Talk:Conclusion of the American Civil War/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Bennett Place

In the Bennett Place article, it has a paragraph "Largest Surrender of the Civil War" with more details, although it is not cited. I've been searching around for more details on exactly what troops surrendered and haven't come up with anything substantive, other than a variety of websites that seem to share the same information amongst them. The NY Times reported (here) that Grant said that it covered "all troops from here to the Chattahoochee." Perhaps this article can help clear this up. By the way, an interesting side note is that the surrender was signed on the same day John Wilkes Booth was tracked down and killed. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bennett Place page also lists a total of 89,270 men surrendered in NC, SC, Georgia, and Florida on April 26, 1865. I didn't know the Confederacy had that many men east of the Mississippi by that late date, and even if they did Lee's 27,000 or so must have been included in that number, not possible since they'd been surrendered on April 9. Anyone know where this figure came from? Are surrenders on April 26 by generals other than Johnston part of it, if any? The 89,270 total seems more likely to mean all forces besides Kirby Smith's command out west to me. Kresock (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a far better understanding of the ACW and especially of the armies involved and Gen. Joseph E. Johnston. What you have written on the section on Bennett Place is excellent. What is written in the article Bennett Place is the number 98, 270 which certainly does not look correct. I think perhaps someone turned around the "8" and the "9". In Google Books I found this as they say in the Encyclopedia of North Carolina. ‎I really don't know and whatever you feel is correct, I will go along with. --Doug Coldwell talk 12:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

statistics

I have removed the recent addition of a Statistics section for two reasons:

  1. It is unclear why the scope of this article should include that information. Such data is appropriate for the American Civil War article, I suppose. But this article is not a summary of the entire war, it is a listing of the very final events.
  2. This is based on a single reference and the editor did a really poor job of copying the figures from that site.

Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

confedarates joining mexico

im not sure where i read it but i remember reading that a few confedarate units fled over the border with mexico and join up with there military rather then surrendur to the union. if someone could find souces for it itd be a good thing to add. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Jefferson Davis

The story that Jefferson Davis dressed as a woman to escape capture is false, as determined by recent research, verified by the accounts of members of the Union army party that captured him. Davis merely wore a shawl over his head so as not to be recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.250.220 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messy Article

Could use some better organization 68.57.61.5 (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions or feel free to work on it.
talk) 19:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Johnson's May 9 proclamation

The article used May 10 for this date, which is the date that the NY Times reprinted the proclamation; but the proclamation itself is dated Tuesday, May 9, as one can see by following the link the article supplied. --Tbanderson (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right. I saw the same mistake on another page not long ago. Donner60 (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I changed it to May 9, but some right-thinking person changed it back to May 10. --Tbanderson (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back to May 9 and noted the reason in the edit summary. I hope it will stay that way. Donner60 (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last land battle of the war

The Battle of Columbus, Georgia was not the last land battle of the war nor is it "widely regarded" as such. The assertion is based on a single 2010 book, which was repeated in two books on ghosts in the Columbus area that only touched on the topic of the battle, a few guidebooks and a book on linotype, a few personal web page or blog entries, mainly by local boosters, and a few statements or recollections by a few old soldiers many years after the war (first published in the November 1896 issue of Confederate Veteran; and expounded upon by a local historian in 1915)- who were encouraged by a few letters of support by some old commanders who might have wished they had fought in the last battle or did not wish to upset the old gentlemen who sought their support. This is insufficient.

Little if any other support can be found for the assertion that Columbus was the last battle of the war, as contrasted with the last "significant" battle, or last battle in the east, which are not even accurate. The arguments used to support the claim border on sophistry, such as asserting that Columbus was a "battle" but Palmito Ranch, and presumably Boykins Mill, similar size engagements, and other actions after April 16, were something less. Dyer classifies none of them as battles. NPS classifies Palmito Ranch as a battle. (From Selcer, Richard F. Civil War America, 1850 to 1875. New York: Facts On File, 2006.

ISBN 978-0-8160-3867-1
. Retrieved January 17, 2014. Page 234: "According to the best estimate, some 10,455 clashes of arms were fought between 1861 and 1865....Unfortunately there is no handy guide to Civil War field operations that carefully defines every clash of arms in terms of numbers engaged, duration, casualties and other details.") Charles A. Misulia, author of Columbus, Georgia, 1865: The Last True Battle of the Civil War (March 2010) even hedges a little on his assertions. Here for the record, and in support of changing the assertions in Wikipedia articles about the Battle of Columbus, are quotations from reliable web sites and then books in reverse chronological order which show the vast consensus from 1866 through the present day that the Battle of Palmito Ranch was the last land battle of the war, followed by a list of some battles that took place after Columbus, Georgia, and the references that I could find that refer to the Battle of Columbus, with or without qualification as being the last battle of the war.

  • U.S. National Park Service description of Battle of Palmito Ranch. Retrieved January 20, 2014. "On May 12....Branson promptly led his men off to attack a Confederate camp at Palmito Ranch. After much skirmishing along the way, the Federals attacked the camp and scattered the Confederates. Branson and his men remained at the site to feed themselves and their horses but, at 3:00 pm, a sizable Confederate force appeared, influencing the Federals to retire to White’s Ranch. He sent word of his predicament to Barrett, who reinforced Branson at daybreak, on the 13th, with 200 men of the 34th Indiana Volunteer Infantry. The augmented force, now commanded by Barrett, started out towards Palmito Ranch, skirmishing most of the way. At Palmito Ranch, they destroyed the rest of the supplies not torched the day before and continued on. A few miles forward, they became involved in a sharp firefight. After the fighting stopped, Barrett led his force back to a bluff at Tulosa on the river where the men could prepare dinner and camp for the night. At 4:00 pm, a large Confederate cavalry force, commanded by Col. John S. “Rip” Ford, approached, and the Federals formed a battle line. The Rebels hammered the Union line with artillery. To preclude an enemy flanking movement, Barrett ordered a retreat. The retreat was orderly and skirmishers held the Rebels at a respectable distance. Returning to Boca Chica at 8:00 pm, the men embarked at 4:00 am, on the 14th. This was the last battle in the Civil War."
  • Hunt, Jeffrey William. "PALMITO RANCH, BATTLE OF," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qfp01), accessed January 20, 2014. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. "On May 13, 1865, more than a month after the surrender of Gen. Robert E. Lee, the last land action of the Civil War took place at Palmito Ranch near Brownsville."
  • Civil War Trust web site. Retrieved January 20, 2014. Civil War Facts. Answers to your Civil War Questions "Q. When was the Civil War fought? The war began when Confederate warships bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The war ended in Spring, 1865. Robert E. Lee surrendered the last major Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865. The last battle was fought at Palmito Ranch, Texas, on May 13, 1865."
  • Marvel, William. Battle of Palmetto Ranch: American Civil War's Final Battle Originally published by Civil War Times magazine. Published Online: June 12, 2006. Retrieved from Historynet.com on January 20, 2014. An earlier article in Civil War Times Illustrated on the same topic by Trudeau, Noah Andre, The Last Gun Had Been Fired, July/August 1990, p. 58. Page 63: "The Battle of Palmito Ranch, later termed by [Union commander] Colonel Barrett last actual conflict between hostile forces in the great rebellion," was over." See the excerpt from Barrett's August 10, 1865 report found in the The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies in the reference below to Conyer, Luther. Last Battle of the War. From the Dallas, Texas News, December 1896.
  • Varhola, Michael J. and Maureen A. Taylor. Life in Civil War America. Cincinnati: Family Tree Books, 2011.
    Questia
    (subscription required) . Page 38: "Little fighting took place on Texas soil. The capture and subsequent recapture of Galveston, a major supply port for the Confederacy, were the most important actions, and the Battle of Palmito Ranch, fought after the Rebel surrender at Appomattox, was the last land battle of the war."
  • McComb, David G. Texas: A Modern History. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2010.
    Questia
    (subscription required) . Page 74: "On May 13, 1865, Colonel John S. “Rip” Ford forced Union soldiers moving toward Brownsville to retreat to Brazos Island and won the Battle of Palmito Ranch. Texans thus achieved victory in the final battle of the Civil War, but the war was lost."
  • Weitz, Mark A. More Damning Than Slaughter Retrieved January 17, 2014. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2005.
    Questia
    (subscription required) Page vii: "Despite the surrender of Lee at Appomattox and of Joseph Johnston twelve days later, Smith believed that the war was not over as long as an army remained in the field. The last official battle would come in June (sic) 1865, at Palmetto Ranch in southern Texas.
  • Campbell, Randolph. Gone to Texas: A History of the Lone Star State. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
    Questia
    (subscription required) . Page 259: "While the surrender of Texas remained in doubt, Confederate and Union troops fought the last battle of the Civil War on May 13, 1865, at Palmito Ranch near Brownsville. Confederates under Col. “Rip” Ford routed a unit of Federal soldiers that crossed from Brazos Island to the mainland and moved upriver, but even a fighter such as Ford had to admit that the war was over. Several days after the battle, he met with Union officers in Brownsville and arranged to stop the fighting."
  • Axelrod, Alan. America's Wars. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.
    Questia
    (subscription required) . Pages 299-300: "On May 10, President Johnson declared that armed resistance was “virtually at an end,” but three days later, at Palmito Ranch, near Brownsville, Texas, Confederate troops under Edmund Kirby Smith skirmished with Federals. This small engagement was the last fighting of the war. Smith surrendered to Canby on May 26. The very last Confederate commander to surrender was Stand Watie, son of a full-blooded Cherokee father and a half-blooded Cherokee mother, a brigadier general from Indian Territory. He laid down arms on June 23, 1865, at Doakville, Indian Territory."
  • Wright, John D. The Language of the Civil War. Westport, CT; London: Oryx Press, 2001.
    Questia
    (subscription required) . Page 253: "'Rip' The nickname of Confederate Colonel John S. Ford, who commanded the raggedy Cavalry of the West. His nickname stood for "Rest in Peace," because Ford sent many of his enemies to the cemetery. A former physician, newspaper editor, and Texas Ranger, Ford won the last real battle of the Civil War, a month after General Lee had surrendered. His troops were attacked by Colonel Theodore H. Barrett's on May 12, 1865, at Palmito Ranch on the east bank of the Rio Grande, 12 miles from Brownsville, Texas. The two-day battle resulted in 30 Union soldiers killed and wounded and 113 captured, with Ford's men suffering only minor wounds. To avoid the official humiliating surrender of his cavalry to the Yankees, Rip disbanded his unit 13 days after winning the war's final battle."
  • Hendrickson, Robert. The Road to Appomattox. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2000.
    Questia
    (subscription required) . Page 221. "May 13. The battle or skirmish of Palmito Ranch is fought in Texas on the banks of the Rio Grande. Confederate troops under Colonel John R. I. P. (”Rest in Peace”) Ford win this last significant battle of the Civil War, the Union suffering considerable casualties. In the battle Indiana private John Jay Williams becomes the last soldier to be killed in action in a Civil War battle, according to many sources."
  • Richter, William L. The Army in Texas during Reconstruction, 1865-1870. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1987.
    Questia
    (subscription required) . Page 17: "Brownsville had been occupied by the Yankees in late 1863, but a lack of manpower prevented them from establishing a good hold on the region. Then in July, 1864, Confederate forces wrested the city from Union control and prevented its recapture in the last battle of the Civil War, at Palmetto Ranch, May 13, 1865."
  • Armstrong, Lt. William H. The Negro as a Soldier. in War Papers Read Before the Indiana Commandery of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. Indianapolis: Published by the Commandery, 1898. Page 331: "…and rounding the record up by fighting the last engagement of the war on the far-off Rio Grande."
  • Martin, ed., John H. Columbus, Geo., from Its Selection as a "trading Town" in 1827, to Its Partial Destruction by Wilson's Raid in 1865.. Columbus, GA: Gilbert, Book Printer and Binder, 1874. Page 178. "The enemy arrived in sight of Columbus, on the Alabama side of the river, on Sunday, the 16th of April. We copy from the [Columbus] Enquirer, of June 27th (which was the first number of a paper issued in the city after the raid) an account of the attack and capture of the city....On Sunday, the 16th of April, the last battle of the war, east of the Mississippi river, was fought in Girard, Alabama, opposite this city. The Confederate troops consisted of two regiments of the Georgia State Line, Waddell's battery, some of the forces of Gens. Wofford and Buford, a small number of the Georgia reserves, the organized companies for local defense in this city, besides a number of citizens of Columbus and a few hastily collected reserves of Russell County, Alabama – numbering in all, perhaps, two thousand men." On page 180, the newspaper account names or identifies nine Confederates, including Col. C. A. L. Lamar, who were known to have been killed in the battle. Page 181: "We have called this the last fight east of the Mississippi. There was a sharp fight at West Point on the same day, but earlier in the day. There may possibly have been a brush or two in Western North Carolina after the 16th of April, but nothing like a battle of any importance. A fight occurred two or three weeks later in Western Texas near the old Palo Alto battle ground, in which the Confederates were successful; and this closed the fighting of the civil war, so far as we have any advice." On page 183, Wilson's report is quoted saying that his force captured twelve hundred prisoners while losing twenty-five men killed and wounded.

The battle of Palmito Ranch was fought between regularly organized forces of the Union and Confederacy. The Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi Deparment under General E. Kirby Smith had not surrendered. The argument that the Civil War was over and this was a "post-war" action is invalid and simply illogical. It makes no sense to describe Palmito Ranch in terms of groups of ex-soldiers fighting each other even though the war was over. They did not think they were ex-soldiers nor do historians. The Confederacy was not going to survive for long. But since neither the government of the Confederate States nor all of its armies had surrendered and Confederate armies were still in the field, the war was not over. Governors and military officers in the Trans-Mississippi wanted to continue the war even after the surrenders in the east were known.

By some of the same arguments used to support the assertion that the Battle of Columbus was the last battle of the war, that it was before Jefferson Davis was captured and Joe Johnston surrendered, the following battles took place later: the Battles of Catawba River or Morgantown, North Carolina (April 17, 1865), Bradford Springs, South Carolina (April 18, 1865), Boykin's Mills, South Carolina (April 18, 1865) (Union casualties noted below), Germantown, Tennessee (April 18, 1865) (Union casualties: 6 killed, 2 wounded, 7 missing), Pleasant Hills, Georgia (April 28, 1865) Double Bridges, Flint River, Georgia (April 18, 1865), Denkin's Mills and Beech Creek, near Statesburg, South Carolina (April 19, 1865), Barnesville, Georgia (April 19, 1865), Spring Hill, Georgia (April 20, 1865), Swannanoa Gap, North Carolina (April 20, 1865), Montpelier Springs, Alabama (April 20, 1865), Mimm's Bridge, Topesofkee Creek, and Rocky Creek Bridge near Macon, Georgia (April 20, 1865), Buzzard's Roost, Georgia (April 22, 1865), Howard's Gap, North Carolina (April 22, 1865), Linn Creek, Missouri (April 22, 1865), Mouth Big Gravois, Missouri (April 22, 1865), Spring Valley, Missouri (April 23, 1865), Munford's Station, Alabama (April 23, 1865), Hendersonville, North Carolina (April 23, 1865), Snake River, Arkansas (April 23, 1865), Boggy Station, Indian Territory (April 24, 1865), Miami, Missouri (April 24, 1865) and Linn Creek, Missouri (April 25, 1865).

Union casualties at Boykin's Mills were 9 killed, 18 wounded, 1 missing. This is a similar number to the Union casualties at Columbus, Georgia, 6 killed, 24 missing, so Boykin's Mills cannot be dismissed as a mere skirmish where a few shots were fired and no one was killed, or maybe even hurt or even as a smaller action than Columbus, Georgia. We also know that the Confederates suffered casualties at Boykin's Mills, including the death of the commanding officer's son.

Here are the only sources I can find in which the Battle of Columbus, Georgia is mentioned as the last battle of the war, with or without qualification. The few unqualified statements are not from books by historians or in books generally about the Civil War. Most of the statements are qualified as shown in bold. If there are other sources which accept the premise that Columbus was the last battle, they are not easily found. (I remember, but could not find, another ghost book which has the "widely regarded" phrase, but without citation.)

  • Morekis, Jim. (2013) Georgia (a Moon guide). Pages 494-495: Linwood Cemetery....Notables buried here include Coca-Cola inventor John Pemberton (who was wounded in the last battle of the Civil War, fought in Columbus); [no citation]
  • Jones, James Pickett. (1976) Yankee Blitzkrieg: Wilson's Raid Through Alabama and Georgia. Page 144: "Some have called the fight for Columbus the Civil War's last battle. Others have found subsequent actions in the west and qualify the claim. To those writers Columbus is the war's last battle east of the Mississippi....An undetermined number of soldiers and the people of Columbus had to pay the price for being engaged in one of the Civil War's last battles, a battle of no real military consequence in a dying conflict."
  • Gray, Jeremy and Jeff Davis, China Williams. (2002) Georgia and the Carolinas. Page 182: "….This is considered the last significant land battle of the Civil War." [no citation]
  • Sullivan, Buddy. (May 2010) Georgia: A State History Page 93 "After a brisk skirmish with Columbus home guards centered on the Chattahoochee River bridges - the last land battle of the war in Georgia - the Federals occupied the city on April 16."
  • McGhee, James E. (2008) Guide to Missouri Confederate Units, 1861-1865. Page 23: "10th Light Battery (Rice's/Barrett's)...." Page 24: "The final fight of the battery occurred at Columbus, Georgia, on April 16, 1865, sometimes referred to as the last battle east of the Mississippi River."
  • Gilbert, Stirling Price. (2010, originally 1946) A Georgia Lawyer: His Observations and Public Service. Page 201: "The last battles of the war in this state were fought in Columbus and West Point on April 16, 1865, following Lee's surrender at Appomattox on April 9th."

I realize this is a long entry but I believe it is probably necessary in order to put to rest both the assertions that the Battle of Columbus, Georgia was the last battle of the war and that it is widely regarded as such. Donner60 (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely, and I think even most amateurs see the end of the Civil War as a long spiral down from Lee's surrender to the CSS Shenandoah docking in Liverpool that November. As my mother said sarcastically, "The Civil War ended?" So why hasn't anyone corrected the Wikipedia page on the Battle of Columbus itself? Joel J. Rane (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. Having gathered more than enough evidence to refute the claim, I should have done it already and will tackle it soon. (No one else seems to have become concerned about it except to refute it in this article.) I have been working on end of the war battle articles and the Appomattox Campaign article and have let Columbus slip down my list of priorities. Even the author of the Columbus, Georgia book felt the need to go through some dubious arguments to support his position at the end of the book as I noted above and, to me, seems to realize he is on shaky ground. So I suppose we should not worry about refuting any challenge to the change. I have reposted the above research and analysis on the talk page of that article in preparation for making some changes in it. Donner60 (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too strident

Donner60, you are obviously well read, articulate, and put forth tremendous effort and energy in your contributions and edits. The materials and sources you provided above are formidable. But in your enthusiasm for your case, you dismiss too many legitimate historians. There truly is a debate as to where the last battle of the civil war occurred. You have done a commendable job in compiling the sources that support the Palmetto Ranch thesis, and it is a very strong case. But the way you dismiss the other side of the argument as only "based on a single 2010 book," and when you paint the other side as "ghost story writers" and "local boosters" as well as "fool's promoting a fringe theory" you lose all respect as an even-handed sober, judicious, and careful historian.

You provided a list of sources that support the Columbus thesis, highlighting silly ghost books, but you either accidentally overlooked a lot of legitimate scholarly sources, or, more likely and worse, you deliberately failed to include them to bolster your opinion. Wikipedia is not for expressing opinion, it is for providing judicious, balanced, and informative information that considers all scholarly views. I don't begrudge you your opinion. And you may be right about the "last battle." But you are dead WRONG that "The assertion is based on a single 2010 book..." as well as your aspersion that it is "foolish to put forward this local boosterism or fringe theory." It's okay to disagree with experts, it's entirely irresponsible, however, to pretend that they don't exist.

So let's evaluate your "scholarship."

The "single book" you allege to be the only basis of the claim is Charles Misulia, COLUMBUS GEORGIA 1865: THE LAST TRUE BATTLE OF THE CIVIL WAR (University of Alabama Press, 2010). You may not like the Crimson Tide, but this is no local booster website. This is a peer-reviewed scholarly treatment published by an academic press. You don't have to agree with Misulia, but to say that the Univ of Alabama press has published "foolish, local boosterism, fringe theory" (your words) or even to say "this book is not a scholarly/academic treatment," reflects more on your judgment than it does on the scholarly source you are judging. You stated your opinion that "Misulia realizes he is on shaky ground." Nothing could be further from the truth. You have no grounds upon which to make such a reckless assertion. Misulia has a rather impressive host of Civil War scholars who have endorsed his thesis. The scholarly credibility of his reviewers are quite formidable http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Columbus-Georgia-1865,4733.aspx Are you prepared to go on record to say that all of his reputable sources agree with you that "Misulia is on shaky ground"? And what are your credentials that make you a better assessor of Misulia than the reviewers cited by the University of Alabama press?

One such assessment of Misulia that I'd like you to address is James McPherson, quoted in Gardiner, "The Last Battlefield," p. 17, wrote "Misulia makes a plausible case that the cavalry battle at Columbus is the last battle of the civil war."

Are you ready to go on record stating that Princeton's Professor McPherson is supporting foolish, local boosterism, fringe theory? Calling out McPherson as a poor historian is more properly classified as "fringe theory." But that's apparently what you are doing.

You said you did a search to see what sources support Misulia, and all you could come up with was ghost stories, local boosters, and bloggers. Therein is my concern. I have no qualms with the reputability of the sources you provided. I have a tremendous problem with your inability to admit that there are other legit sources you'd rather not face. To wit,

Robert C. Jones refers to Columbus and West Point as "the final battles of the Civil War as they occurred just before Johnston's surrender on April 26, 1865 in North Carolina. Technically, the Battle of Palmito Ranch in Texas occurred after the war was over." (Jones, THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR IN GEORGIA, 92). Jones is the author of almost as many civil war topics as you!; including but not limited to,

  • A Guide to the Civil War in Alabama
  • A Guide to the Civil War in Georgia
  • Great Naval Battles of the Civil War
  • The Battle of Chickamauga: A Brief History
  • Retracing the Route of Sherman's March to the Sea
  • The Confederate Invasion of New Mexico
  • Conspirators, Assassins, and the Death of Abraham Lincoln
  • The Fifteen Most Critical Moments of the Civil War
  • Civil War Prison Camps: A Brief History
  • The Battle of Allatoona Pass: The Forgotten Battle of Sherman's Atlanta Campaign
  • Bleeding Kansas: The Real Start of the Civil War
  • Famous Songs of the Civil War
  • The Top 10 Innovations of the Civil War
  • The Top 20 Most Influential Leaders of the Civil War
  • The Top 25 Civil War Spies and Irregulars
  • The Top 10 Reasons Why the Civil War Was Won in the West
  • Lost Confederate Gold
  • Retracing the Route of Sherman's Atlanta Campaign
  • The Top 20 Best - and Worst - Generals of the Civil War
  • The W&A, the 'General', and the Andrews Raid: A Brief History
  • The Battle of Griswoldville: An Infantry Battle on Sherman's March to the Sea
  • The Top 25 Most Influential Women of the Civil War
  • McCook's Raid and the Battle of Brown's Mill

(You may not agree with Mr. Jones' conclusion, but to dismiss him as a fool who has no erudition on the topic at hand, reflects more on the quality of your own judgment than it does his).

Gardiner, "The Last Battlefield of the Civil War." Journal of America's Military Past XXXVIII (Summer 2013), 5-22. You seem to entirely avoid this piece of research. Is your view that the peer-review editors/military historians of this Journal are not scholars? The article also provides a plethora of other sources, both primary and secondary, that claim Columbus was the last battle. You address none of them. This doesn't appear to be book about ghosts.

Further, you state that the Columbus thesis came from "a few statements or recollections by a few old soldiers many years after the war first published in the November 1896 issue of Confederate Veteran." Gardiner's article includes at least a dozen sources before 1896 that make the Columbus claim.

Bellware, Daniel A. “The Last Battle. Period. Really,” Civil War Times Illustrated, 42 (April 2003), 48—56. This is no ghost fiction either. But not only do you not deal with it, you entirely omit it.

Dr. Daniel Crosswell, distinguished Military Historian and Professor, "The war ended by the time the Confederate government dissolved and the Battle of Columbus, Georgia was the last engagement which qualifies as a battle prior to the dissolution of the Confederacy." http://www.nightlinx.com/events/eventdetail.php?event_id=343910472473896 are you prepared to tell Dr. Crosswell that he is a fool? Or would it perhaps just be better to say you disagree with his analysis?

Chandler, LAST DAYS OF THE CONFEDERACY IN NE GEORGIA (2015), 79. You couldn't find this book.

Scott, William Force, "The Last Battle of the War," http://books.google.com/books?id=isZuaxHU94oC&pg=PA485

Richard Lifshey; James Bridges; Patrick Cusick, The Last Ditch: The Final Battle of the Civil War (2007). You couldn't find this. It was an award-winning research piece.

Kennedy, Linda, "The Destruction of Columbus, Georgia: The Last Battle of the War Between the States" (1996). Apparently your google doesn't work well.

recollections of old soldiers

You state the "old soldiers" began to perpetrate the claim in the Confederate Veteran in 1896. You're patently wrong. For example,

1866- http://books.google.com/books?id=bdY1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA117&dq=%22bringing+on+and+ending+the+last+general+engagement+of+the+war%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMIy--P8OCVyAIVyryACh0MSgyl#v=onepage&q=%22bringing%20on%20and%20ending%20the%20last%20general%20engagement%20of%20the%20war%22&f=false

1872- http://books.google.com/books?id=QogshH4pd50C&pg=PA512&lpg=PA512&dq=%22the+last+fighting+of+the+great+war%22&source=bl&ots=ilwsTd1yXl&sig=pGauflPcdVFBkpUjG_w-4iojxWw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI44z7pOGVyAIVR56ACh0UZgu-#v=onepage&q=%22the%20last%20fighting%20of%20the%20great%20war%22&f=false

1874- http://archive.org/stream/04608863.3153.emory.edu/04608863_3153#page/n411/mode/2up

1881- https://books.google.com/books?id=ZMb-d7wAApsC&pg=PA28

1885- General Winslow's Memoirs

And then you just dismiss these officers as senile, old, and self-aggrandizing:

General James H. Wilson, "it was the last real battle of the war." http://books.google.com/books?id=ljgOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA265&lpg=PA265&dq=%22the+last+real+battle%22+wilson&source=bl&ots=CWYOoEfrnA&sig=JdEnkH94dF3i8QsDbkgechWakyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwA2oVChMIx9GVjMyTyAIVjJ6ACh2JZgM8#v=onepage&q=%22the%20last%20real%20battle%22%20wilson&f=false)

General Edward F. Winslow, "I have always considered that engagement, by the number present and the results achieved, to be the final battle of the war." http://sites.google.com/a/columbusstate.edu/primary-sources/winslow

General Emory Upton, "By 10.00 p. M. Columbus, with its vast munitions of war, 1500 prisoners and 24 guns was in our hands. This, which was the closing conflict of the war" (Official Records, I:49, Part One, p. 475). Your suggestion that General Upton was only referring to his own division's "closing conflict" would lead any reader with a modicum of judiciousness to question whether you are able to handle sources reasonably or whether you clearly have a "dog in this fight." Colonel Theodore Allen, http://books.google.com/books?id=NX5KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA785 Some of these fellows are West-Pointers with perhaps more military training than even you. You seem to want to dismiss these high ranking officers as buffoons who were only trying to embellish their own importance. I'm not saying you have to agree with their conclusions, but to dismiss them as "fools" whose opinions are not worthy of consideration would cause an educated reader to wonder whether or not your handling of scholarly disagreement can be trusted. And that is a bit concerning given the amount of material you post to Wikipedia.

You also seem to dismiss Swift's article in the Journal of the Military Service Institution simply on the grounds of its publication date. You don't address the merits.

The bottom line is this: you obviously have the right to hold the opinion that the scholars who disagree with you are wrong. What you don't have a right to do is pretend that they don't exist, or dismiss scholars with ad hominems like "ghost story writers, fools, local boosters, fringe theorists, and bloggers." You have a very extensive fingerprint on Wikipedia, and if you wish to be taken seriously, you have to handle issues of scholarly controversy with proper balance. Wikipedia readers lose whenever an opinionated editor comes in and authoritatively rewrites articles to reflect his own opinions rather than reflect the actual debate among experts. That's what you have done here and I think it is bad for Wiki and it's readership.

Sure, you probably have more scholarly noses on your side of the court. Fine. There are more scholars who believe Oswald acted alone than otherwise; but Wiki gives a fair share to those who don't think Oswald acted alone, and doesn't just dismiss them as kooks. That's where you aren't in keeping with the Wiki mission here. And, in the end, your whole argument seems to be reduced to a case of "I have a lot more secondary sources on my side." Whatever happened to relaying facts and letting them be judged on their own merit? (signed:Quag52)

This is the same screed placed by the IP editor, signed:Quag52 here on the Battle of Columbus article talk page in 2015. I just noticed it today in looking over some old work. I placed the following reply there and it seems to apply here for the record. The only thing I might change is that it appears the text was changed by a new user with a different name at that time. There may be some relationship or just a coincidence of someone with a similar point of view weighing in. Although this has been archived, I see no reason to start a new thread here, especially since this is simply a reply to the above for anyone who might still look at it. It would make little sense to restart the topic and to separate the response from the original post.
Strident? Even though you accuse me of using the word "fools" twice, a search of this page will show the only two uses of the word are in your accusations. Nor did I use the word "buffoons." (I do think that Wikipedia looks foolish by having an article that pushes this minority point of view without even pointing out what the majority point of view is and I do use the word foolish in an edit summary in that context; that is far different from stating that I used words such as buffoons and fools to refer to the proponents of the opposite view. What I may have used in an edit summary with its limitations and in that context does not relate to or qualify what I have written above.) I would suggest that you are the one using the ad hominems. Look back at the sarcasm and other ad hominems with which you address me and distort my statements of fact and conclusions. That is typical of someone who has a weak case and wishes to attack the messenger in order to divert attention. McPherson has taken both sides of this in different places and just where is it that I call Jones or anyone else a fool or a buffoon?
There may be a few other sources, local or not easily found despite what you portray. I am sorry that I missed them but they don't change the conclusion or make the opposite viewpoint the majority view, much less an exclusive and conclusive one as you now portray it. I may have missed a few on the other side. These additional references still do not overcome the references and scholarship from just after the war to the present day about what the last battle was nor the facts that the Boykins Mill battle, not even considering Palmito Ranch, was about the same size and the Munford battle, among others, was later.
The vast majority of scholarship, plus the historical record, show that this battle was not the last battle of the civil war. You don't advance your case by unwarranted name-calling and distortion of my statements. Also, you have no idea what kind of military training I may have or any other fact about me that you wish to denigrate, any more that I know for sure whether you are a Columbus or nearby resident who wants to boost your locality. Of course, it is not about that, is it? That is just another ad hominem and distraction. This is about historical research and writing and presentation of the majority view.
You are the one distorting Wikipedia, not presenting a balanced view and not adhering to a neutral point of view by taking out all the contrary references and pushing a local point of view with a thin basis. I think that is bad for Wikipedia and the readership. I suppose I may have to leave this for a third person to deal with as an edit war is not something I wish to engage in. At least the information above will be available to anyone who cares to look at this page. Donner60 (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

End of slavery

I came here to find information about how Emancipation was implemented—whether there were pockets of resistance, how the news spread, and so on. In my uninformed opinion, this seems like a pretty central story about the conclusion of the Civil War. I was surprised to find no mention of the word "slave". I'm sure it's very valuable to summarize the military events of the end of the war, but could we also add a

WP:SUMMARY-style section linking to Slavery_in_the_United_States#The_end_of_slavery? FourViolas (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I think you must draw the obvious conclusion that it just wasn’t an issue. By the end of the war, nearly all the slaves had either escaped or been liberated. After the war, the south was under military government, organised by the Republican party, who came down hard on the ex-slave owners. Valetude (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Columbus

This battle – erroneously – has been argued to be the "last battle of the Civil War" and equally erroneously asserted to be "widely regarded" as such.

It was the last battle before the Confederacy officially dissolved itself on May 5th. Many would reckon this to mark the end of hostilities. For this reason, Columbus is indeed 'widely regarded' as the final battle of the war, and not 'erroneously asserted' as such. Valetude (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Confederacy was never recognized as a sovereign government by the United States or any other country. The dissolving of the government by Jefferson Davis, if that is what it was since he intended to carry on west of the Mississippi River, meant nothing signifying the end of hostilities. I found no historian of the works cited below that cites May 5 to mark the end of hostilities and dozens, cited below, that cite later dates, mostly in May 1865. It was the surrender of the armies and cessation of fighting that did. The last one to do that was the holdout Gen. E. Kirby Smith. Numerous historians see it that way as I post in a thread below. Literally dozens of sources, cited in the talk page of the Battle of Columbus, Georgia article and elsewhere, including many of the sources cited in the thread below, state that the Battle of Palmito Ranch (sometimes spelled Palmetto) was the last battle of the American Civil War.Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Official end'

You describe Lee’s surrender as the official end of the American Civil War. As this page shows, there has never been an 'official end', since Lee did not order a general armistice (and couldn't have done without presidential approval) and there was never a peace treaty. April 9th is simply a convenient date for historians to use, because they need one. We might call it the 'effective end' of the war. Valetude (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True enough as to Lee's authority. Lee did not surrender the entire Confederate Army, only the Army of Northern Virginia, or stop all the fighting although it did wind down quickly. His surrender could be characterized as an effective end because the Confederate armies capitulated to the U.S. without much attempt to continue fighting in rather rapid succession thereafter through the last surrender, often date May 26. If Appomattox is cited as the effective end, it should be qualified with further reference to the later surrenders. Many historians use May 26 as the date as explained in the thread below, although the piecemeal approach over the course of April, May and even June is also supportable. As Professor Neff of the University of Edinburgh Scotland has written, cited below, the effective end was over this period of time. The legal end was August 20, 1866 as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1867 or 1869, citation below, though the case dates differ on different sources. Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first part of Background?

I don't know how:

The fighting of the Eastern Theater of the American Civil War between Lieut. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s Army of the Potomac and Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was reported considerably more often in the newspapers than the battles of the Western Theater. Reporting of the Eastern Theater skirmishes largely dominated the newspapers as the Appomattox Campaign developed.

is relevant. I think the following sentences are much better for the Background. Charles Victorio (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Juneteenth?

I don't know if it qualifies as a "surrender" but the Arrival of Union Troops in Galveston on Jun 19th, 1866 and the reading of General Order #3 is definitely part of the Conclusion of the Civil War. It's such an important day that today a bill has been approved in Congress declaring June 19 - Juneteenth - a federal holiday.

Anyway, what happened with the Confederate troops in Texas. Were they part of the Trans-Mississippi army that had already surrendered. 2601:14A:503:64C0:C2D2:DDFF:FE20:CD83 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC) [ileanadu - still unable to sign in][reply]

Yes. The authorized/organized Confederate troops in Texas were part of the Trans-Mississippi Department or Trans-Mississippi Army and covered by the Trans-Mississippi surrender. Some more or less independent commands surrendered independently, as I think John Salmon Ford's would be found to have been, but they were included in the surrender in any event. General Cyrus Bussey's order cited below indicated that any person or group carrying on after a reasonable time in June to have received notice of the surrender would be considered guerrillas, and therefore outlaws. Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War/Archive_1&oldid=1136635408"