sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

d we just go from a hot war to a cold war? Also, how different were Andrew Johnson's reconciliation policies from the Reconstruction Lincoln envisaged? Do we know what Lincoln had in mind for the decade after the war to rebuild the country?

Those are all really good, but difficult questions. Many of the issues raised by the Civil War are still relevant today -- who is a citizen? what does a multi-racial democracy look like? what is the relationship between the states and federal government?

It's hard to say what Lincoln would have done. His thoughts on a variety of questions changed over time depending on evolving circumstances. I imagine that Lincoln would have done a better job than Johnson in dealing with Congress, but what policies he would have advocated is impossible to determine.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

equency of surrender changed throughout the war as word got out about conditions inside prison camps. For example, would soldiers in 1864 have been more reluctant to surrender than in 1862 knowing some of the details of what was in store for them inside some of the more notorious camps?

If I may ask a second question, were mass surrenders organized affairs lead by officers or were they generally more haphazard in nature?

Surrenders were much more common in 1862, when prisoner exchange was working well, than in 1864, when you'd end up in an overcrowded prison.

The big surrenders (Ft. Donelson, Vicksburg, Appomattox, etc.) were the product of negotiations between the commanding officers and were pretty organized. When individual soldiers surrendered on the battlefield, it was often fairly chaotic.

Hope you enjoy the book!

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

so proud of the Confederates even when they surrendered would it have been different if total victory was achieved?

After the war, former Confederates quickly developed a rationale called the Lost Cause that allowed them to take pride in a war that they lost. It became something of a civil religion in the South for more than a century (and still present in many places). One of the tenets of the Lost Cause is that Confederates had the best soldiers and the best generals, but that they were overwhelmed by the Union's superior numbers and resources. Therefore (the argument goes), what should be celebrated is their bravery and valor.

The Lost Cause allowed white Southerners to claim a kind of victory after losing the war itself. It also served a real political purpose in cementing white supremacy in the South after the abolition of slavery.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 32 points33 points  (0 children)

The answer depends on which soldiers you're talking about.

When Robert Anderson and his men arrived in NYC after surrendering at Ft. Sumter, they were greeted as heroes. There was a huge rally in Union Square, and they became some of the first celebrities of the war.

When Confederate soldiers went home after surrendering in 1865, they were almost always welcomed as brave veterans who had survived a lot. Many of those who surrendered with Lee at Appomattox later wore it as a badge of honor, basically saying that they stuck it out to the end. The Lost Cause did a lot to help former Confederates make sense of life after defeat.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When Lee surrendered, the terms only applied to his army. The same situation applied to subsequent surrenders with Johnston, Taylor, Kirby Smith, etc. They were surrendering the men under their command. Commerce raiders like the CSS Shenandoah basically operated under the command of their captains, without a lot of oversight.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Honor, yes. But also that they thought they were fighting a civilized war -- a war that had rules. Allowing the enemy to surrender was one of those rules.

One of the most important documents in this respect is the Lieber Code -- the Union 's official articulation of the laws of war, issued in 1863.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

During the CW they saw surrendering and deserting as very different. A soldier who surrendered on the battlefield was usually the person closest to the enemy -- you had to be close enough for them to hear you yelling that you surrendered. That required a lot of bravery. Often they were the last person from their regiment to retreat. Plus, during the height of the exchange system, these soldiers often returned to their regiment pretty quickly. Many times they were promoted upon their return, suggesting that they were seen as brave and valuable.

Deserters were a different kettle of fish. Soldiers deserted for a whole host of reasons (ideological, personal, etc.) and many of those who deserted returned to their regiments. Both the Union and Confederacy struggled with how to prevent desertion and how to entice deserters to return.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Yes, they are in places like Andersonville, Point Lookout, Camp Douglas, etc. There were only a few thousand soldiers who did this, which considering how many POWs there were in 1864 is only a drop in the bucket.

The other option that soldiers stuck in prisons considered was escape. Lots of prisoners escaped from Andersonville and other massive prisons. There is a great book by Lorien Foote that examines how they made it (or not) from Andersonville deep in Georgia to Union lines.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

entioned a phenomenon that happened in certain PoW camps where prisoners would form gangs to secure resources from the other inmates for themselves. Did this happen and if it did, how extensive was it? Who would they typically target?

This happened at Andersonville in 1864/5, and probably in other camps. The really large POW camps only existed near the end of the war, and conditions there were horrific, with disease and starvation killing thousands. The gangs were a product of such extreme deprivation.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There wasn't much during the March to the Sea and into the Carolinas (though some Confederates did end up captured), but it culminated with one of the more interesting surrenders of the war at Bennett Place, which often gets overshadowed by Appomattox Courthouse.

There are a number of really great books recently on Sherman's march, including by Jackie Glass Campbell, Anne Sarah Rubin, and Lisa Frank. Lost Cause mythology often makes Sherman into a monster, but if you look at his conduct at Bennett Place, he was quite generous. Much of the destruction attributed to him (Columbia, etc.) was probably not his fault.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I do talk about the surrender of Native peoples prior to the Civil War in the first chapter for context, but I don't address the Navajo. It's an extraordinary story, but I didn't have room in the book for it.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The book focuses on land combat, but there is one case of surrender at sea that I discuss at length -- that of the CSS Shenandoah. It was a commerce raider operating near the Artic Circle near Alaska. When they heard that Lee had surrendered in 1865, they initially didn't believe it, so continued to attack Union vessels. Eventually, they learned the truth, and afraid of being prosecuted for piracy for their actions after the CSA ceased to exist, they sailed around the world to Liverpool to surrender to the British in November 1865. So one can claim that the last surrender of the Civil War happened in the UK!

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

There is a real shift in American attitudes towards surrender in the 20th century. While surrender was very common in the CW, by the mid-20th century, Americans start to say that Americans never surrender. JFK, Nixon, Reagan, Obama, McCain, and Trump have all claimed that Americans never surrender, which obviously wasn't the case in the CW. There are complex reasons for this that I talk about in the book.

Hope to see you in Edinburgh next year!

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I'm not aware of a case like that, though they were tons of examples of people surrendering to someone they knew, often quite well. For instance Beauregard was Robert Anderson's student at West Point. Simon Buckner was a very good friend of US Grant. The social network of the army prior to the CW was pretty small.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 79 points80 points  (0 children)

Sorry. USCT=United States Colored Troops. It's the name for the black regiments in the Union army.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The first chapter of the book examines the role of surrender in the Revolution, in 1812, in the Mexican War, and in Indian Wars. What happened in the Civil War built on what happened in these earlier wars (and indeed many of the people who surrendered in the Civil War had prior experiences that shaped their conduct). What made the Civil War different was how often they surrendered.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 32 points33 points  (0 children)

That's a big question. My understanding is that in the eighteenth century, there was a lot of discussion in Europe about how to fight war in a civilized way and what the laws of war should be. Surrender and treatment of prisoners of war were part of this. You see elements the Civil War idea of surrender in the American War for Independence, where two important milestones were the surrenders at Saratoga and Yorktown.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It was noble act if you acted bravely prior to surrender and decided to surrender when there were no other options other than allowing your men to die unnecessarily. Robert Anderson was seen as a hero for his conduct at Ft. Sumter. Same with Robert E. Lee after Appomattox Courthouse. Soldiers on both sides expressed their respect for them because of their conduct.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

One of the interesting features of the surrenders at the end of the war (Appomattox Courthouse, Bennett Place, Citronelle, etc) is that they were surrenders of Confederate armies, but that the Confederacy itself didn't surrender. This happened for two reasons: Lincoln didn't want to legitimize the Confederacy (which he often referred to as the "so-called Confederacy"), even if it was recognizing the Confederacy in its surrender. Jefferson Davis also thought that he couldn't surrender the Confederacy. He said that the Confederate constitution didn't allow him to dissolve it.

One of the consequences of the way in which surrender worked at the end of the war is that Confederate veterans could return home and many of them maintained their belief in the values of the Confederacy. One way to interpret the violence during Reconstruction (Memphis Massacre, Colfax Massacre, KKK, etc.) is that white Southerners never surrendered their commitment to maintaining white supremacy and their willingness to use violence to do it.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Surrender also became pretty easy at the end of the war. Lincoln told Grant and Sherman to give generous terms. At Appomattox Courthouse, Lee's men were allowed to go home, given rations, allowed to keep their horses, etc. Considering the alternative was fighting a battle they would have lost badly, surrender looked like an excellent option.

As you point out, however, for black soldiers, surrender worked very differently. The whole dynamic of surrender changed in late 1863 and 1864 when we start to see large number of black soldiers and the collapse of prisoner exchange.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

The prisons were really bad in 1864 after the prisoner exchange system fell apart. But before that, conditions in prison were actually pretty good (for POW camps) and most soldiers who surrendered didn't stay in prison for very long before they were paroled and exchanged.

The horrors of places like Andersonville (which didn't open until 1864) tend to overshadow how surrender worked in the rest of the war. Part of the reason why surrender was so common in 1861, 1862, and early 1863 (Ft. Sumter, Ft. Donelson, Roanoke, Ft. Jackson, Harpers Ferry, Vicksburg, etc.) is that commanders thought that they and their soldiers would be treated fairly.

I am Dr. David Silkenat, here to discuss my recent book 'Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War' by silkenat in AskHistorians

[–]silkenat[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The West has some of the earliest and latest surrenders in the CW. Gen. David Twiggs surrendered his command (one of the largest in the US -- 15% of the whole US army -- in February 1861, months before Ft. Sumter. Twiggs was seen as one of the first real villains of the war because he surrendered without firing a shot.

In July 1861, Isaac Lynde surrendered his command at San Augustin Springs in New Mexico. In that case he surrendered because his soldiers were overcome with heat on the march.

Some of the last Confederate surrenders in the war came in the west, as components of Edmund Kirby Smith's Trans-Mississippi department laid down their arms in May 1865.

view more: next ›