if you would like -- for the sake of a more refined sociability among those of "the enslaving persuasion" visiting with us here at ACW Talk. "Southern hospitality" is a renowned virtue among my people, welcoming of all who enter.

I assure y'all that I can conduct myself as such with a more elevated deportment, whenever called upon to do so, just as long as the circumstances here permit me to maintain the dignity and honor that manhood requires of me, as we once said down here.

However, I have never been treated in that archaic 19th century, Romantic Era, genteel manner here at Wikipedia by anyone, ever.

@Slatersteven: How about you? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what any of the above has to do with it, do they say "did not leave"? You are the one arguing for a change, you are the one who needs to back it up with sources that explicitly support it. 10:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

1. User:Slatersteven is obligated to read my post immediately above his last to see and acknowledge, the reliable scholarly sources published by the Congressional Quarterly, the Congressional Record, and the Biographical Directory of the United States. To Talk-post pretend no such sources have now been published to back up the identified article revisions required to replace the pin-pointed wp:ERRORs in this article, is to fail in good editing practice promoted by the Wikipedia Foundation for this article.

2. Did the sources say states "did not leave"? - No. Because the states in the U.S. cannot leave the Union, there is no need to posit that, "They did not leave."

- States in a democratic-republic of consolidated Union (Patrick Henry) CANNOT unilaterally leave just as the Founders clearly, outspokenly understood, whether Federalists or Anti-Federalists in each and every of the 13 ratification conventions, widely reported and read (and read aloud) contemporaneously throughout the United States --- UNLIKE those previous "states" which had been bound in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles confederation of sovereign states.

- The U.S. Constitution of 1789 ushered in a new consolidated-federal regime in the United States of America, overthrowing the purely federal one before it. That was contemporaneously, formally acknowledged unanimously in the last session of the Articles Congress as it closed, "end of business".

- Many of those voting in the last Articles Congress session then immediately swore before their God and the U.S. Congress to uphold the U.S. Constitution in their elective offices taken up in the new regime. That is a fact of American history which is commonly understood by all of wp:good faith here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Not according to RS which say they were readmitted, this is your OR of primary documents. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And if you are replying to something, can you place it under what you are replying to and format it correctly. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

1. The RS is provided in this thread, under the Slatersteven challenge directly to me |here, "What do RS say about it?". Directly under it is my reply, Origins and Development of Congress (free download PDF) published by the Congressional Quarterly, Inc., "The Civil War all but eliminated the South from national politics and representation in Congress for eight years. Most of the 66 House seats held by the 11 secessionist states in 1860 remained VACANT from 1861 to 1869.". (Ed: emphasis added). That is to say, the SEATS were vacant, but the STATES were NOT seceded.

2. Please do now show your suggested format to correct for this and other posts directly below in this thread, any at all, that you may deem "improper format", or please do now abandon your second assault of snarky personal attacks on me about wiki-procedure that together amount to online bullying, posted here and on my editor-page most recently, "I think you need to read WP:BLUDGEON." Slatersteven (talk) 10:10 am, 13 October 2022", and "you are the only one arguing for your edit, it is now time to drop it as you do not have consensus." Slatersteven (talk) 10:50 am, 13 October 2022. My reply there at my Talk. listed the dialog of your direct asks of me, and my 1:1 replies.

3. User:Slatersteven suggested that an encyclopedia used the phrase "Readmitted into the union" "Reamited into the union" https://edu.lva.virginia.gov/dbva/items/show/150| here. But the article's reference to the Reconstruction Acts does not support the statement, because they say here, where "no legal State governments ... now exists in the rebel States…", upon eligible resident voters meeting the Convention and Constitutional requirements to make the enacted military districts “inoperative”, --- then "said state shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress. Nothing about STATES reentering only U.S. REPS reseated.

- HOWEVER, Wikipedia policy directs that in the place of ERROR in an encyclopedia entry, Editors are encouraged for the sake of Article accuracy to use a citation from an academic scholar publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

In this Talk thread, I provided the North Carolina Law Review |article by Professor Gabriel Chin. The Introduction begins, "As part of the process of readmitting the former Confederate states to representation in Congress…", and that is the phraseology that this Wikipedia ACW article should use.

4. Do now abandon the irresponsible accusation that RS provided here at Talk by me are my wp:OR,which is again, another personal attack on me about wiki-procedure, "this is your OR of primary documents.", implying that I am alone responsible for independently inserting information into a Wiki-Article which are wp:reliable sources from Robert A. Diamond, ed. published by The Congressional Quarterly, Kenneth C. Martis at The MacMillan Publishing Company, and the Congressional Biographical Dictionary published by the Government Printing Office, any and all of which are not my OR as you accuse me here at Talk in this thread.

- Please do me and the other Editors reading this page, the courtesy of replying here in this thread to each of the four (4) elements in my post, immediately below in this thread. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, do any of these say (using these words) "but the STATES were NOT seceded"? Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Asked and answered above, you are creating an unnecessary wall of words. Did the sources say states 'did not leave'? - No. Because the states in the U.S. cannot leave the Union, there is no need to posit that, 'They did not leave.'

This is an article of American history in American English at Wikipedia, the articles are to agree with one another. The settled law of the United States on this topic is found discussed on Wikipedia at Texas v. White. This article should conform to that Wikipedia article and the scholarly reliable source published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, |article by Professor Gabriel Chin. The phrase ACW adopts in this context should conform to that quoted above, such as "As part readmitting Congressional representation from the previously Rebel-held states…", as previously sourced in this thread, and left rebutted.

As quoted at Texas v. White, "When [a state] became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation, ...perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. ...[M]ore than a compact, it was the incorporation ...into the political body. And it was final ...as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

- The late 1860-1861 attempt at a "Secession Amendment" failed in Congress, the Rebellion failed to become an accomplished Revolution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"Readmitted into the Union" versus "U.S. Representatives readmitted"

"Reamited into the union" https://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/georgia-civil-war-108886 https://edu.lva.virginia.gov/dbva/items/show/150 https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/cons/features/0206_01/slide2.html

"rejoin the United States" https://www.britannica.com/topic/Reconstruction-Acts

So all those sources use the term "rejoin" or "readmit". That is enough to tell me we are correct. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, let’s look into it. I take the sourced information at any link from an encyclopedia with contributions by scholars, including this one from the Library of Virginia as usually useful information. However, regardless of sourcing, WP articles are not REQUIRED to admit wp:ERROR from any source.

- The Title of the article does indeed read, “Letter Announcing Virginia’s Readmission to the United States, 1870”. The first introductory paragraph under “Context” makes reference to the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 and 1868. Let’s look at the text of those acts, to see whether "These Acts described the necessary requirements for a state to rejoin the Union." which has now been identified as wp:ERROR, without any Talk-space rebuttal to date.

Further:

1. THE PRIMARY DOCUMENTS do not support the encyclopedic-written characterization in the popular phrase "states rejoin the union", an wp:ERROR.--- At OwlEyes.org "Text of the First Reconstruction Act", The Act of 1867 text begins, --- where "no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property now exists in the rebel States…", upon eligible resident voters meeting the Convention and Constitutional requirements to make the enacted military districts “inoperative”, --- then "said state shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and senators and representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law".

Note: There is NO mention of "readmitting states to the Union", or "states rejoining the Union" to be found in the subject document(s) referred to in the encyclopedic entries or news publications cited by User:Slatersteven above. They are the popular but unfounded bases of the article's identified wp:ERRORs on this subject.

2. SCHOLARSHIP BY EXPERTS is to be chosen by WP Editors over general encyclopedic entries as a matter of Wikipedia Foundation policy. --- At a North Carolina Law Review |article by Professor Gabriel Chin, the Introduction begins, "As part of the process of readmitting the former Confederate states to representation in Congress…", and that is the phraseology that the Wikipedia ACW article should use.

3. To avoid the demonstrated wp:ERROR shown in this and my previous post, which is not discredited to date, AND to conform to expert scholarship in the field cited in this first law journal, the American Civil War article must adopt

- NOT the erroneous "popularly used phrase", identified as "readmitting states to the Union", but rather --- DO USE the correct and scholarly phrase(s), “readmitting former [Rebel, Confederate, illegal] States [governments] to representation in Congress”.

- As shown at the links in this and previous post. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Where were these found to be errors, by who? Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

More

"readmission to the Union" [[66]]

" readmitted to the Union" [[67]]

"readmitted to the Union." Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era [Two Volumes] - Page 513 Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This needs closing there is no consensus for this, and it is just a wall of text, that appears to be OR. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia should maintain a global perspective, and describe events as a global citizen would see them. The idea of 'people's sovereignty' might be held by a large part of the population, and be the philosophical underpinning of the American government, but this does not necessarily make them facts. To a neutral observer, Alabama clearly established its independence in 1860, spent the next few years attempting to defend this independence, and ultimately failed in the attempt. While philosophically it might have remained part of the United States for this period, Wikipedia should describe the facts on the ground, while also mentioning the philosophical and legal debate.

Let me make an analogy. In 1649, King Charles II of England was executed. The following years, England was without a monarch, until, in 1660, his son Charles was restored to the throne. This is the course of events that was experienced by everyone involved in the events of this period. If you believe in the legal philosophy of Divine right of Kings, Charles II became king immediately upon his father's death. This legal idea is important to discuss, but the reality of the situation remains that England did not have a king for the intervening period.

Or, to put it more simply, we are dealing with a difference between de facto and de jure situations.

David12345 (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. The period is known as the ''Interregnum'' IOW a gap when there was no king. In ''Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor'' (1830) that Sailor's Snug Harbor was not part of the State of New York when it was occupied by the British. "[I]t was in the possession of the British. The government of the State of New York did not extend to it in point of fact." People residing there were, the decision continues, not residing in the state. Their reasoning is based on English common law, which held that Charles II did not become king of England until he was able to exercise the position. Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

So it is correct to say that the Confederate states seceded from the union and were re-admitted. And note too they were not treated as states until they were re-admitted. TFD (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"To a neutral observer, Alabama clearly established its independence in 1860, spent the next few years attempting to defend this independence, and ultimately failed in the attempt." Well I think you mean 1861, but your statement seems a rather contradictory, if it was an "attempt", in fact then it cannot be already be "established", in fact. Moreover, a neutral viewer would see from the beginning Alabama was divided between Unionist and Secessionists, with parts controlled by Unionists throughout. Thus Alabama itself was in an internal civil war throughout the period, and if you take Charles I analogy, it is not the period after he was executed, it is the civil war period before. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources that Unionists controlled parts of Alabama throughout, just that some of them formed guerilla groups. But even if they did, it would be the same as New York City during the U.S. Revolution, which has also been considered a civil war.

Charles I was recognized as king until his death because he was recognized as such by both royalists and roundheads. Parliament formally abolished the office the same day as his execution. His son was not recognized as king even though the civil war would continue for two more years.

The future Charles II was able to control parts of England until defeated in Worcester. TFD (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Which means that the proper analogy is the civil war period before Charles I execution, not the period after. Parts of Alabama were Unionist throughout, and the formal Union Army was in Alabama by 1862, raising Union troops in Alabama. Even to the extent there was a civil war in New York in the 1770s, it failed to uphold the king's sovereignty. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

My point was that limiting yourself to the legal situation that obtained after the conflict is a cute rhetorical trick, but doesn't supply a complete picture of the situation. Under the US constitution, unilateral secession is impossible, but secessionists clearly wanted to withdraw themselves from that very consitution, and as a practical matter left the United States until returned by force over the next few years. It is all well and good to describe the legal conclusion that constitutional scholars (and many at the time) came to, but it shouldn't take precedence over the reality of day-to-day events. England was not a monarchy after the death of Charles I, even if this is a logical absurdity under the philosophy of monarchy that returned with the restoration of Charles II. David12345 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

But you are saying that England was a monarchy before the death of Charles I, during the pre-execution civil war. So, to extend the analogy, the secessionist Alabamans never executed the sovereign in law or in fact. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

An analogy doesn't have to extend to all aspects of a comparison to be useful. But in any case, I feel we're retreading ground that has been covered again, and again, and again, on this page. I think there is no consensus to change the way secession, the seceded states' relation to the Federal Government in Washington, and the process of rejoining the Union, are described in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David12345 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The death of the sovereign alone did not end the monarchy, it was the fact that parliament took power. After the Restoration, all laws passed in the Interregnum were considered void, since they saw the rebellion as illegal. But that did not mean the republic never existed. Certainly reliable sources do not treat it as a fiction just because ultimately the monarchy was restored.

As in the English republic, the sovereign of the United States is the people of the United States who exercise sovereignty according the constitution. The CSA rejected this sovereignty and replaced it with the people of the South.

Anyway, can you explain why New York City was deemed not to be part of the State of New York, because the state was not in control of the city, but even though the U.S. no longer exercised control of the Southern states, they remained part of the U.S.?

Incidentally, if the CSA never seceded, the Union's conduct of the Civil War would have been illegal. It effectively treated the CSA as an enemy state and later as occupied states. There is nothing in the U.S. constitution for the federal government to appoint state governors. But it is able to appoint governors of territories. TFD (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Parliament abolished the monarchy at the same time as the execution of the monarch, so parliamentary power and executing the king were one.

The New York case involved issues of citizenship vs subjecthood with regard to a will, and there was a conflict of laws as to when subjecthood or citizenship accrued. People who were subjects of the crown, remained subjects of the crown throughout the revolution, until the crown relinquished sovereignty in the Treaty of Paris (1783). In the American civil war, the U.S. never relinquished sovereignty.

The constitution empowers the federal government to put down insurrection or rebellion and ensure states have republican government under the U.S. constitution, so there was nothing illegal about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Not to stray too far from the argument, but surely most Americans would say the US asserted its sovereignty when it declared independence in 1776, with the treaty of Paris confirming this reality? Either way, the distinction seems to me to be a rather nit-picky one that should not be overemphasized. David12345 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one who asked for discussion of a New York will case. As for what most Americans might say, I doubt they have an opinion (informed or otherwise) on conflict of laws in an 1800's wills case. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

While the New York case revolved around the determination of Inglis' nationality and hence his right to inherit property, his nationality was based on whether he was born in New York State or British territory. The Court determined that he was not born in New York State. The conflict of laws is a red herring: under both English and American law Inglis was born a British subject and remained one, never acquiring U.S. nationality. As the decision said, Inglis father "was not, within the reasonable interpretation of this resolution, abiding in the state and owing protection to the laws of the same."

In fact, the U.S. and UK law differ over the date of U.S. independence. Americans of course were already citizens of their respective states and hence of the United States and Britain recognized their loss of subjecthood with the Treaty of Paris. However, it took decades for the courts to determine this.

Generally speaking, reliable sources use 1776 as the date of independence, because that is when the UK lost control of the country, although it retained some footholds, such as New York City, and the states had not international recognition.

While the constitution allows the president "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions," Lincoln relied on his war powers to call out the regular armed forces.[68] He wrote, "as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy." Lincoln's war powers allowed him greater authority than in suppressing a rebellion.

TFD (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This has gone about as far as it can to be useful, a wills case from the 1830s seems quite off point to the present article. I only write to remind the talk-page that Lincoln's "war powers" like every president before him and after him are centered in the presidents command of the armed forces of the U.S. which include the regular forces and the militia when they are federalized by the president. Lincoln federalized the militia at the outset and for the duration of the war. President Lincoln acted like President George Washington before him pursuant to the Insurrection Act, a federal law. The Insurrection Act allowed and required the commander-in-chief to use his powers to put down rebellion or insurrection, including employing the regular and militia forces to do so. So, no Lincoln did not just rely on his own authority in this, he relied on law. George Washington did the same with regular forces, as did other presidents before Lincoln. Congress's authority in the matter is found in its constitutional regulatory power with respect to the the regular forces and the federalized militias, which Congress continued in multiple pieces of legislation throughout the civil war. Rebellion, insurrection, and civil war are not necessarily mutually exclusive, then or now. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It is important to remember that it is not up to us to determine whether Lincoln was legally in the right in acting as he did. This discussion has bern carried out by qualified historians and legal scholars, and we should describe their ongoing conversation and give it a proper place in the article, without giving undue weight to either side. David12345 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, as I pointed out above Lincoln exceeded his powers as president to suppress an insurrection and instead relied on his "war powers" as commander-in-chief. Lincoln said that in the quote I provided and also his attorney-general and the Supreme Court of the United States agreed in the Prize Cases of 1863. This gave the U.S. government the power to treat Confederates as enemies, with no recourse to the courts, rather than as mere traitors. Foreign nations were also expected to recognize that a state of war existed between two belligerent parties.

David12345 is correct that it is not up to us to determine whether Lincoln acted legally. But we can accept as undisputed fact that a state of war existed and that the claim that Lincoln acted like Washington before him pursuant to the Insurrection Act has no support in reliable sources, with the possible exception of his initial reaction to the attack on Fort Sumpter.

TFD (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No. The fact which must be acknowledged is it was a civil war. The Prize Cases found that Lincoln did not exceed his powers to suppress the insurrection, and that the rebellion was a civil war, in fact. The court relied on the Insurrection Act to find his actions lawful. Lincoln was fully in his rights to treat the the confederates as enemies and traitors, although he could not treat them as foreigners. The court found the Confederacy's claim to independence was a red herring with regard to Lincoln's lawful authority in putting down the rebellion:

" ... it is not necessary, to constitute war, that both parties should be acknowledged as independent nations or sovereign States. A war may exist where one of the belligerents claims sovereign rights as against the other. Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government. . . . The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But, by the Acts of Congress [the Insurrection Act] of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States. . . . The President was bound to meet it [the civil war] in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact. It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an "insurrection" by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors. It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or State be acknowledged in order to constitute it a party belligerent in a war . . . . [Emphasis added] Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That is a novel reading of the case. The judges clearly disguished between insurrection and war. War is "between the contending parties, with all the rights of war known to the law of nations." Insurrection is "a personal war against those in rebellion, and with encouragement and support of loyal citizens with a view to their cooperation and aid in suppressing the insurgents" (694). Suppressing an insurrection "is the exercise of a power under the municipal laws of the country and not under the law of nations" (692). IOW it remains a police action, no matter what level of force is required.

The whole point of the case is that if Lincoln had been acting under the Insurrection Act or his powers to suppress insurrection under the constitution, then the blockade of the harbor would have been illegal and the prize ships would have to be returned to their owners.

The Wikipedia article summarizes it well: "By ordering a blockade, Lincoln essentially declared the Confederacy to be belligerents instead of insurrectionists." TFD (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

No. You have misstated the case and quoted the losing dissent. The dissent is not the law, the majority decision is. The only time the actual decision uses the word "personal" is noting that under maritime law, "Whether property be liable to capture as "enemies' property" does not in any manner depend on the personal allegiance of the owner." Thus, it did not matter who the owners of the condemned prizes claimed allegiance to. The point of the case, by the way, was whether US admiralty courts could condemn prizes for running the blockade, and the court found under international and domestic law, given the circumstances, US admiralty courts could and did do so lawfully. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The only dispute in the case was whether the president could exercise war powers without Congressional approval. See the Civil War historian James McPherson's lecture Abraham Lincoln's Invention of Presidential War Powers, which explains how Lincoln relied on his war powers as commander in chief rather than his power in suppressing insurrections in his conduct ot the Civil InsurrectionWar. TFD (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

At least we now seem to agree that the salient fact is that it was a civil war. So, we are now expanding beyond the call-up of the militia and the blockade. As the Supreme Court said, he had those powers pursuant to the Insurrection Act ("a civil war always begins by insurrection"). The Act, acknowledging him as commander-and-chief, gave him a duty to employ the militia and the navy in such an emergency.

Congress was out of session at the beginning of the emergency (so basically the court and others saw it ridiculous to contend congress need to speak, anew, at that moment of emergency). At the same time that Lincoln called up the troops, he called congress into session at the earliest possible moment, at which point congress continued legislation in Lincoln's favor (but never declared war, the congress, the president, and the court, saw such a declaration of war as not required or needed in a civil war, and certainly not to set-up the emergency blockade). Which leaves the suspension of habeas corpus (later tested in the Supreme Court not in Lincoln's authority alone but under an Act subsequently passed by congress), but the suspension is a claim of federal government's sovereignty over the whole of the south, as well as the north. The Emancipation Proclamation was never tested in court, but it too was a claim of the federal government's sovereignty, as expressly a measure to put down the rebellion, over the whole of the parts of the country in rebellion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, you are interpreting the judgment in a novel way. indeed "a civil war always begins by insurrection," but it doesn't remain so. "A civil war," says Vattel, "breaks the bands of society and government, or at least suspends their force and effect; it produces in the nation two independent parties, who consider each other as enemies and acknowledge no common judge. Those two parties, therefore, must necessarily be considered as constituting, at least for a time, two separate bodies, two distinct societies. Having no common superior to judge between them, they stand in precisely the same predicament as two nations who engage in a contest and have recourse to arms."

During an insurrection, property can be seized only under a "municipal law."

IOW Lincoln treated the CSA as if it were a separate state at war with the U.S. and International law required other countries to do so.

if you disagree, how do you explain that the ships could be seized as prizes? That would be a clear violation of due process, which is protected under the 5th Amendment. TFD (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Organization issue

Is there a particular reason why the Atlanta campaign is discussed under the heading "Conquest of Virginia"? It seems quite odd to me to discuss 1861-1863 by theater (although the Trans-Mississippi is lumped into one section that doesn't even mention the Camden Expedition or Price's Raid), but then switch to roughly chronological for 1864-1865 (sans Trans-Mississippi)? The organization of the chronology of the war seems a bit disjointed at least to me. Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the chronology is disjointed, but I've yet to tackle that part...it seemed like a big task so was one of the last things I was gonna get to. I have no attachment to the current arrangement and would be happy with anything that makes more sense. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would best to approach it chronologically and then somewhat subdivided by area. I think that would be preferable for presenting when the various theaters overlapped with each other - for instance how the fall of New Orleans in the lower seaboard affected the actions in the Tennessee region. Hog Farm _Talk 14:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Battles

I am wondering when working on an article for a battle for the Civil war if only one leader for the Union and one leader for the Confederate States should be listed. I noticed the battle of Gettysburg had only one leader for each side. WalkingRadiance (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

May 26, 1865 end of Civil war? Wrong!

Your article clearly states by this sentence the End date of the Civil War is June 23, 1865. " Confederate ground forces continued surrendering past May 26 surrender date until June 23". Common sense would tell you if the war was over as you claim on May 26 ,1865 Nobody else would have any reason to surrender as the war is done on that date. Why it's not done on May 26 is a simple reason of over 20,000 hostile confederates under arms were still active. Also, the USS Alabama was still active still firing hostile cannon fire under a Confederate flag until June 23,1865. You can tell by federal government action exactly when the Civil war was over. The mass discharges of Civil war soldiers started in July of 1865 shortly after the last confederate General surrendered. Any mass discharges in April nope, May nope, June nope, July yes, August yes. Also, the anaconda plan was not lifted until June 23, 1865, when the last Confederate General surrendered a key point because before that date, they were considered hostile Confederate ports. Your May,26 end date is illogical and WRONG! 50.102.147.20 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Another key point to prove the Civil war was not over on May 26,1865. The last group of drafted Union troops happened on June 1,1865 6 days after you claim the Civil war ended. How could they be drafted for a war you claim no longer existed? Obviously, the Union government still considered the war active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

When did General Grant consider the war over? When he received word of the last confederate general surrendering on June 23, 1865. So, on June 28, 1865, he ordered the Army of the Potomac disbanded as the war was now over.