From: turrell@violet.berkeley.edu (David Turrell)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: War's Beginning and End (Re: Secession Crisis Lit)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 09:22:09 GMT
Organization: Cobol Pacific University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep12.160939.654@leland.Stanford.EDU>
whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:

>In article <18s3fsINN8lc@agate.berkeley.edu>
>turrell@violet.berkeley.edu (David Turrell) writes:
>>
>>A bit of trivia learned from the book: the Supreme Court has held that
>>the Civil War started on April 19, 1861, when Lincoln proclaimed the
>>blockade of Confederate ports. I suppose Johnson's May 10, 1865,
>>proclamation declaring a cessation of hostilities marked the end.
>
>Kirby Smith held out until July in the Trans-Mississippi. (I don't know 
>if it's that he held out or just that it took two months to get the
>news of Lee's surrender to him.)
>
>I suspect that ruling came up in regards to some question over who could
>collect a pension.

Current doesn't say any more about the court case, even to give a
citation in the notes; so, more detail on it will have to come from a
more intrepid legal scholar. That the legal onset of war doesn't match
modern feeling that war commenced at the firing on Fort Sumter on
April 12, 1861, is due in large measure to Lincoln's not wanting to
appear too aggressive. There wasn't a declaration of war as we would
know it, retroactive to the firing on Fort Sumter, similar to FDR's
request that the declaration against Japan be made retroactive to the
attack on Pearl Harbor.

Even so, Lincoln did not emphasize defensive intentions in the first
call for troops on April 15; and Virginia, in whose loyalty so much
hope had been placed, seceded on the 17th. Whether Virginia would
would have remained had Lincoln shown even greater finesse than did,
and what effect its remaining would have had, is an interesting
question, although it seems secession was inevitible for that state.

The May 10, 1865, proclamation coincides with the capture of Jefferson
Davis near Irwinville, southern Georgia, on the same day. It can
hardly be coincidence; but it would seem to have been miraculous to
capture the CSA president, get that formidable individual to surrender
all CSA forces in his capacity as commander in chief, and telegraph
the news to Washington, D.C., in time to issue a proclamation, all in
the same day. Alternatively, the Federal government might have issued
a deliberately premature proclamation, merely upon hearing of Davis's
capture, but without his complicity, to induce local surrenders.

Whether or not Davis's capture meant a change in the status of the
struggle, in that it was no longer war with an internationally
recognized belligerent, the insurrection continued for some time.
(Great Britain had accorded belligerent status on May 13, 1861; but
never proceeded to full recognition.) A proclamation of April 2, 1866,
declared the insurrection at an end in all states except Texas; and,
finally, a proclamation on August 20 of the same year said that even
Texas had been tamed by the bluebellies. The post-Appomattox struggle
beyond the Mississippi contrasts with that part of the Confederacy's
refusal to send help when it mattered, such as at Vicksburg.

-David
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa