Talk:American Civil War

End of the war in the infobox

The end of the war date has been the subject of a lot of editing recently. I had for a while agreed with the May 9 date, but I'm starting to think that putting April 9, or some other date might be better. The "effectively ended" on April 9 wording is quite widely used. The war did in effect end then, everything else was just mop-up. I'm not sure why Johnson's May 9 declaration has been chosen as the end date, when Johnson himself doesn't actually declare the war over until 1866. Not that I'm arguing for 1866, obviously the war ended in 1865. So I'm thinking either we go with "April 9" or "April 9 (effectively)", or we instead choose Waties surrender (June 23) or the surrender of the Shenandoah (November 6). Alternatively, we could just put "1865 (exact date disputed)." Regardless, just don't think May 9 is a sufficient date to put in the infobox sans explanation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek and Maurice Magnus: There is no valid reason for the May 9 date because it is based on a misleading headline in a New York Times article dated May 9, 1865 and a misinterpretation of President Johnson's executive order dated May 9, 1865 and proclamation dated May 10, 1865. The proclamation is really the operative document. I suspect that there would have been a reason for an early release in order to give a little advance notice because it contains an effective date of the date of the order. Official records and compilations of presidential documents use the May 10 date, as do historians Allan Nevins and E.B. Long, among the few mentioning it in a reliable, authoritative source.

Unfortunately, I am spending considerable time that might be better spent in order to show that May 9, or May 10, is an especially bad date for the end of the war. I think I will probably need to post a little longer item with a bit more explanation, more sources and more pings in an effort to make this a solid point which can be generally accepted by Wikipedians and properly informative to readers. I am trying to be comprehensive because the end of the war date is of some significance and there is very good reason not to use a date which does not stand up to analysis. While the following reasons and explanation should be enough to make the case, I think I might anticipate some further disagreement unless I give an exhaustive treatment to this point in view of the rejection of my brief edit summary as a reason for changing the date of the end of the war.

Here is a version of the major points on which I base my conclusion. I intend to re-post as soon as I can do a little addition and perhaps editing in an effort to reach a consensus.

President Andrew Johnson issued an executive order on May 9 (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-reestablish-the-authority-the-united-states-and-execute-the-laws-within) and a proclamation on May 10 (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-132-ordering-the-arrest-insurgent-cruisers). The May 9 order has nothing to do with the end of the war as such or the treatment of anyone who carried on combat, resistance or any other form of rebellion after the date of the order. The purpose of the order was to declare acts taken by or under the supposed authority of Confederate government or Virginia government, those who directed the rebellion in the "State of Virginia" (in particular Jefferson Davis, John Letcher and William "Extra Billy" Smith), after April 17, 1861 as invalid and to restore the legal government of Virginia. The Times article sows some confusion by conflating this order with the May 10 proclamation. However, it does recite enough of the actual language of the orders, in particular the May 10 proclamation, to show that Johnson did not declare the end of the war nor did he condemn as criminals anyone who carried on "armed resistance" after that date. The withdrawal of belligerent rights and treatment as criminals only applied to commerce raider crews who continued their "depredations," the sole subject of the May 10 proclamation.

The rationale for the May 9 (10) date seems to be based on two arguments. First, Johnson, declared an end to the war (in a "whereas" clause, not an operative paragraph)." He didn't make such a declaration. Note that this clause in full reads: "Whereas armed resistance to the authority of this Government in the said insurrectionary States may be regarded as virtually at an end, and the persons by whom that resistance, as well as the operations of insurgent cruisers, was directed "are fugitives or captive;." This is not the same as end of the war. He merely used the near end of the war as a predicate to condemn further actions of commerce raiders as criminal and to warn that foreign nations that continue to grant them belligerent rights would be subject to sanctions such as denial of access to U.S. ports. The fugitives or captives are only those under whom the resistance, or the cruisers, "was directed." The proclamation continues to solely deal with the continuing actions of commerce raiders and those countries who give them belligerent rights at their ports.

The second basis, is that he declared that anyone who carried on the war after that date would be a criminal. He did not. The proclamation's operative language only dealt with commerce raider crews. The operative language is "Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, hereby enjoin all naval, military, and civil officers of the United States diligently to endeavor, by all lawful means, to arrest the said 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." Note the limitation to "persons on board them." The misleading, overly broad New York Times headline states in part: "Belligerent Rights of the Rebels at an End." The proclamation itself shows that the subject was only "persons on board them" (the commerce raider cruisers), not "Rebels" in general and the article uses the exact limited wording of the proclamation.

I have found and continue to look at many sources about the war and end of the war. The only ones that I have found so far that even mention this proclamation include: Nevins, Allan. The War for the Union. Vol. 4, The Organized War to Victory 1864 – 1865. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971. ISBN 978-1-56852-299-9. p. 363. "On May 10, the same day Davis was taken in Georgia, Johnson proclaimed that "armed resistance to the authority of this Government in the said insurrenctionary States may be regarded as virtually at an end," citing Richardson, James D. Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1897, VII, 3304-3552. A 1902 publication of the same work, but at Vol. VI, pp 308-309 is also available online along with a couple of other sources. Nevins was discussing the nearly universal hope that the war was ending, not that he was declaring that it was as of that date. The exhaustive source Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123, mentions the May 10 proclamation. Long quotes from the whereas clause of the proclamation ("armed resistance...virtually at an end") and gives a summary of its operative provisions as aimed at "crews of commerce raiders still on the high seas." (Entry for May 10, 1865, page 687.)

While this analysis refutes the May 9/10 date, too much of significance also happened after the May proclamation to consider that date as a good date among the several possibilities for an end to the war date which are better choices. The Battle of Palmito Ranch on May 13, the limited amnesty proclamation of May 29, the official surrender of Kirby Smith's large forces on June 2 (about 43,000 men still in the field) or the surrender of the last Confederate force under a general, Stand Watie, on June 23 are all better choices as an end of the war date, in my opinion. I favor the June 23 date, which is the point on which the introduction to the article ends. The surrender date of the CSS Shenandoah in November is such an outlier, I think that handling in the text is sufficient coverage of that occurrence without using it as the end of the war date. The 1866 end of the war declarations by Andrew Johnson and even the further amnesties in 1867 and 1868 show that Johnson did not consider the May 9/10 proclamation as an official end to the war. I do like adding the word "effective" end date, as well.

I could go on, and I suppose I will need to reiterate most of the above, perhaps edit a little and add some research in another post to bring this whole thing to a resolution as far as this article and Wikipedia in general is concerned. Thanks to anyone who gets through even this lengthy post and finds it of interest. This was posted before my comments about the end date and ping to possibly interested editors above. Depending upon any comments or consensus here, I may not need to post a further expanded thread. Donner60 (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone shed more RS light on yet another date: when the last cabinet meeting of Jefferson Davis was and what happened there? Not that that should be THE DATE but since we are talking dates it would be nice to have them all in order. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I though I would ping you about this reply; you have probably seen it, but it is easy for me to miss such postings if others follow before I look back for it so I thought I would note to you that I answered.> I noted below that the date of the last Confederate cabinet meeting is subject to dispute or at least that there are several possibilities. I note here a citation to the article from 1919 which I mentioned that states those possibilities. While I plan to look into this a little further to see if I can find any definite further opinions, that is probably unnecessary in view of the scholarship of the article. The author gives his conclusion on page 349 that if a cabinet meeting meets certain criteria such as a meeting of civil officers of the executive departments to discuss civil matters, "the last purely formal cabinet meeting of the Confederacy was held at Charlotte, North Carolina, April 26, 1865...." Meetings of Davis with some cabinet members and generals took place in Washington, Georgia, May 4 and perhaps May 5, 1865 but these dealt primarily if not totally with military matters. The article is freely available on JSTOR. Stable URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/1886329. James Elliott Walmsley. "The Last Meeting of the Confederate Cabinet." The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. Vol. 6, No. 3 (Dec., 1919), pp. 336-349 (14 pages). Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of Organization of American Historians. The article pages are captioned Break-up of the Confederate Cabinet Donner60 (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There is a considerable difference between being actively at war and an armed resistance. I believe the May 9th proclamation was a transition between those two concepts. Yes there were still an armed resistance in the field, but they were no longer at war. The May 9 proclamation was an attempt to define the status of anyone still resisting the rule of the federal government. Before that proclamation, confederate soldiers were treated as being part of an organized army and as such, were given the due process a prisoner of war might expect. After that date, anyone still in rebellion would be considered criminals in the eyes of the law and as such would be treated as criminals and not prisoners of war. That is my understanding of the May 9 proclamation. As such, it is a firm declaration that the actual "war" was over and that a new stage of the conflict had begun. It may be a fine line, but it's a line non the less.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is a timeline based only I what I found in a National Archives article. ref "Ending the Bloodshed - The Last Surrenders of the Civil War". U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 2022-06-01. end ref I like May 5 and June 23, but it would be good to know what some of the authors from universities have written. People such as Gary W. Gallagher, Gordon C. Rhea, Jeffry D. Wert, Stephen Z. Starr, and others. TwoScars (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• April 12, 1865 Robert E. Lee formally surrenders Confederacy's largest army (documents signed April 9)
• April 21 John S. Mosby disbands
• April 26 Joseph E. Johnston surrenders (after a few days of problems with the terms)
• May 4 Richard Taylor surrenders
• May 5 Jefferson Davis officially dissolves Confederate government
• May 9 Nathan Bedford Forrest bids farewell to his troops
• May 10 Jeff Davis captured, followed by the surrenders of small forces in FL, GA, and northern AR
• May 10 Pres. Johnson says war "virtually at an end"
• May 12 Union Col. Theodore H. Barrett defeated at Palmito Ranch, Texas -- last (land?) battle of war
• --War still going on in Texas and Indian Territory--
• May 26 Edmund Kirby Smith surrenders
• May 29 Pres. Johnson makes proclamation concerning amnesty and pardon
• June 23 Stand Watie surrenders his Indian command near Fort Towson in Indian Territory
• November 6 CSS Shenandoah surrenders in Liverpool
• April 2, 1866 Pres. Johnson declares insurrection over (except Texas)
• August 20, 1866 Pres. Johnson issued a proclamation announcing the end of the American Civil War

• The question before us is: When did Confederate soldiers transition from bring belligerents in the field of battle who are subject to amnesty, to an unlawful armed resistance that can be prosecuted? These questions had legal international repercussions it is my opinion that it was that moment the actual Civil war ended.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are a few short answers which I will need supplement with a more detailed one. I perhaps have covered most of the ground earlier but I need to address some questions just raised. I do not want to delay posting what I think is some key information and analysis in order to put everything in this post. I can provide some information about how historians have treated the questions here, or not taken a firm position on so I will do that later. The date of the last cabinet meeting of the Confederacy is subject to dispute but I have found an old article that discusses it in detail. Needless to say, it had to be before Davis was captured on May 10. I will note the possibilities. I answered above with citation that based on 1919 article the last formal cabinet meeting probably should be considered the one in Charlotte, NC on April 16, 1865 though meetings of Jefferson Davis with some cabinet members and generals took place in Washington, Georgia on May 4 and May 5 (likely), 1865.

Let me say that I think to draw a line between the predicate in a whereas clause of armed resistance nearly at an end and the end of the war is too fine to survive critical analysis of its use as an end of the war date. It presupposes that the predicate for the withdrawal of belligerent rights from commerce raiders in a whereas clause of an order of arrest of commerce raiders and a sanction against foreign governments who honor those rights, and nothing else, establishes the end of the war. This is also totally inconsistent with what happened later: Palmito Ranch, amnesty proclamations, especially the provisions of the May 29 order, lack of prosecutions in the final analysis, surrender of substantial field forces, sending Sheridan to Texas to end the rebellion there and in western Louisiana, and 1866 proclamations about the end of the rebellion (although I think the 1866 proclamations were too late to use as an effective date of the end of the war, even though the US Supreme Court confirmed them as the legal dates in an 1872 case).

This should be the gist. Question: "When did Confederate soldiers transition from bring belligerents in the field of battle who are subject to amnesty, to an unlawful armed resistance that can be prosecuted?" Answer: Confederate soldiers never transitioned from being belligerents (combatants might be a better word) to being an unlawful armed resistance that could be prosecuted. No such criminal class was ever created. Only commerce raider crews were covered by the May 10 proclamation. The May 10 proclamation can be accessed here: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-132-ordering-the-arrest-insurgent-cruisers. Only those insurgent raider crews and certain categories of high officials and other limited categories of persons were excepted from the May 29, 1865 amnesty. In fact most of the excepted categories, including high ranking officers and officials, could make an individual application for amnesty and many did. See Edmund Kirby Smith. Leonard, Elizabeth D, Lincoln's Forgotten Ally: Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt of Kentucky. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011. ISBN 978-0-8078-3500-5. Page 219: "Around this time [the May 29 date] Johnson also began issuing pardons, which he continued to grant at an ever-accelerating rate, to those who fell outside the proclamations' general guidelines."

June 8: I have now found reference to an order of the War Department which in effect criminalizes acts of hostility against the United States east of the Mississippi River from and after June 1, 1865. It declares such persons will be regarded as guerrillas and punished with death. I will add more detail to my entry earlier tonight below.

I have access to many references so it is only fair to say I cannot exclude the possibility that a source or a few sources may exist which make the same interpretation of the "virtually at an end" language. I will note them if I find any in my review of the histories as suggested by Two Scars.

The May 29 amnesty was issued only 19 days after the proclamation dated May 10 (obviously available to the press on May 9) and with no direct reference to it. The terms of the May 10 proclamation clearly only applied to commerce raider crews. Commerce raider crews were also one of the 14 exceptions to the May 29 proclamation; none of the categories was so broad as to criminalize all other persons including Confederate soldiers generally who continued to resist the authority of the United States or, just as importantly, to prevent almost all of them from applying for amnesty. The entire proclamation with all the exceptions can be accessed here: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-134-granting-amnesty-participants-the-rebellion-with-certain-exceptions. The commerce raider exception was "Eleventh. All persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States." The May 29 order certainly undermined the effectiveness of any intent to criminalize past or further actions of rebellion. Several authors have stated that Johnson's original intention, especially in view of Lincoln's assassination was to treat the Confederates harshly and to prosecute some of the top people. His later actions, starting with the May 29 order, show a change of mind and an intent to put the whole matter behind the nation in the spirit of what he viewed as Lincoln's wish for prompt reconciliation.

Jefferson Davis was released from prison without further prosecution on May 11, 1867. Along with Alexander Stephens and Clement Clay, released earlier, he was among the last, if not the last, to be so released. The captain of the commerce raider CSS Shenandoah even returned to the United States in 1870 and returned to civilian life without being prosecuted. See article on James Iredell Waddell. As far as I have ever read, the only two Confederate soldiers prosecuted for war crimes were Henry Wirz and Champ Ferguson and those prosecutions were not for actions after May 10, 1865.

The later surrenders were under the same terms as the earlier ones. No exceptions were carved out that would apply to anyone whose actions had been criminalized after May 10, 1865.

The only international legal repercussions were that the United States proclaimed in the May 10 order that foreign nations that continue to grant belligerent rights (neutral ports, perhaps no embargos, equal treatment) would not be granted access to U.S. ports. At that time granting belligerent rights to foreign combatants was essentially a declaration of neutrality. Under the perhaps informal conventions of the time, this meant that both sides would be treated equally and neutrally. Foreign nations never recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign nations so this neutrality would fall short of any rights or privileges that would be extended to a sovereign nation. It also would mean that the neutrality and treatment extended would be in the relations between the neutral country and the combatants and would have no effect on the rights the combatants would give to each other under what were considered the rules or laws of war at that time. The United States always objected to the neutral treatment for and supplying of the Confederacy because it was not a sovereign nation.

On June 2, 1865, the British government officially withdrew belligerent rights from the Confederacy. E. B. Long, p. 692.

The position of foreign governments building Confederate commerce raiders, which allowed great damage to US commerce, and harboring them, was resolved in favor of the United States in the The Alabama Claims, "which were a series of demands for damages sought by the government of the United States from the United Kingdom in 1869, for the attacks upon Union merchant ships by Confederate Navy commerce raiders built in British shipyards during the American Civil War....After international arbitration endorsed the American position in 1872, Britain settled the matter by paying the United States $15.5 million, ending the dispute and leading to a treaty that restored friendly relations between Britain and the United States." The US had to pay about $1 million in claims of foreign citizens for property damage or confiscation during the war. The international repercussions have no bearing on the date for the end of the war or armed resistance or how the US government interacted with or treated Confederate soldiers in general and ultimately all who joined in the rebellion. Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@SteelerFan1933, BusterD, CaptainEek, Maurice Magnus, GELongstreet, Hog Farm, Djmaschek, Mojoworker, Jojhutton, Rjensen, CaroleHenson, Alanscottwalker, Kevin Murray, TheVirginiaHistorian, and TwoScars:. I take the liberty of pinging again because I would like to call specific attention to my thought that we should not overlook as a good option CaptainEek's suggestion about a more general date such as "effectively May/June 1865" for the end of the war in the first sentence of the article and in the infobox would be a good way to resolve the problem of the specifying an end date for the war with general agreement. The war ended in different places for different purposes at different times throughout the months of May and June. Significant surrenders occurred already in April and that month should perhaps also be used. General agreement on a single date in all sources almost certainly can not be found and possibly not reached here. Perhaps it is unnecessary to have one if the dates used for various purposes or reasons in a date range are clearly explained as they are for the most part already.

After June, there is only the outlier of the surrender of the CSS Shenandoah on November 6, 1865. However according to Wikipedia's article, which I believe is accurate, the last action by the Shenandoah was June 28, 1865. So no more shots were fired after that and Shenandoah's cessation of activity can also be placed in June with mention of the November surrender in England. A variety of events from the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse through May and ending June 28 could be the last day of the war, depending on the context. The use of a general range of dates would simply leave the need for the article to go through the various occurrences with a conclusion that these events effectively ended the war for various purposes and their dates all have been cited as the end of the war for various purposes. It mostly does that already. If a range is used as a serious option, I don't see how that range could be subject to much dispute.

Of course, the legal end of the war was the dates of the two proclamations of April 2 and August 20 1866 (for Texas), as confirmed by the US Supreme Court in 1872. That has to be noted but the war itself otherwise had been effectively at an end by the end of June 1865. While I currently still favor June 23 (maybe June 28?) and not May 9 or 10 if one date must be used, the more general May/June 1865 or maybe April-June, 1865 might be better. Either works for me as well as a later single date. I will post a little more on this topic since I want to answer the question I deferred in the previous post about opinions of known historians and hopefully to finally round out the discussion. I invite comment on the alternative of a date range in addition to any comments on the single date if we need to carry that on. Donner60 (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are under arms in a Army with a Confederate General still fighting the war is not over. The war ended on June 23,1865 when the last Confederate general surrendered. That date also fits nicely as its the day after the Shenandoah had the last at sea war action by a Confederate war ship on June 22,1865. 184.16.71.20 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

IF you would go with May 9,1865 as the end of the Civil war what do you consider the Union and Confederate soldiers who died in battle between May 9,1865 and June 23,1865? If the war is over they cant be war deaths. Are they going to be after the war deaths or just mistaken deaths that should not of happened? Texas has a monument to Civil war dead who died after May 9,1865. Is Texas wrong? 184.16.71.20 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

For context, the last death in battle was on May 13, at Palmito Ranch: John J. Williams (soldier). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The last shot fired was by a Confederate ship on June 22,1865 . SO June 23 1865 should be the end of the Civil war. The last General Surrendered and the Confederate ship no longer attacked anyone. 184.16.71.20 (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I am still thinking but May 9 has the virtues of being after the major surrenders and dissolution of the confederate government, and a bit splitting the differences half way. What is clear to me is 1) the most important bit of info in the infobox now is not the exact date but that is was about 4 years of war, and 2) we do need to put clearer asterix explaining the end problem, perhaps by link to the end section of the article?) (I think I take a different view of the May 29 amnesty (offer) -- that was a revise, perhaps renewal of Lincoln's amnestie(s) (offers) and given the new realities, it does exclude basically every official of the confederacy, and everyone unwilling to conform, or who continues the fight on land and sea.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

See also our Conclusion of the American Civil War article, the lead of which states: The Ceasefire Agreement of the Confederacy commenced with the ceasefire agreement of the Army of Northern Virginia on April 9, at Appomattox Court House, by General Robert E. Lee and concluded with the ceasefire agreement of the Shenandoah on November 6, 1865, bringing the hostilities of the American Civil War to a close. Legally, the war did not end until a proclamation by President Andrew Johnson on August 20, 1866, when he declared "that the said insurrection is at an end and that peace, order, tranquillity, and civil authority now exist in and throughout the whole of the United States of America." That article seems to be taking some liberties terming it as the "Ceasefire Agreement of the Confederacy", but the concept of the end of hostilities, I think may have merit for determining what we say and how we say it.

Since there is some dispute even among historians about when the war ended (some even referring to it in plural as "the ends of the war"), I think CaptainEek's proposal may be the best choice rather than us coming to some consensus here that might not reflect what WP:RS actually show. Perhaps something like "1865 (exact date disputed – see Confederacy surrenders section)". Or perhaps "1865 – exact date disputed, end of hostilities April 9 – November 6, 1865, legal proclamation August 20, 1866 (see Confederacy surrenders section)". Or something similar. Mojoworker (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

April 9 should not be used. Lee did not speak for the entire Confederacy. I like May 9 or 10, especially since the other alternatives are explained in the text. However, I do not object to a later date. No matter what date is used, it is good that the alternatives are discussed in the text. Perhaps the Confederacy surrenders section should have a subsection, called War ends, that lists (or discusses) the alternatives such as the last land battle, the last few surrenders, the Shenandoah, and the 1865 and 1866 proclamations. I e-mailed a professor at UVA that was editor of two books I used for writing articles, asking for his opinion—but I would not be surprised if I do not get a response. Thinking from a different perspective: what is included in the war's casualty totals? If the May 12 battle is in the total casualties, we cannot say the war ended May 10 but use casualties from a later date (yes, that battle may have casualties that are only a very small rounding error for the approximate total). Are casualties from a later date included in the total? TwoScars (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Union casualties at Palmito Ranch were 2 killed, 6 wounded, 2 missing, 102 taken prisoner. Confederate casualties were 1 killed, 4 or 5 injured and 3 taken prisoner. 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. p. 128. Dyer's Compendium gives a Union casualty total of 118, not broken down by killed, wounded, missing, prisoners, 4 more than Hunt. 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. P. 881. I know of no reason why these would not have been counted in totals prepared by the War Department or early historians since Col. Barrett filed an official report on May 21, 1865. Admittedly, the various 19th century works and the Official Records are not easy to research and I have not found a definitive date range for the figures and may not spend more time on it.

I agree April 9 should not be used, nor should April 26 unless perhaps as part of a range. Some writers state that one or both "effectively" ended the war, a word that is also used occasionally for a later date and which has even been suggested here. I am preparing a larger timeline of dates from April 1865 and later with references for possible use in articles and/or as part of the discussion - supplementing the list of events you posted above. This may also be useful for editing or adding to the Conclusion of the American Civil War article. I am also preparing a list of what historians have said about the end of the war. I may be a little delayed on finishing those, in part because I need to go back to some that I did not list. Some don't even address a possible date. I moved on from others because they did not have a clear end date stated but they may have made mention of several dates. Absence of expression of a firm and expression of several dates as ending the war seems to be relevant information, however, and I think I should add it to the list. Donner60 (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I am posting a timeline of events at the conclusion of the American Civil War in a separate thread, after proofreading the preview in order not to unduly lengthen this end of the war thread discussion thread or distract from any further comments or opinions in it. I think it could be useful to the discussion in this 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 those facts. After spending a little more time on research, I will post some quotations from and summaries of writings of various authors about the end of the war. Donner60 (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This is something of an insert or further thought about my comments on criminalization of further actions by Confederate soldiers. User:jojhutton's question about the dates that further acts of war by Confederate soldiers would become criminal acts deserves a more complete answer and analysis and an additional possible answer. I will post more detail and citations soon. Here is my general thought for now. I should have written that no general criminal class was created by the May 9/10 orders/proclamations or by any order or proclamation which I have found. I have found none which I think clearly established a single date for the end of the war or for the criminalization of further actions by Confederate soldiers. [I found reference to a War Department order "from and after the first day of June 1865" that effectively criminalizes further hostile acts after that date a few hours after I wrote this. I include it in another post just below this one and in the timeline.] But there did have to be such a date because the fighting ultimately stopped and soldiers turned bandits could go on indefinitely using the war as an excuse. Jesse James might be an example.

We want to determine a date (or date range) for the end of the war in this thread if we can, but we also want to determine a date when soldiers would have been committing criminal acts rather than permissible acts of war if they carried on such acts. That may provide a rationale for a conclusion on the end date. I think the date after which lawful acts of war would become criminal acts would be the date that a soldier no longer had combatant status, which is different from a nation or insurgency's belligerent status with foreign nations. That date for the end of combatant status would be the date the army to which he was attached surrendered. It might also be the date of his parole, but that could give rise to dispute. This results in giving some extra basis for the "several ending dates" idea or to the last date of surrender (or perhaps the Trans-Mississippi Army surrender date as a practical matter). There is a little more detail to mention in connection with this, including the effect of one of the Confederate armies in the field and, importantly, some authors to cite. I will post the more detailed analysis at the end of this thread or in a separate one as soon as I can write it up. @CaptainEek, TwoScars, Alanscottwalker, Jojhutton, Mojoworker, and BusterD: Pinging you as info about this new or revised thought since you have written about this. This also lets you know I have another thought and am still working on completing the information about the questions in this thread. I hope anyone previously notified who is interested is still watching, as well. Donner60 (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

After doing further research, I have just found reference to a War Department order that in effect criminalizes further acts of hostility against the United States east of the Mississippi River and provides for summary execution as follows: "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, 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. p. 353. It would be interesting to know whether this was ever put into effect or tested in court. Donner60 (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC) I found one order which in effect enforces this on June 12, 1865 but the order contains language to arrest the persons involved apparently because their actions might have been a civilian rather than a military offense. I added it to the timeline. I also put the full terms of the order in a May 11 entry because it is premised on the surrender and disbandment of all Confederate forces east of the Mississippi and there being "no authorized troops" in that territory. Donner60 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

In response to User:TwoScars's suggestion, I have researched the statements, or just narratives, of historians about the end date for the war. Most of them cite various dates and events as ending the war but do not suggest a single end date. One who does is Bruce Catton who states that Kirby Smith surrender on Mary 26, 1865 "...and the war was over." I think I have now posted about all of the relevant information that I have found on the topic in the threads below. I will finish up with my final analysis and opinion at the end of this or if I think I need to add too many details or quotations, perhaps I will put it in yet another separate thread. I hope that anyone who reads this information will find it at least somewhat interesting, perhaps lead to a conclusion on the topic of this thread, and provide some research for possible inclusion in articles. I may not finish this for a week or so because real life will be taking up most or all of my time for about a week or so. I may have just a few random short edits over that time. Donner60 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Stand Watie was a citizen of the Cherokee Nation - not the Confederacy - but was he still conducting offensive operations against the USA during June anyway? I don't think so. The Cherokee had formed a treaty of alliance with a government that no longer existed- https://cdm.bostonathenaeum.org/digital/collection/p16057coll14/id/90842/ -Topcat777

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

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 President of the 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 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 on 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 get 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 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 occuring 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 receivedin 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. On or just before this date: "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 Trans-Mississippi by Gen. 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, reqires 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 Nofolk be ordred to quash all indictments found 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. 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 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 Earl Russell's message of October 18 relieving U.S. vessels of all the objectionable restraints 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 government 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.

RfC: When did the Civil War end?

As historian Neff notes, the Civil War lacks a precise end date: "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." But since we remain in the business of conveying information, how should we communicate the end date in the infobox? Please peruse the above sections, with excellent research by Donner60 and company. The following dates stand out, but your solution needn't be limited to those listed:

• April 9: Lee surrenders at Appomattox Courthouse, setting in motion a wave of surrenders. The earliest possible date we could claim.
• April 26: Johnston's large force surrenders. John Wilkes Booth killed.
• May 5: Effective dissolution of the Confederate government.
• May 9: The disputed, but status quo ante version. Refers to Johnson's proclamation that belligerent rights are at an end.
• May 10: Confederate President Jeff Davis captured.
• May 13: Battle of Palmetto ranch, last of the war.
• May 26: Edmund Kirby Smith's forces surrender, last large force surrender. Later argued as the end date by the Government.
• June 2: Department of the Trans-Mississippi ordered to stand down.
• June 19: Juneteenth, the slaves of Texas are freed.
• June 22: Shenandoah, unaware of Lee and Johnston's surrender, fires the last shots of the war.
• June 23: Stand Watie is the last Confederate general/land force to surrender.
• November 6: Shenandoah surrenders in the UK, the last naval surrender.
• August 20, 1866: President Johnson declares the insurrection suppressed. The last date we could claim. Supreme Court declares this as the end date for legal purposes.

Other possible approaches include:

• 1865
• Spring 1865
• April-June 1865
• April-May 1865
• May 1865
• [Date] (disputed)
• [Date] (exact end date disputed)
• [Date] (debatable)
• [Date] (exact end date debatable)
• [Date] (effective)

The topic is also covered at Conclusion of the American Civil War, though the above research has exposed the article as rather lacking. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• support April 9, 1865. I think this option is the best. Sm8900 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support May 9, 1865 though I have to admit I don't know the difference between Johnson's executive order on May 9 and proclamation on May 10, and the 'Confederacy surrenders' section only discusses the latter (although there is a reference for the former). –CWenger (^ • @) 20:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• support April 9, 1865 per Sm8900.Historyday01 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Outside of the USA June 2, 1865 is the date in textbooks with a note saying somthing like "the final Confederate armies officially surrendered". That said April 9, 1865 is what you will see in American publications. @Rjensen: our resident American historian ....Rjensen what have you writen about this...what date would you pick? Moxy- 16:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support April 9, 1865. In my experience, I typically see the Appomattox Courthouse surrender used metonymically to refer to the end of the war. As mentioned in the second half of the proposal, I think it could be useful to include a "(disputed)" note or something similar as well; if such a tag is used, I'd also recommend that the word within the parentheses link to Conclusion of the American Civil War. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe these fellows know?

• Support somewhere between April 26 to May 9. I live in North Carolina, so in school emphasis was always placed on Johnston's surrender. Whatever the case, I think Lee's surrender is just too early, and doesn't encapsulate the full collapse of the Confederate cause. The engagement at Palmito Ranch is too late, as historian Richard Gardiner says: "There was no Confederacy in existence when the 'battle' occurred." Naturally I agree with the link to the conclusions article, and of course if sources point to a common date we should use that. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• May-June 1865. The reason I say this is because (based on the list) that is the time when things were dying down. I don't think it's best to put an exact date because it really is debatable. SWinxy (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• support spring 1865 even though it is rather non-specific. I think the April date came into common use because of the older focus on the eastern theater of the war (in no small part because of the Lee fixation). As historical coverage broadened to include the western theaters (and the reevaluation of Grant as a commander) the end date started to slip from that focus. June 2 would also be acceptable. Intothatdarkness 19:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support May 26, Smith's surrender. (June 2, the date Kirby Smith formally signed the surrender of the Army of the Trans-Mississippi is OK too.) This was the date of the last large Confederate force's surrender, and the Confederate government had dissolved earlier in May. Stand Watie's force, from the little information I can find on it, was a cavalry regiment of well-under 250 men. I agree that Lee's surrender on April 9 was the beginning of the end of the war. However, what would have happened if by some miracle Johnson would have had a major victory over Sherman, or Kirby Smith would have had some big victory out west—would the war have continued? Does the count of total casualties for the war stop on April 9? Whatever is decided, all of the significant dates should be discussed in a surrender section. The end date should link to the discussion. TwoScars (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support May 9 In all technicality, the actual war, like all wars, ends when the people fighting those wars lose their "beligerant" status. That would be May 9. I'm not sure who would continue to advocate the false notion that the war ended when Lee surrendered. That is one of the biggest falsehoods about the ending of the war that no serious historian would agree with.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support May 26 or Spring 1865 if that can be accepted by most The largest number of historians in the thread that I posted support May 26, the date of Joseph Johnston's surrender as the date. May 9 is not the date of the proclamation (which was dated May 10 despite publication in the New York Times on May 9) but more importantly did not end the "belligerent rights" of the Confederacy. The order does not mention belligerent rights and the Union only recognized similar rights through the Lieber code, General Orders No. 100, on the laws or rules of war which was published earlier. I recite key items from it in a new thread on belligerent rights to be posted presently below. The May 10 order only applied to Confederate cruisers, not to the land war, or overall war, and was only addressed to the belligerent rights or privileges extended by neutral nations to those cruisers, not to any rights granted, however grudgingly, by the Union to the Confederacy or its combatants. The Union military orders by Halleck, Grant and Bussey after the surrenders in which further actions or hostilities were continued became criminalized, because of the end of combatant status as organized armies, show that the surrenders were the key to the end of the war. In fact, the Halleck order, approved by Grant and Stanton, was actually issued before May 9 as I will recite. The May 9/10 proclamation did not end belligerent rights of the Confederacy in the war as a whole, could not end the privileges granted by neutral nations (and didn't because England delayed in withdrawing them), nor could those nations force the combatants to end any rights or privileges extended between each other. All of this backed up by explanation and citation in the new thread below.

I am sorry that I have not had time to finish up the analysis more quickly before this thread got under way but real life, and some more research to soundly ground my position, intervened. I found only limited support in one historical work for May 10 as the end date, supported in large part because Jefferson Davis was captured on that date. I am posting below a thread on belligerent rights which I hope will convince everyone of the exact nature of Johnson's insurgent cruiser proclamation and the lack of effect it had on the end of the war and historical interpretation. In suppport here, since I realize this may continue to be disputed and some reasons may need to be given immediately in this thread, I will cite one of my additions to the historians section here and Jefferson Davis's later comments on belligerent rights as an initial indication that the May 9 (10) proclamation has no verifiable support, only a New York Times headline:

• Finding the Ending of America's Civil War by William A. Blair (Professor at Penn State University) The American Historical Review Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association Vol. 120, No. 5 (December 2015) [65] "More that four decades ago, historian Avery Craven made the bold statement “The American Civil War did not end at Appomattox, adding “Until the Negro's place in American life was fixed, the war was not over.” But he remained a minority voice, as the sheer weight of scholarship has leaned toward portraying the surrenders of the Confederate armies as the end of the war." "Footnote 25: ...For the argument against war continuing beyond the surrenders, see, for instance, Gary W. Gallagher, The Confederate War: How Popular Will, Nationalism, and Military Strategy Could Not Stave Off Defeat (Cambridge, Mass. 1997), 206, "n.1....The literature as a whole remains tilted toward the war ending with the surrenders....”

• Davis, Jefferson. The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Volume II. New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1881. OCLC 1249017603. Chapter XXXI, Page 257. “It is a remarkable fact that the Government of the United States, in no one instance, from the opening to the close of the war, formally spoke of the Confederate Government or States as belligerents. Although on many occasions it acted with the latter as a belligerent, yet no official designations were ever given to them or their citizens but those of "insurgents," or "insurrectionists." Perhaps there may be something in the signification of the words which, combined with existing circumstances, would express a state of affairs that the authorities of the Government of the United States were in no degree willing to admit, and vainly sought to prevent from becoming manifest to the world.”

If May 9 (or 10) continues to be used, Wikipedia will persist in a misinterpretation or error which is easily refutable by an overwhelming number of reliable, verifiable sources and cogent arguments that support May 26 or spring 1865. I can't support April 9 because while Lee's surrender undoubtedly set in motion the string of surrenders and events which ended the war about six weeks later, no one could have predicted it at the time. The Union authorities and military certainly took seriously the threat of the war continuting by the remaining Confederate armies. April 9 is only a viable end date with additional explanation. It has only become more often cited in recent decades because the surrender at Appomattox gets such prominence and it is cited by internet sites with little reason to rely upon as sources with complete accuracy or completely accurate scholarship or internal verification. Donner60 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900, CWenger, Historyday01, Rjensen, Moxy, Indy beetle, ModernDayTrilobite, CaptainEek, Jojhutton, SWinxy, TwoScars, Intothatdarkness, SteelerFan1933, BusterD, Maurice Magnus, GELongstreet, Hog Farm, Djmaschek, Mojoworker, CaroleHenson, Alanscottwalker, Kevin Murray, TheVirginiaHistorian, Peacemaker67, and Gog the Mild: I ask that before final opinions are given and the thread is closed, that all who have already commented and those who may comment consider my post just above and the new, and yes unfortunarely lengthy but necessarily thorough, thread that I have just posted with respect to belligerent rights in the American Civil War and criminalization of post-surrender hostilities. This thread mostly quotes the research and comments of historians and legal scholars and the recitation of various documents from the Civil War period itself. Also I would ask for consideration of my previous thread on historians views on the end of the war posted on this page if comments are made before I add to the items on that list. I will be adding additional items to that thread and probably will repost it below within the next few days. I have already researched and gathered these items, some of which date as far back as 1865 and will get them posted as soon as I can. With any luck, I won't be delayed as I have been in recent weeks. I will make an additional ping when I post the expanded thread. I will appreciate keeping the thread open long enough for consideration of this information and of further comments or changes to existing comments. I know this has become long and involved but I do think it is an important subject and perhaps can be fully considered now and put to rest after consideration of rather full research. I do think I have come up with some interesting research for everyone's information. I appreciate everyone's patience and consideration. Donner60 (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Late to this I know, but perhaps the complexity and divergence of views is such that the best approach is to put "See Surrender section" in the infobox and flesh out this above discussion (and the diverging views of the academic sources) at length in that section. I have found this an effective approach with other elements in the infobox that are disputed or unable to be encapsulated in a single line or sentence. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with Peacemaker. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I will defer to Peacemaker67 and Gog the Mild on this. whatever they decide, is fine with me. i propose that we delegate them to handle this specific item. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Concur with Peacemaker67. Intothatdarkness 15:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This conforms with the preference I expressed earlier, as the end date is disputed among historians. Mojoworker (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker as to the infobox. We still need to determine whether to change the first sentence of the article. I had said that I would have no problem with a similar ending there as well but I think the exact date of May 26 is preferable; see the Historians views thread on this page. If we need an exact date, I think it needs to be changed from May 9 (or 10) which has no support among many sources that I have researched; it is only mentioned by a small minority of them and only perhaps 2 or 3 can even an insinuation of the date as an end date can be gleaned. Morevoer, the belligerent rights thread below clearly shows that it is being misinterpreted as a general proposition. I have made the postings that I originally said here that I would make and I think there should now be no doubt as to preferable date. Original post was 4 July 2022 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that is the best option. There is a lot written by Donner60, and that is commendable effort. SWinxy (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read Moxy- 01:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I am having difficulty seeing the actionable outcome, here. I draw your attention to what is currently in the infobox, which already suggests the date is not so fixed:

"April 12, 1861 – May 9, 1865 (exact end date debatable)

(4 years and 27 days)[a][1]"

Also, of additional problem then is the first line of the article:

"The American Civil War (April 12, 1861 – May 9, 1865; . . ."

How is all this to be harmonized? Noting that to me, to get a quick take on the war (infobox style) I think that it was roughly 4+ years, is a really very helpful piece of the info, perhaps the most helpful piece.

I think, right now, my take is the present is 'good enough', but I'm open to it being better, but I would like to see what is being proposed precisely to each of the above 3 lines? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

But May 9 has no support among historians and a close reading, plus the analysis of historians and legal scholars that I posted in the thread on belligerent rights, shows that May 9 can not possibly be right. See my comment to Peacemaker67's suggestion as well; later modified based on the historians view thread. Donner60 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

But it's not wrong, if we are saying the end is Spring 1865 (every day between March 21 and June 21), because that date is in that period, and when the U.S. president declared, the war was “virtually at an end.”

But what I really would like to know is what is the proposal for all three lines, I lay out above?Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

SPRING 1861-SPRING 1865, is a suitable placeholder in the Inbox for the beginning to end dates of the American Civil War.

(a) It embraces the Great Rebellion’s beginning in the ‘unauthorized’ but Secessionist-coordinated state militias in southern state locations seizing US Government (Federal) forts, naval yards and lighthouses, armories, and treasury mints with gold and silver on deposit. Thes parcels of land were secured by Congress in a mutually agreed-to contract with majorities in BOTH each State Legislature and the US Congress prior to transfer of the property within state boundaries for Federal development and future use in the common defense or for the general welfare, as provided explicitly in the US Constitution.

(b) It includes the date the Confederacy as a de facto republic ended due to its dispersed national government without a stated reconvening time or place, and the end of an army-in-being to defend it at the seat of government, past, present or future, April 9, 1865. (Unlike the Continental Congress removing itself from oncoming advance by British forces.)

HOWEVER, I would like to argue that for the sake of WP:BALANCE, Editors here should craft a footnote at "Spring 1861-Spring 1865" referencing a brief rationale for 3-5 alternative ending dates as can be reliably sourced.

The oft used Inbox template has items such as exact date and duration computations that simply are NOT appropriate to this article, as these discussions amply show.

DISCUSSION: Any remaining un-surrendered units after April 9 were without any presumed civilian authority on their part of that of the members of the former Confederate constitutional officers. Unsurrendered Confederates were rather like the isolated marooned soldiers at radio stations on Pacific atolls following the Japanese WWII surrender and the dissolution of a Japanese Navy to recover them; the last of the WWII maroons surrendered in the mid 1960s. I would argue that the Empire of Japan Infobox should NOT date it from 1866 to 1967 or whenever the last atoll radio station surrender occurred.

Likewise, in December 1865 Stan Waite headed a treaty delegation of three (3) for surrender, very unlike Lee’s Surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia as a military event in the American Civil War. To make them alike is just another false moral equivalence from our partisan 'Lost Cause' brethren.

As Jefferson Davis put it in his memoirs and speaking tours to Confederate veterans for decades after the American Civil War, "the Confederacy just disappeared" as he fled away from Richmond and then removed himselfj as their onece Commander-in-Chief, far away from any remnants of un-surrendered rebels under arms --- just as far as he was physically able, in an effort to flee the North American continent to then slave-holding Cuba or Brazil before his foreseeable arrest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

My take is based upon Peacemaker67's response and the timeline. Since April 9 is the beginning of the end and by June 23 all slaves were freed and military engagement on U.S. soil was completed, I recommend:

• Infobox - April 9–June 23, 1865 See surrender section.
• First line of the article April 9–June 23, 1865 with a note that states that there was a sequence of events that led to the end of the war. On April 9, Lee surrendered at Appomattox and by June 23, Stand Watie was the last confederate general to surrender. By that date, all slaves had been freed. See surrender section.
• Years and days - calculate up to June 23, 1865.

I think that it is preferable to use actual dates than to say "Spring 1865" because it's nebulous.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson, Alanscottwalker, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Captain Eek: I agree that it is difficult to fit this situation into this infobox format. I had thought that Spring 1865 was a good (second) choice for an end date but that makes it difficult to calculate an exact length of time for the war, assuming that is really useful under the circumstances. I had thought when I first proposed a change of end date that since Stand Watie was a commissioned Confederate general, the surrender of his force was the last genuine surrender. However, there are admittedly some differences with his situation; and his force was not going to carry on the war when all other Confederate forces were out of the field and most if not all tribal leaders were against it. The more general reason not to use that date is that May 26 (or surrender of the armies, which amounts to the same thing) is the most often used end date by contemporaries and later historians - as I show in my revised thread on historians views now posted below. My belligerent rights threats shows definitively and detail why using the insurgent cruiser proclamation is incorrect (and the date is really May 10).

As a result, I now support using May 26 (debatable parenthetical) in the infobox, calculating the length of the war to that date, and using May 26 in the first line of the article. The appropriate explanation of the various theories on the end date should be in the text or in a footnote (or both, especially as to the infobox). Donner60 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added the revised and expanded thread on historians/contemporaries views of the end date of the American Civil War below the belligerent rights thread. Readers will see that May 26 is easily the date most often cited for the end of the war. I trust my reorganization of it in date order makes sense. I am well out of time tonight to do further commenting. It seems that I did not address User:Alanscottwalker's last question and I am not sure it has been answered. I will look at it again as soon as I can; perhaps I missed what he was looking for, especially if it was addressed to me. There are some other very thoughtful and good recent comments. I have no time tonight but I will see if I can add or respond to any of them. I am not sure whether to ping about the further thread listed below but perhaps I will later today as it is now as a courtesy to anyone who might otherwise want to see it but might not look back again. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900, CWenger, Historyday01, Rjensen, Moxy, Indy beetle, ModernDayTrilobite, CaptainEek, Jojhutton, SWinxy, TwoScars, Intothatdarkness, SteelerFan1933, BusterD, Maurice Magnus, GELongstreet, Hog Farm, Djmaschek, Mojoworker, CaroleHenson, Alanscottwalker, Kevin Murray, TheVirginiaHistorian, Peacemaker67, and Gog the Mild: As further information, I have posted the revised and expanded views of historians and contemporaries as to the end date of the Civil War. Sixteen entries cited May 26, 1865 or the equivalent "surrender of the armies" as the end date; most of the others cite "Spring 1865" "total of events" or simply recite several events including the surrenders; four or five entries are shown due to relevant information but show no specific end dates; three are shown as no end date when one might be expected, and there are others like those. This will be might last research thread on the topic, though I may add a few items to the timeline. I think I can make this the last ping on this since I am sure those that are interested will continue to look at the page until the discussion is concluded. Donner60 (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

While I do not support using the date of the "insurgent cruiser" proclamation as the end date of the war, please note that the date of the proclamation is May 10, 1865, as shown in the Official Records and the Andrew Johnson papers. It was published in the New York Times on May 10 and the few sources that include it date it May 10. Only the dateline of the New York Times article is Washington, May 9. I surmise that it may have been released to the press a day early so that it would be published on May 10, the date on which it was "done at Washington." Donner60 (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Busy at work so can only leave a quick comment, but would prefer something nonspecific or, if a date must be used, Kirby Smith's surrender as the last major field army to surrender. I don't see Watie's surrender or even less CSS Shenandoah giving in as widely supported by historians. Given that historians favor various dates and that there wasn't a single peace treaty for all of it, I'd recommend against trying to pin a specific date. Hog Farm _Talk 17:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hog Farm. However, as I noted in a reply that I have just added in answer to the previous query about an end date and calculation of the length of time to that end date, I now also favor May 26 if a specific date must be used to satisfy consensus. Donner60 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I can understand the use of May 26, 1865 as the end of the war. I also understand that it is not necessarily the final completion of the war. How about using May 26th as the end date, with a comment (or a note) that there were some post-surrender activities that extended into late June:

June 2: Department of the Trans-Mississippi ordered to stand down.

June 19: Juneteenth, the slaves of Texas are freed.

June 22: Shenandoah, unaware of Lee and Johnston's surrender, fires the last shots of the war.

June 23: Stand Watie is the last Confederate general/land force to surrender.?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That would suit me, as I have nearly simultaneously posted just above that it would be my preference for the best date based on historian and contemporary views if a more general date range is not suitable. Donner60 (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we should use May 26, 1865 in the InfoBox. I'll bet there are casualties in the casualty count that happened after April 9. The article needs a section called "End of the war". It would be a paragraph or two that summarizes Conclusion of the American Civil War, and would replace the Confederacy surrenders section. It would start with Lee's surrender on April 9 being the beginning of the end. Other significant dates would also be mentioned, such as Johnson and Taylor's surrenders, Davis dissolving the Confederate government, Johnson's proclamation, and the last major battle. Edmond Kirby Smith's surrender would be listed as the virtual end (or something like that) of the war, since this was the last major Confederate army to surrender. Watie and the CSS Shenandoah could also be mentioned, and the additional Johnson proclamations, but they are insignificant. Watie and the Shenandoah were small groups of people. We would have therefore "covered" any possible end date, given credit to the significance of Lee's surrender, and justified the choice of May 26 as the virtual end. Nobody could say we missed something or picked a wrong date. TwoScars (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

See, American Civil War#Confederacy Surrenders that section is already in the article. I'm fine with 'May 26 1865 (exact end date disputed)' in the infobox. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying replace the Confederacy Surrenders section with an "End of war" section, and cover all possible ends. No need for an "exact end date disputed" in the InfoBox, all possible ends will be covered in the "End of war" section. TwoScars (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems we are approaching a final answer on this. I have been offline for most of the last two weeks due to a family member's surgery and a few other real life chores. I will propose something definite along the lines of the later comments and the research after I give it a little more thought. There are good proposals here but they differ slightly, so I think someone needs to not only put up a definite final proposal, but ping the others who have been pinged or have participated earlier to be sure that no one wants to seriously disagree. Donner60 (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900, CWenger, Historyday01, Rjensen, Moxy, Indy beetle, ModernDayTrilobite, CaptainEek, Jojhutton, SWinxy, TwoScars, Intothatdarkness, SteelerFan1933, BusterD, Maurice Magnus, GELongstreet, Hog Farm, Djmaschek, Mojoworker, CaroleHenson, Alanscottwalker, Kevin Murray, TheVirginiaHistorian, Peacemaker67, and Gog the Mild: With apologies to any who have had their say, do not have a comment or position or are opting out. Since I hope this will bring the matter to a conclusion, I wanted to be sure I did not leave out anyone who might wish to come back to the topic.

I will take the bull by the horns to try to finish this matter since I started it. If I had to do it over, I would have anticipated differences of opinion and done the more extensive research necessary to come to a conclusion before commenting began. I have paid attention to other comments and tried to take them into account, but I think that the research, and opinions expressed mostly after I posted the research, point to the most satisfactory resolution. I state that in the next to last paragraph of this post.

I will list below the authors of the detailed research which support my conclusions with little additional comment here. The research with quotations is posted at length in the threads Talk:American Civil War#Belligerent Rights in the American Civil War; Criminalization of Post-Surrender Hostilities and Talk:American Civil War#Historians/ Contemporaries Views on the End Date of the American Civil War. The full range of the research and quotations is only in those threads. I will add fewer citations here because the statements can be verified below. I believe I will nonetheless will be adhering to Wikipedia guidelines such as "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. Wikipedia does not publish original research."

I think the best starting point for this summation is the 2015 article Finding the Ending of America's Civil War by William A. Blair (Professor at Penn State University) in The American Historical Review,. Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association Vol. 120, No. 5 (December 2015) [66] Professor Blair wrote: "More that four decades ago, historian Avery Craven made the bold statement "The American Civil War did not end at Appomattox", adding "Until the Negro's place in American life was fixed, the war was not over." But he remained a minority voice, as the sheer weight of scholarship has leaned toward portraying the surrenders of the Confederate armies as the end of the war. "Footnote 25: ...For the argument against war continuing beyond the surrenders, see, for instance, Gary W. Gallagher, The Confederate War: How Popular Will, Nationalism, and Military Strategy Could Not Stave Off Defeat (Cambridge, Mass. 1997), 206, "n.1....The literature as a whole remains tilted toward the war ending with the surrenders...."

The overwhelming majority of contemporaries and historians that I have found, and these include many prominent scholars and works, who expressed an end of the war date use the surrender of the armies in general and May 26, 1865 specifically for that date as the thread below that quotes their writings shows. This does not deny that other dates are sometimes expressed and should be noted in some way but explanation is needed. But the date of the insurgent cruiser order is singularly inappropriate for use as a key date. The use of the surrender of Lee's army at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865 is expressed by some but this is almost in the context of directly or occasionally indirectly, noting that it inevitably setting in motion the chain of events that led to other surrenders and the collapse of the Confederacy. By indirectly, I mean that the authors went on to recite those later events.

In addition to Professor William A. Blair, using May 26, 1865 (effective surrender date of E. Kirby Smith's Trans-Mississippi Department, the last large Confederate Army) or surrender of the armies generally as the end date, include: George Templeton Strong, Elliott G. Storke and L. P. Brockett, Horace Greeley, Jefferson Davis, Major General John A. Logan, Charles Carleton Coffin, Charles A. Dana (somewhat indirectly by noting that the last Confederate Army, Smith's, was still unsurrendered when Dana went to talk to General Miles about Jefferson Davis at Fort Monroe), Wood W. Birkbeck and Major J. E. Edmonds, Frederick H. Dyer, Ernest Nys, Nathaniel W. Stephenson, Arthur Ponsonby, Wyndam L. Walker, James I. Robertson Jr. for American Civil War Centennial Commission, Bruce Catton, Robert B. Murray citing US Attorneys argued in 1869 that war ended May 26, 1865, a jointly authored book by Gary W. Gallagher|, Stephen D. Engle, Robert K. Krick & Joseph T. Glatthaar, Steven R. Taafe.

Those expressing the end as the total of events including the surrenders or by listing the events including the surrenders include: U.S. Army and Navy Journal, Volume 3, New York, August 26, 1865, Evert Augustus Duyckinck, James M. McPherson, Stephen C. Neff (also cites, however, " with the formal surrender of the various Southern armed forces to their union foes"), Professor E. B. Long states at the end of May 1865 section of The Civil War Day by Day that the war was over. Spring 1865 is cited by Gary W. Gallagher in one book and May 26, 1865 in a jointly authored book. James L. McDonough also uses Spring 1865 as an end date.

Only three authors that I reviewed even mention the insurgent cruiser order but each goes on to list other events. Eight books about the war at sea that I list do not mention it. I note a few others that do not mention it but there were others that I thought would be superfluous to add to a long list since most, if not all, mentioned no specific date.

The lack of use, and the widespread omission, of the date of the "insurgent cruiser" proclamation (which is how it is referred to in the Andrew Johnson papers) as the end date of the war is shown by an explanation of what "belligerent rights" meant at the time of the American Civil War, when the term first came into use (Walker, 177), as most fully explained by Professor Stephen C. Neff, Professor Quincy Wright, Professor Wyndham Legh Walker and earlier by Richard Dana. I will recite here some, but not all, of the quotations and analysis in the Belligerent Rights thread, at greater length than I would really prefer, as important to show the limited meaning and extent of these "rights" at the time of the American Civil War.

In his 1967 paper, [67] International Law and the American Civil War Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969) Vol. 61 (April 27-29, 1967), Professor Quincy Wright explained belligerency at the time of the American Civil War at page 53: "'Belligerency'" was held, on the one hand, to imply that foreign states must assume the obligations of neutrality involving impartiality as between the recognized government and the rebels, abstention from official aid to either, and prevention of private military expeditions from their territory to aid either side. On the other hand, belligerency implies that both the recognized government and the rebels enjoy the belligerent right to visit and search merchant vessel of all states on the high seas, to capture them if there is probable cause from evidence found on the vessel to suspect that they are of enemy character, or are carrying contraband, breaking blockade, or engaging in unneutral service, and to submit them to its prize court for condemnation if such suspicions are supported, according to the canons of international law." [Comment: Thus, as between nations and belligerents, belligerency involved naval or maritime matters. International law did not concern the rights of belligerents, or combatants, between themselves or give the neutral nation any right to determine those rights and when they might begin or end.]

In 1866, Richard Henry Dana wrote "But this case raises a general question of the utmost importance, to wit, what is the intrinsic nature of neutrality laws, and what is the effect of their passage? Plainly they are enacted, not to impose new obligations upon a nation, - for this no nation would voluntarily do, - but to codify and to put into fit shape for practical use those previously existing obligations, which already bound the nation simply as a member of the universal society of nations, and by virtue of unquestioned and unquestionable principles of international law. Neutrality laws are solely for the use and aid of the people by whom they are passed. They are simply a very useful species of machinery, created and employed to assist the government in performing its duties to foreign governments."

Wyndham L. Walker stated at page 206: "What recognition does is not to operate as a grant of rights of war, but create at most a species of estoppel. The neutral State estops itself from denying that a true war exists.....The actual form of a proclamation of neutrality seems more in favour of the view that the third State is merely acknowledging the existence of a fact than that it is purporting to grant a privilege to anyone...."I have laboured the point that recognition of belligerency is the acknowledgement of an existing fact, not the conferring of a status, still less a privilege (even those who adopt the status view point out that it is given for the benefit of the recognising State's own subjects, not for that of the insurgents).

Walker then comments concerning the British proclamation of neutrality: "Now what does that document actually do? In what sense does it create rights, or grant belligerent rights to anyone? It sets forth certain notorious facts, and announces a policy of [page 205] strict neutrality in the war that has already broken out. It does not in its form make any grant of privilege to anyone."...."We may be told that, by implication, by the creation of a status of neutrality, it in a sense creates belligerent rights. But a duty arising from the principle of non-interference in a domestic struggle prescribes an attitude of strict impartiality, the substitution of a similar duty derived from neutrality would appear a change of form rather than substance." Walker also observed that the existence of war or no war cannot depend on the wishes or interests of third States.

In Volume 2 of his book on the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, quoted at greater length in the thread, Jefferson Davis stated at page 257: “It is a remarkable fact that the Government of the United States, in no one instance, from the opening to the close of the war, formally spoke of the Confederate Government or States as belligerents."

The code of conduct or combatant rights for the American Civil War was adopted in General Orders No. 100: Laws of War for the American Civil War developed by Professor Francis Lieber ("Lieber's Code") and committee in 1863; Relevant excerpt: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 3, Volume 3, page 148 [68]. As noted above, the belligerent rights with respect to Confederate cruisers and interactions with other nations had nothing to do with the combatant "rights" accorded to the Confederates by the Union under the 1863 General Orders.

Note that the insurgent cruiser proclamation does not refer to or use the term "belligerent rights" (it's only in the NY Times article headline), does not state that the war was over ("may be regarded" as "virtually" at an end is not the same thing), was aimed at nations which harbored Confederate cruisers, especially England, and was ignored or had a limited positive response from England for several months as shown in the thread, did not "criminalize" further actions by Confederate forces from that date, was little noticed within a day or two after its release and was not really different from President Lincoln's April 11, 1865 proclamation, which was equally ignored. Professor Neff noted that this proclamation was also issued to show that neutrality of foreign nations was to come to an end or the United States would restrict their access to its ports.

The orders of General Halleck (May 5, 1865), approved by Secretary of War Stanton and General Grant and preceding the insurgent cruiser proclamation, General Grant (May 11, 1865) and General Bussey (June 2, 1865), quoted in their entirety in the Belligerent Rights thread, which "criminalize"certain continued hostilities after the surrender of the armies do not mention and are not based on the insurgent cruiser proclamation, but on the surrender of the Confederate armies, and gave effective dates for the criminal sanctions weeks after the date of the cruiser proclamation and sufficient to give notice of their issuance.

Along the way, I have expressed the opinion that certain general phrase compromises may be satisfactory. I am sure of one thing: the use of May 9, 1865 (or May 10, the actual date of the proclamation) is not supported by historians or research or a proper interpretation of belligerent rights and the insurgent cruiser order as the end of the war date. It is, to put it directly, not debatable, but an error to use either date as the end of the war date even if a few other dates have some basis for at least mention.

Based on the research, I now think that the date at the end of the first sentence of the article and in the infobox should be May 26, 1865, that it should be supported by citation of a brief explanation and at least six sources and that a short note should be made which states not that the end date is debatable but to see the "end of the war" section to see the various dates pertaining to the end of the war. That section of course also refers to the more detailed Conclusion of the American Civil War article which is also appropriately explanatory. After posting this comment, I will make the changes within a day or two to allow any last minute comment, although I wish to be clear that I am not trying to limit comment or later participation.

I ask that anyone who has some further research that would contradict this analysis or lead to a different conclusion under Wikipedia verifiability and sourcing guidelines and/or the weight of authority, to please post it here or in a new thread if necessary and to ping me and other interested editors. I would prefer this post to end the matter because I think the research shows the resolution is now obvious. Of course, I can't foreclose some last minute persuasive argument for modification although I think I have a sound basis for my conclusions. I believe the insurgent cruiser proclamation's date, much less the New York Times dateline date and headline, is not the proper basis for a statement of fact about the end date of the American Civil War so I do wish to rule that out. I will reply to any comments which appear to call for a reply and if necessary, weigh in further to do what I can to have removed what I am convinced would be a continuing and easily refutable error of an important stated fact in an important article, which unfortunately, has spread to other web sites. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with May 26, and I agree that all of the important dates should be discussed in some type of "End of war" section. Also the Conclusion of the American Civil War article should be modified to agree to this date. TwoScars (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the extent of this discussion, I would be in favor of April–June 1865. May 26 or June 2 would be fine also, but I see no reason why we need to nail it down to a specific day. I am very opposed to April 9 as that is far too early. I also advise against Spring 1865 as it adds another layer of ambiguity (and potentially confusing for anybody in the Southern Hemisphere). –CWenger (^ • @) 15:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I will need at least a few careful and extended footnotes to accompany the changed text. I have started on this, as well as diverting myself to finding a few last minute additions to the talk page threads here. I have been delayed not only by a little more work on the threads for completeness and the start of writing appropriate supporting footnotes but also by unexpected real life matters requiring immediate attention. Unless I have other unexpected delays and finishing the drafting takes more time than I expect, I should have the changes and notes up before the end of the weekend. I note no further advance comments above after a few days since my last post. I will work in the comments as best I can in the footnotes. Although I have already posted more than sufficient sources and explanations to support the change and reject the currently stated date, I searched around just a little more. Ironically, I found that the misinterpreted New York Times headline including the words "belligerent rights" with respect to the meaning of the insurgent cruiser proclamation, which does not include those words or the extending meaning given to them, is not the end of the story concerning the New York Times headlines and text about the end of the war. There is this from May 29, 1865 edition of The New York Times: :"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. [69] The New York Times; May 29, 1865. Page 1. "WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, May 27, 1865...." I wish I had been able to add this earlier. I have added to the research threads below for future reference. Donner60 (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I finished the changes and additions, with many citations, on July 31-August 1. Since they have been holding and there are no further comments, I think the task is done. Thanks to subsequent editors for some cleanup, especially to @CaptainEek, Maurice Magnus, and Alanscottwalker:. Unfortunately, I have had a severe leg muscle injury and am not likely to be online much for a few weeks at least as I recover and get therapy (in addition to "real life") in case I am slow to reply to anyone here or on another page. Donner60 (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I hope you feel better. Thank you for your serious and detailed research. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Belligerent Rights in the American Civil War; Criminalization of Post-Surrender Hostilities

In his 1967 paper, [70] International Law and the American Civil War Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969) Vol. 61 (April 27-29, 1967), Quincy Wright explained belligerency at the time of the American Civil War at page 53: "'Belligerency'" was held, on the one hand, to imply that foreign states must assume the obligations of neutrality involving impartiality as between the recognized government and the rebels, abstention from official aid to either, and prevention of private military expeditions from their territory to aid either side. On the other hand, belligerency implies that both the recognized government and the rebels enjoy the belligerent right to visit and search merchant vessel of all states on the high seas, to capture them if there is probable cause from evidence found on the vessel to suspect that they are of enemy character, or are carrying contraband, breaking blockade, or engaging in unneutral service, and to submit them to its prize court for condemnation if such suspicions are supported, according to the canons of international law." [Comment: Thus, as between nations and belligerents, belligerency involved naval or maritime matters. International law did not concern the rights of belligerents, or combatants, between themselves or give the neutral nation any right to determine those rights and when they might begin or end.]

"Belligerent rights" under such international law or practice as existed at the time of the American Civil War did not exist with respect to civil wars. In [71] Recognition of Belligerency and Grant of Belligerent Rights, Vol. 23, Transactions of the Grotius Society, Problems of Peace and War, Papers Read before the Society in the Year 1937 (1937), pp. 177-210 Wyndham Legh Walker wrote at page 177 "….It appears to me to be a subject which only obtained a place for itself in the text-books on international law as a result of the controversy between the United States of America and this country as to the recognition of the Confederate States in 1861. I have consulted a number of British and foreign [page 178] works written prior to 1865 and I find therein no mention of the "recognition of belligerency. Indeed the British literature up to a very recent date almost begins and ends with the American Civil War...." At page 190, he notes: "For the earlier writers, however, recognition of belligerency did not exist. With the American Civil War comes a change and topic and the topic obtains a place in all the chief text-books on international law."

As early as 1866 in a review entitled The Present Aspect of International Law of the then new publication Elements of International Law. By Henry Wheaton, LL.D. Eighth Edition. Edited, with Notes, by Richard Henry Dana, Jr., LL.D. Boston, Little, Brown & Co. 1866, The North American Review. c.1 v.103 1 August 1866. Mount Vernon, Iowa, stated at page 492: "But this case raises a general question of the utmost importance, to wit, what is the intrinsic nature of neutrality laws, and what is the effect of their passage? Plainly they are enacted, not to impose new obligations upon a nation, - for this no nation would voluntarily do, - but to codify and to put into fit shape for practical use those previously existing obligations, which already bound the nation simply as a member of the universal society of nations, and by virtue of unquestioned and unquestionable principles of international law. Neutrality laws are solely for the use and aid of the people by whom they are passed. They are simply a very useful species of machinery, created and employed to assist the government in performing its duties to foreign governments."

Walker stated at page 206: "What recognition does is not to operate as a grant of rights of war, but create at most a species of estoppel. The neutral State estops itself from denying that a true war exists.....The actual form of a proclamation of neutrality seems more in favour of the view that the third State is merely acknowledging the existence of a fact than that it is purporting to grant a privilege to anyone...."I have laboured the point that recognition of belligerency is the acknowledgement of an existing fact, not the conferring of a status, still less a privilege (even those who adopt the status view point out that it is given for the benefit of the recognising State's own subjects, not for that of the insurgents).

Earlier in his paper, at page 204, Walker had examined the nature of England's neutrality proclamation with respect to the American Civil War. "Let us examine the form of the Proclamation made in 1861: "'Victoria R. Whereas we are happily at peace with all sovereigns, Powers, and States. And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the Government of the U.S. of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America. And whereas We, being at peace with the Government of the United States, have declared our royal determination to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest between the contending parties. We therefore have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue this our Royal proclamation. "'And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating and contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf, or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril." The remainder of the document sets out the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act and enjoins obedience thereto.

Walker then comments: "Now what does that document actually do? In what sense does it create rights, or grant belligerent rights to anyone? It sets forth certain notorious facts, and announces a policy of [page 205] strict neutrality in the war that has already broken out. It does not in its form make any grant of privilege to anyone."...."We may be told that, by implication, by the creation of a status of neutrality, it in a sense creates belligerent rights. But a duty arising from the principle of non-interference in a domestic struggle prescribes an attitude of strict impartiality, the substitution of a similar duty derived from neutrality would appear a change of form rather than substance."

Quincy Wright wrote at page 51: "Civil strife is in principle within the domestic jurisdiction of the state in which it occurs and foreign states are forbidden to intervene. Both factions are free to use whatever means they deem appropriate and effective to achieve their purposes, including the use of armed force, provided they keep within the rules of war, and confine their activities within the territory of the state or against vessels of the opposing faction on the high seas and do not interfere with the rights of other states or their nationals on the high seas or in foreign territories."

Walker also observed that the existence of war or no war cannot depend on the wishes or interests of third States. At page 200, Walker stated "To make the existence of war or no war depend on the wishes or interests of third States is to create a rule neither satisfying to the requirements of consistent legal principle, nor in general, I venture to think, to the need of the statesman dealing with practical problems as they arise – it is a doctrine likely to create more complications than it will assuage." As he noted at page 199: "No one in 1861, I think, maintained that President Lincoln's Proclamation of Blockade legally required the recognition of third States before the U.S. might legally seek to make the blockade effective against the ships of third States."

Quincy Wright explained the United States reaction to Britain's recognition of the belligerent rights position as adopted by European States at page 53 as: "The United States reluctantly accepted the recognition of belligerency by Great Britain, France and other states and acknowledged the right of the Confederates to make captures at sea, as permitted by the law of war, and the right of neutrals to insist that both belligerents keep their maritime activities within that law. It insisted, however, that the neutrals observe international law in regard to the sojourn of Confederate vessels in their ports and prevention of the departure of military expeditions from their territory."

Also at page 53, Wright stated the limitations the United States expected on aid to or intervention on behalf of the Confederacy: "While accepting belligerency, the United States made it clear that intervention, eagerly sought by the Confederates, would violate international law and would be resented. Great Britain seriously considered recognition of the independence of the Confederacy and intervention in its behalf, on grounds of national interest, humanity and self-determination, especially in September, 1862 when it was convinced that the South would win; but was deterred by Lincolns preliminary Emancipation Proclamation issued after the Union victory at Antietam. British sentiment would not permit support for slavery."

In Volume 2 of his book on the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, quoted below, Jefferson Davis stated at page 257: “It is a remarkable fact that the Government of the United States, in no one instance, from the opening to the close of the war, formally spoke of the Confederate Government or States as belligerents."

Documents related to "belligerency" or "belligerent rights" in the American Civil War in chronological order

• Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation 81—Declaring a Blockade of Ports in Rebellious States, April 19, 1861, Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project [72]

Declares a blockade of ports in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas due to the breaking out of an insurrection and inability to collect revenues that conform to the constitutional duty that requires collection of uniform revenues throughout the United States. It provided that any person who shall molest a vessel of the United States or the persons or cargo on board of her will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy. Done at the city of Washington, this 19th day of April, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

• The blockade was extended to North Carolina and Virginia on April 27, 1861 in Abraham Lincoln's Proclamation 82—Extension of Blockade to Ports of Additional States Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project [73]

• England's Declaration of Neutrality, May 13, 1861

"'Victoria R. Whereas we are happily at peace with all sovereigns, Powers, and States. And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the Government of the U.S. of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America. And whereas We, being at peace with the Government of the United States, have declared our royal determination to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest between the contending parties. We therefore have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue this our Royal proclamation.

"'And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observed a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating and contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf, or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril.'"

"The remainder of the document sets out the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act and enjoins obedience thereto."

Walker, Wyndam Legh [74] Recognition of Belligerency and Grant of Belligerent Rights, Vol. 23, Transactions of the Grotius Society, :Problems of Peace and War, Papers Read before the Society in the Year 1937 (1937), p. 206.

• General Orders No. 100: Laws of War for the American Civil War developed by Professor Francis Lieber ("Lieber's Code") and committee in 1863; Relevant excerpt:

The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 3, Volume 3, page 148 [75]

"General Orders No. 100 } War Dept., Adjt. General's Office, Washington, April 24, 1863

"The following 'Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field' prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., and revised by a board of officers, of which Maj. Gen. E. A. Hitchcock is president, having been approved by the President of the United States, he commands that they be published for the information of all concerned.

"By order of the Secretary of War:

"E.D. Townsend, Assistant Adjutant-General"

Page 163 [76]:

"151. The term rebellion is applied to an insurrection of large extent, and is usually a war between the legitimate government of a country and portions of provinces of the same who seek to throw off their allegiance to it and set up a government of their own.

"152. When humanity induces the adoption of the rules of regular war toward rebels, whether the adoption is partial or entire, it does in no way whatever imply a partial or complete acknowledgement (sic) of the government, if they have set up one, or of them, as an independent or sovereign power. Neutrals have no right to make the adoption of the rules of war by the assailed government toward rebels the ground of their own acknowledgement (sic) of the revolted people as an independent power.

"153. Treating captured rebels as prisoners of war, exchanging them, concluding of cartels, capitulations or other warlike agreements with them; addressing officers of a rebel army by the rank they may have in the same; accepting flags of truce; or, on the other hand, proclaiming martial law in their territory, or levying war taxes or forced loans, or doing any other act sanctioned or demanded by the law and usages of public war between sovereign belligerents, neither proves nor establishes an acknowledgement (sic) of the rebellious people, or of the government which they may have erected, as a public or sovereign power. Nor does the adoption of the rules of war toward rebels imply an engagement with them extending beyond the limits of these rules. It is victory in the field that ends the strife and settles the future relations between the contending parties.

"154. Treating in the field the rebellious enemy according to the law and usages of war has never prevented the legitimate government from trying the leaders of the rebellion or chief rebels for high treason, and from treating them accordingly, unless they are included in a general amnesty."

• April 9, 1865: The terms for the surrender of the Confederate Army of North Virginia at Appomattox Courthouse included the following "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, Jay. April 1865: The Month That Saved America. New York: HarperCollins, 2006. ISBN 978-0-06-089968-4. First published 2001. p. 187.

• Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation 128—Claiming Equality of Rights with All Maritime Nations Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project [77]

"April 11, 1865

"By the President of the United States of America

"A Proclamation

"Whereas for some time past vessels of war of the United States have been refused in certain foreign ports privileges and immunities to which they were entitled by treaty, public law, or the comity of nations, at the same time that vessels of war of the country wherein the said privileges and immunities have been withheld have enjoyed them fully and uninterruptedly in ports of the United States, which condition of things has not always been forcibly resisted by the United States, although, on the other hand, they have not at any time failed to protest against and declare their dissatisfaction with the same. In the view of the United States, no condition any longer exists which can be claimed to justify the denial to them by any one of such nations of customary naval rights as has heretofore been so unnecessarily persisted in.

"Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby make known that if after a reasonable time shall have elapsed for intelligence of this proclamation to have reached any foreign country in whose ports the said privileges and immunities shall have been refused as aforesaid they shall continue to be so refused, then and thenceforth the same privileges and immunities shall be refused to the vessels of war of that country in the ports of the United States; and this refusal shall continue until war vessels of the United States shall have been placed upon an entire equality in the foreign ports aforesaid with similar vessels of other countries. The United States, whatever claim or pretense may have existed heretofore, are now, at least, entitled to claim and concede an entire and friendly equality of rights and hospitalities with all maritime nations.

"In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.:

"Done at the city of Washington, this 11th day of April, A. D. 1865, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

"By the President:

"WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

"Secretary, of State.

• Comment on April 11 order by Professor Neff after New York Times article item.

• The New York Times, April 12, 1865 reported this proclamation as follows: [78]

"OUR SHIPS OF WAR IN FOREIGN PORTS; A PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT. A Demand that the Restrictions on Our War Vessels in Foreign Ports be Removed. Equality of Rights and Hospitalities to be Claimed and Conceded.

"WASHINGTON, Tuesday, April 11.

"Another important proclamation is issued today, claiming that our vessels-of-war in foreign ports shall no longer be subjected to restrictions, as at present, but shall have the same rights and hospitalities which are extended to foreign men-of-war in the ports of the United States, and declaring that hereafter the cruisers of every nation shall receive the treatment which in their ports they accord to ours, as follows: [omitted because just shown above].

• In 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, Professor Neff explained the proclamation at 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" Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation 126—Closing Certain Ports Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project [79]] 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."

• Additional comments from Professor Neff

Page 204: Section Heading "Ending a War": "In certain respects, the end of the Confederate war effort came about in an orderly fashion, with the formal surrender of the various Southern armed forces to their union foes....concluding with the submission of a force of Cherokee Indians allied to the Confederacy on June 25." (probable typo; 23rd is the often cited date)

• Not related to belligerent rights but included in the New York Times article of May 9, 1865 so included here to avoid confusion of the two.

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 [80]

"Ordered, first. That all acts and proceedings of the political, military, and civil organizations which have been in a state of insurrection and rebellion within the State of Virginia against the authority and laws of the United States, and of which Jefferson Davis, John Letcher, and William Smith were late the respective chiefs, are declared null and void. All persons who shall exercise, claim, pretend, or attempt to exercise any political, military, or civil power, authority, jurisdiction, or right by, through, or under Jefferson Davis, late of the city of Richmond, and his confederates, or under John Letcher or William Smith and their confederates, or under any pretended political, military, or civil commission or authority issued by them or either of them since the 17th day of April, 1861, shall be deemed and taken as in rebellion against the United States, and shall be dealt with accordingly.

[Other provisions omitted as not even arguably related to belligerent rights but these are mentioned in summary in the New York Times article of May 9, 1865 shown below.]

"In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

"ANDREW JOHNSON.

"By the President:

"W. HUNTER,

"Acting Secretary of State."

• Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 132—Ordering the Arrest of Insurgent Cruisers Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project [81]

"By the President of the United States of America

"A Proclamation

"Whereas the President of the United States, by his proclamation of the 19th day of April, 1861, did declare certain States therein mentioned in insurrection against the Government of the United States; and

"Whereas armed resistance to the authority of this Government in the said insurrectionary States may be regarded as virtually at an end, and the persons by whom that resistance, as well as the operations of insurgent cruisers, was directed are fugitives or captives; and

"Whereas it is understood that some of those cruisers are still infesting the high seas and others are preparing to capture, burn, and destroy vessels of the United States:

"Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, hereby enjoin all naval, military, and civil officers of the United States diligently to endeavor, by all lawful means, to arrest the said 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.

"And I do further proclaim and declare that if, after a reasonable time shall have elapsed for this proclamation to become known in the ports of nations claiming to have been neutrals, the said insurgent cruisers and the persons on board of them shall continue to receive hospitality in the said ports, this Government will deem itself justified in refusing hospitality to the public vessels of such nations in ports of the United States and in adopting such other measures as may be deemed advisable toward vindicating the national sovereignty.

"In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

"Done at the city of Washington, this 10th day of May, A. D. 1865, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

"ANDREW JOHNSON.

"By the President:

"W. HUNTER,

"Acting Secretary of State."

• Also found at The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union And Confederate Armies. Series 3, Volume 5. Page: 18 [82]

• [Belligerent rights not mentioned in proclamation. No mention of application to any parties except leaders of the rebellion and crews of commerce raiders. This and New York Times article listed here only because supported as an end date for the war in previous thread.]

• Here is the New York Times article report of the May 9 order with respect to re-establishing a state government in Virginia and the proclamation dated May 10 concerning Confederate insurgent cruisers, apparently available at least a day earlier.

"IMPORTANT PROCLAMATIONS.; The Belligerent Rights of the Rebels at an End. All Nations Warned Against Harboring Their Privateers. If They Do Their Ships Will be Excluded from Our Ports. Restoration of Law in the State of Virginia. The Machinery of Government to be Put in Motion There."

"WASHINGTON, Tuesday, May 9."

"President JOHNSON has issued a proclamation, declaring that, whereas armed resistance to the authority of the government in certain States heretofore declared to be in insurrection, may be regarded as virtually at an end, and the persons by whom that resistance as well as the operations of the insurgent cruisers were directed, are fugitives of captives; and, whereas, it is understood that certain cruisers are are still infesting the high seas, and others are preparing to capture, burn and destroy vessels of the United States, he enjoins all naval, military and civil officers of the United States diligently to endeavor by all lawful means to arrest the said 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 immunity for their crimes; and he further proclaims and declares that if, after a reasonable time shall have elapsed for this proclamation to become known in the ports of nations claiming to have been neutral, the said insurgent cruisers and the persons on board of them shall continue to receive hospitality in the said ports, this government will deem itself justified in refusing hospitality to the public vessels of such nations in ports of the United States, and in adopting such other measures as may be deemed advisable toward vindicating the national sovereignty.

"The President has also issued an executive order to reestablish the authority of the United States and execute the laws within the geographical limits known as the State of Virginia. It is ordered that all acts and proceedings of the political, military and civil organizations which have been in a state of insurrection and rebellion within the State of Virginia against the authority and laws of the United States, and of which JEFFERSON DAVIS, JOHN LETCHER and WILLIAM SMITH were late the respective chiefs, are declared null and void.

"All persons who shall exercise, claim, pretend or attempt to exercise any political, military or civil power, authority, jurisdiction or right, by, through or under JEFFERSON DAVIS, late of the City of Richmond, and his confidants, or under JOHN LETCHER or WILLIAM SMITH, and their confidants, or under any pretended political, military or civil commission or authority issued by them or of them, since the 17th day of April, 1861, shall be deemed and taken as in rebellion against the United States, and shall be dealt with accordingly.

"The Secretaries of State, War, Treasury, Navy and Interior, and the Postmaster-General, are ordered to proceed to put in force all laws of the United States pertaining to their several departments, and the District Judge of said district to proceed to hold courts within said States in accordance with the provisions of the acts of Congress. The Attorney-General will instruct the proper officers to libel and bring to judgment, confiscation and sale, property subject to confiscation and enforce the administration of justice within said State, in all matters civil and criminal within the cognizance of the Federal courts; to carry into effect the guarantee of the Federal Constitution of a republican form of State Government, and afford the advantage and security of domestic laws, as well as to complete the reestablishment of the authority of the laws of the United States, and the full and complete restoration of peace within the limits aforesaid. FRANCIS H. PIERPONT, Governor of the State of Virginia, will be aided by the Federal Government so far as may be necessary in the lawful measures which he may take for the extension and administration of the State Government throughout the geographical limits of said State."

• Here is the New York Times headline and text of disptach from Secretary of War Edwin Stanton to Major General directly declaring the end of the rebellion and the beginning of era of peace (not just the limited end of belligerent rights aimed at insurgent cruisers and nations which harbor them) on conclusion of the arrangements for the surrender and of the trans-Mississippi department on May 26, 1865.

"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. [83] The New York Times; May 29, 1865. Page 1.

"WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, May 27, 1865.

"Maj.-Gen. Dix:

"A dispatch from Gen. CANBY, dated at New-Orleans, yesterday, the 26th inst., states that arrangements for the surrender of the Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi Department have been concluded. They include the men and material of the army and navy. EDWIN M. STANTON,

"Secretary of War."

• Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 133—Raising the Blockade of Certain Ports Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project [84]

"May 22, 1865

"By the President of the United States of America

"A Proclamation

"Whereas by the proclamation of the President of the 11th day of April last certain ports of the United States therein specified, which had previously been subject to blockade, were, for objects of public safety, declared, in conformity with previous special legislation of Congress, to be closed against foreign commerce during the national will, to be thereafter expressed and made known by the President; and

"Whereas events and circumstances have since occurred which, in my judgment, render it expedient to remove that restriction, except as to the ports of Galveston, La Salle, Brazos de Santiago (Point Isabel), and Brownsville, in the State of Texas:

"Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby declare that the ports aforesaid, not excepted as above, shall be open to foreign commerce from and after the 1st day of July next; that commercial intercourse with the said ports may from that time be carried on, subject to the laws of the United States and in pursuance of such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. If, however, any vessel from a foreign port shall enter any of the before-named excepted ports in the State of Texas, she will continue to be held liable to the penalties prescribed by the act of Congress approved on the 13th day of July, 1861, and the persons on board of her to such penalties as may be incurred, pursuant to the laws of war, for trading or attempting to trade with an enemy.

"And I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby declare and make known that the United States of America do henceforth disallow to all persons trading or attempting to trade in any ports of the United States in violation of the laws thereof all pretense of belligerent rights and privileges; and I give notice that from the date of this proclamation all such offenders will be held and dealt with as pirates.

"It is also ordered that all restrictions upon trade heretofore imposed in the territory of the United States east of the Mississippi River, save those relating to contraband of war, to the reservation of the rights of the United States to property purchased in the territory of an enemy, and to the 25 per cent upon purchases of cotton be removed. All provisions of the internal-revenue law will be carried into effect under the proper officers.

"In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

"Done at the city of Washington, this 22d day of May, A. D. 1865, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

"ANDREW JOHNSON.

"By the President:

"W. HUNTER,

"Acting Secretary of State."

• Army and Navy Journal, June 24, 1865 Page 695 Volume II Number 44 [85]

"WITHDRAWAL OF BELLIGERENT RIGHTS

"BY GREAT BRITAIN

"Foreign Office, June 6, 1865.

"Copy of a letter from Earl Russell to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty: -

"Foreign Office, June 2, 1865

"My Lords - I have the honor to state to your Lordships that since the date of my letter of the 11th ult, intelligence has reached this country that the late President of the so-called Confederate States has been captured by the military forces of the United States, and has been transported as a prisoner to Fort Monroe, and that the Armies hitherto kept in the field by the Confederate States have for the most part surrendered or dispersed.

"In this posture of affairs her Majesty's government are of opinion that neutral nations cannot but consider the war in North America as at an end.

In conformity with this opinion, her Majesty's government recognize that peace has been restored within the whole territory of which the United States of North America before the commencement of the civil war were in undisturbed possession.

"As a necessary consequence of such recognition on the part of her Majesty's government her Majesty's several authorities in all ports, harbors and water belonging to her Majesty, whether in the United Kingdom or beyond the seas, must henceforth refuse permission to any vessel of war carrying a Confederate flag to enter any such ports, harbors, and waters; and must require any Confederate vessels of war which at the time when these orders reach her Majesty's authorities in such ports, harbors and waters may have already entered therein on the faith of proclamations heretofore issued by her Majesty, and which, having complied with the provisions of such proclamations, may be actually within such ports, harbors and waters, forthwith to depart from them.

"But her Majesty's government consider that a due regard for national good faith and honor requires that her Majesty's authorities should be instructed, as regards any such Confederate vessels so departing, that they should have benefit of the prohibition heretofore enforced against pursuit of them within twenty-four hours by a cruiser of the United States lying at the time within any such ports, harbors and waters, and that such prohibition should be then and for the last time maintained in their favor.

"If, however, the commander of any Confederate vessel of war which may be found in any port, harbor or waters of her Majesty's dominions at the time these new orders are received by her Majesty's authorities, or may enter such port, harbor, or waters within a month after these new orders are received, should wish to divest his vessel of her warlike character, and after disarming her, to remain without a Confederate flag within British waters, her Majesty's authorities may allow the commander of such vessel to do so at his own risk in all respects, in which case he should be distinctly apprised that he is to expect no further protection from her Majesty's government, except such as he may be entitled to in the ordinary course of the administration of the law in time of peace.

"The rule as to twenty-four hours would, of course, not be applicable to the case of such vessel.

"I have addressed a similar letter to the Secretaries of State for the Home, Colonial, India and War Offices, and also to the Lord Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, requesting them, as I do your Lordships, to issue instructions in conformity with the decision of her Majesty's government to the several British authorities at home or abroad, who may be called upon to act in the matter. I am, etc., RUSSELL"

• June 13, 1865. President Johnson declares trade open in all territory east of the Mississippi River except for contraband of war. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123. 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. [86]

• Army and Navy Journal, July 22, 1865 Page 763 Volume II Number 48 [87]

"ENGLAND AND THE TERMINATION OF THE REBELLION

"EARL RUSSELL laid before the Parliament on the 4th instant, the following dispatch from Mr Seward to Sir F. Bruce, the British Minister at Washington, in reply to the official notification that the Government of Great Britain had recognized the Rebellion in the United States as at an end:

"Department of State

"Washington, June 19, 1865

"Sir - Due consideration has been given to a dispatch which Earl RUSSELL addressed to you on the 2d of June instant, and of which on the 14th instant, you were so kind as to leave a copy at this Department. The President is gratified by the information which that paper contains, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government have determined to consider the war which has lately prevailed between the United States and the insurgents of this country to have ceased de facto, and that Her Majesty's Government now recognizes the re-establishment of peace with the whole territory of which the United States were in undisturbed possession at the beginning of the civil war.

....[Gratified to learn that British authorities will require insurgent vessels to forthwith department from British ports, harbors and waters.]

"It is with regret, however, that I have to inform you that Earl RUSSELL's dispatch is accompanied by some reservations and explanations which are deemed unacceptable by the Government of the United States. 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.

....[Regrets that Britain found it expedient to consult with France on recognition of restoration of peace.]

"It is a further source of regret that her Majesty's Government avow that they will still continue to consider that any United States cruiser, which shall hereafter be lying in a British port, harbors or waters, shall be detained twenty-four hours, so as to afford an opportunity for an insurgent vessel, then actually being within such port, harbor or waters, to gain the advantage of the same time for her departure from the same port, harbors or waters.

....[Also regrets provision that Britain will allow insurgent vessels of war to divest themselves or warlike character and to assume the flag of any nation recognized by Britain with which the Britain is at peace and will be permitted to remain in British waters.] Far from being able to admit the legality or justice of the instructions thus made, it is my duty to inform your Excellency that, in the first place, the United States cannot consent to an abridgment of reciprocal hospitalities between public vessels of the United States and those of Great Britain. So long as Her Majesty's Government shall insist upon enforcing the twenty-four hour rule before mentioned, of which the United States have so long, and, as they think, so justly complained, the United States must apply the same rule to public vessels of Great Britain.

"Again, it is my further duty to state that the Unites States cannot admit, and on the contrary they controvert and protest against the decision of the British Government, which would allow vessels of war of insurgents or pirates to enter or leave British ports, whether for disarmament or otherwise, or for assuming a foreign flag or otherwise....this Government maintains and insists that such vessels are forfeited to and ought to be delivered to the United States upon reasonably application in such cases made, and that if captured at sea, under whatsoever flag, by a naval force of the United States, such capture shall be lawful.

"Notwithstanding, however, the exceptions and reservations which have been made by Her Majesty's Government, and which have herein considered, the United States accept with pleasure the declaration by which her Majesty's Government have withdrawn their former concessions of a belligerent character to the insurgents, and this Government freely admits that the normal relations between the two countries being practically restored to the condition in which they stood before the civil war, the right to search British vessels has come to an end by an arrangement satisfactory in every material respect between the two nations.

"It will be a source of satisfaction to this Government to know that her Majesty's Government have considered the views herein presented in a spirit favorable to the establishment of a lasting and intimate friendship between the two nations. I have, etc,

"William H. Seward"

• 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 [88]

"June 23, 1865

"By the President of the United States of America

"A Proclamation

"Whereas by the proclamations of the President of the 19th and 27th of April, 1861, a blockade of certain ports of the United States was set on foot; but

"Whereas the reasons for that measure have ceased to exist:

"Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby declare and proclaim the blockade aforesaid to be rescinded as to all the ports aforesaid, including that of Galveston and other ports west of the Mississippi River, which ports will be open to foreign commerce on the 1st of July next on the terms and conditions set forth in my proclamation of the 22d of May last.

"It is to be understood, however, that the blockade thus rescinded was an international measure for the purpose of protecting the sovereign rights of the United States. The greater or less subversion of civil authority in the region to which it applied and the impracticability of at once restoring that in due efficiency may for a season make it advisable to employ the Army and Navy of the United States toward carrying the laws into effect wherever such employment may be necessary.

"In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

"Done at the city of Washington, this 23d day of June, A. D. 1865, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

"ANDREW JOHNSON.

"By the President:

"W. HUNTER,

"Acting Secretary of State."

• 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. [89]

• Army and Navy Journal, November 11, 1865, p. 187 [90]

"BRITISH HOSPITALITY TO OUR WAR VESSELS

"EARL RUSSELL TO THE ADMIRALTY LORDS

"FOREIGN OFFICE, October 18, 1865

"My Lords - With reference to my letter of the 2d of June last, prescribing the course to be taken by her Majesty's several authorities in all ports, harbors and waters belonging to her Majesty, whether in the United Kingdom or beyond the seas, in consequence of the recognition by her Majesty's Government that peace was restored within the whole territory of which the United States of North America before the commencement of the civil war were in undisturbed possession; and with reference more particularly to that passage in my letter in which it was laid down that Confederate vessels departing in pursuance of requisition to be made by her Majesty's authorities, from any ports, harbors, and waters belonging to her Majesty, in which, at the time of the receipt by those authorities of fresh orders, such vessel might be found, should then, and the last time, have full benefit of the prohibition theretofore enforced against pursuit of them within twenty-four hours by a cruiser of the United States lying at the time within any such ports, harbors, and waters. I have the honor to state to your Lordships that her Majesty's Government is of opinion that it is desirable that her Majesty's naval and other authorities at home, and in her Majesty's possessions abroad, should be formally apprised that as full time has now elapsed since my letter of the 2d of June for giving effect to the provisions of that letter, all measures of a restrictive nature on vessels of war of the United States in British ports, harbors, and waters, are now to be considered as at an end, and that it is the desire and intention of her Majesty's government that unrestricted hospitality and friendship should be show to vessels of war of the United States in all her Majesty's ports, whether at home or abroad.

"I have addressed a similar letter to the Secretaries of State for the Colonial, Home and India Offices, and also to the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury. Russell"

• Army and Navy Journal, November 4, 1865, p. 172 [91]

Navy Gazette

"WITHDRAWAL OF BRITISH RESTRICTIONS UPON AMERICAN NAVAL VESSELS

"Department of State, Washington, October 30, 1865

"To the Hon. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy

"Sir: - I have the satisfaction of submitting for your information a copy of a dispatch which has just been received from Mr. Adams, together with its accompaniment, a copy of a note of Earl Russell relating to the restrictions upon American national vessels which lately were maintained by her Majesty's government in British ports and waters. The dispatch shows that all the objectionable restraints referred to have now been entirely removed, and that it is the desire of her Majesty's government that unrestricted hospitality and friendship shall be shown to the vessels of war of the United States in all her Majesty's ports, whether at home or abroad. The President has directed me to make known to her Majesty's government his satisfaction for this pleasing manifestation of consideration and justice on the part of Great Britain. I have therefore to request you to inform the naval officers of the United States that the instructions that have heretofore been Given them to make discriminations in regard to their vessels in British ports, and their intercourse with British naval vessels, are now countermanded and withdrawn, and that henceforth the most liberal hospitality and courtesy will be expected to be shown by the Navy of the United State to the Navy of Great Britain.

"I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD"

• In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Ford v. Surget, 97 U.S. 594, 605 (1878) [92], Justice Harlan wrote that among the propositions established by prior precedents was: "To the Confederate army was, however, conceded, in the interest of humanity and to prevent the cruelties of reprisals and retaliation, such belligerent rights as belonged under the laws of nations to the armies of independent governments engaged in war against each other -- that concession placing the soldiers and officers of the rebel army, as to all matters directly connected with the mode of prosecuting the war, 'on the footing of those engaged in lawful war,' and exempting them from liability for acts of legitimate warfare.'"

• Davis, Jefferson. The Rise And Fall Of The Confederate Government. Volume II. New York: D. Appleton And Company, 1881. OCLC 1249017603.

Chapter XXXI Page 257. “It is a remarkable fact that the Government of the United States, in no one instance, from the opening to the close of the war, formally spoke of the Confederate Government or States as belligerents. Although on many occasions it acted with the latter as a belligerent, yet no official designations were ever given to them or their citizens but those of "insurgents," or "insurrectionists." Perhaps there may be something in the signification of the words which, combined with existing circumstances, would express a state of affairs that the authorities of the Government of the United States were in no degree willing to admit, and vainly sought to prevent from becoming manifest to the world.”...

Page 258 “With like disregard for truth, our cruisers were denounced as "pirates" by the Government of the United States. A pirate, or armed piratical vessel, is by the law of nations the enemy of mankind, and can be destroyed by the ships of any nation. The distinction between a lawful cruiser and a pirate is that the former has behind it a government which is recognized by civilized nations as entitled to the rights of war, and from which the commander of the cruiser receives his commission or authority, but the pirate recognizes no government, and is not recognized by any one. As the Attorney-General of Great Britain said in the Alexandra case:

"Although a recognition of the Confederates as an independent power was out of the question, yet it was right they should be admitted by other nations within the circle of lawful belligerents—that is to say, that their forces should not be treated as pirates, nor their flag as a piratical flag. Therefore, as far as the two belligerents were concerned, on the part of this and other governments, they were so far put on a level that each was to be considered as entitled to the right of belligerents—the Southern States as much as the other."

"Criminalization" of Acts of War or Hostility to U.S. Government After Surrenders

• "The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies Series 1, Volume 46, Part 3 p. 1,081 Richmond, VA., May 4, 1865

"1 p.m. [93]

"Lieut. Gen. U. S. Grant:

"....

Page 1082 [94]

"....I propose soon to issue an order that all armed men in Virginia who do not surrender by a certain date shall be held as outlaws and robbers.

"H.W. Halleck, Major-General"

• Page 1082

"Philadelphia, May 4, 1865 - 12 midnight (Received 11 a.m. 5th)

"Major-General Halleck

"Richmond, Va:

"I gave General Hancock several days ago verbal instructions to treat all men in arms in Virginia as you propose to notify them you will do. I wish you would have efforts made to arrest Smith, Hunter, Letcher, and all other particularly obnoxious political leaders in the State. I would advise offering a reward of $5,000 for Mosby, if he is still in the State.

"U. S. Grant, Lieutenant General"

• "The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies Series 1, Volume 46, Part 3 p. 1,091 Washington: Government Printing Office, 1895 [95]

"Washington, May 5, 1861

"The following dispatch, just received from General Grant, is approved, and you are authorized to act in accordance with it. [May 4, 12 midnight]

"Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War"

• "The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 1, Volume 46, Part 3 p. 1,091

General Orders No. 6 } Hdqrs. Military Div. Of The James, Richmond, VA., May 6, 1865 [96]

"I. 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.

"II. Any person in these States, who shall assist or advise the organization of guerrilla bands, or the continuation of hostilities against the authority of the United States, will be arrested, tried by a military commission, and punished with death or otherwise less severely, according to the circumstances of the case.

".....

"By order of Major-General Halleck:

"J.C. Kelton, 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. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1895. [97]

"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 48, Part 2: Correspondence Louisiana and Trans-Mississippi. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1896. Page: 530 [98]

"General Orders No. 24 } Headquarters Third Div., 7th Army Corps. Fort Smith, Ark. June 2, 1865

"..........

"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, In Two Parts. Part 2, Correspondence, etc. Page: 929 [99]

"General Orders No. 4, Headquarters District of Texas, Galveston, Tex., June 19, 1865

....."All lawless persons committing acts of violence, such as banditti, guerrillas, jayhawkers, horse-thieves, &c. are hereby declared outlaws and enemies of the human race, and will be dealt with accordingly. By order of Major-General Granger."

"F. W. Emery, Major and Assistant Adjutant-General"

Books on American Civil War Naval History; No References to Belligerent Rights or Proclamation dated May 9 or 10, 1865

• Anderson, Bern. By Sea and by River: the naval history of the Civil War New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962. Reprinted unabridged 1989 Da Capo paperback. ISBN 978-0-306-80367-3.

No mention of belligerent rights/status or the May 10, 1865 proclamation.

• deKay, James Tertius. The Rebel Raiders: The Astonishing History of the Confederacy's Secret Navy. New York: Ballentine Books (Presidio Press), 2003. ISBN 978-0-345-43183-7. First hardcover edition 2002.

No mention of belligerent rights/status or the May 10, 1865 proclamation. Carefully perused; no index.

• Luraghi, Raimondo. A History of the Confederate Navy. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1996. ISBN 978-1-55750-527-9.

No mention of belligerent rights/status or the May 10, 1865 proclamation.

• McPherson, James M. War on the Waters: The Union & Confederate Navies, 1861–1865. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-8078-3588-3.

No mention of belligerent rights/status or the May 10, 1865 proclamation.

• Simson, Jay W. Naval Strategies of the Civil War: Confederate Innovations and Federal Opportunism. Nashville, TN: Cumberland House Publishing, Inc., 2001. ISBN 978-1-58182-195-6.

No mention of belligerent rights/status or the May 10, 1865 proclamation.

• Symonds, Craig L. The Civil War at Sea. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. First published in hardcover by Praeger, 2009. ISBN 978-0-19-993168-2.

No mention of belligerent rights/status or the May 10, 1865 proclamation.

• Tucker, Spencer C. Blue & Gray Navies: The Civil War Afloat. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2006. ISBN 978-1-59114-882-1.

No mention of belligerent rights/status or the May 10, 1865 proclamation.

• Wise, Stephen R. Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1991. ISBN 978-0-87249-799-3. Originally published in hard cover, 1988.

No mention of belligerent rights/status or the May 10, 1865 proclamation.

See also The Alabama Claims Arbitration [100] by Tom Bingham The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 1-25 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law Donner60 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Historians/Contemporaries Views on the End Date of the American Civil War

I am reorganizing and adding to the previous post on Historians [View] on the End [Date] of the American Civil War. I thought my original compilation would be complete but I found some additional sources, including from the Civil War period, which I think add some value to how the end date of the war has been seen over the years.

I am putting the key comment about the majority view of historians on the end of the American Civil War from the relatively recent article Finding the Ending of the American Civil War first. I will put additional comments from that article in the chronological order of the references below. I have reorganized the list from the oldest item to the most current, rather than by author's last name. Readers will recognize many historians of note regardless of where they are listed.

I originally prepared this to support a change in the infobox and first line of the article. Whether this results or not is still in question. Regardless of the outcome, this material may be of interest and of use in further research or for inclusion in this or another article, such as Conclusion of the American Civil War.

Finding the Ending of America's Civil War by William A. Blair (Professor at Penn State University) The American Historical Review Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association Vol. 120, No. 5 (December 2015) [101] "More that four decades ago, historian Avery Craven made the bold statement "The American Civil War did not end at Appomattox", adding "Until the Negro's place in American life was fixed, the war was not over." But he remained a minority voice, as the sheer weight of scholarship has leaned toward portraying the surrenders of the Confederate armies as the end of the war. "Footnote 25: ...For the argument against war continuing beyond the surrenders, see, for instance, Gary W. Gallagher, The Confederate War: How Popular Will, Nationalism, and Military Strategy Could Not Stave Off Defeat (Cambridge, Mass. 1997), 206, "n.1....The literature as a whole remains tilted toward the war ending with the surrenders...."

1865: Predicated on the surrender of the armies

• 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. [102]: 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”

1865: May 26: Kirby Smith's Surrender

• George Templeton Strong Prominent New York Lawyer, a Founder, Treasurer and Member of the Executive Committee of United States Sanitary Commission throughout the war, Diarist. Diary excerpt published in Gienapp, William E., ed. The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Documentary Collection. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2001. ISBN 978-0-393-97555-0. Pages 313-314. Taken from Allan Nevins and Milton Halsey Thomas, eds. The Diary of George Templeton Strong vol. 2 (New York: The McMillan Company, pp. 600-601; vol. 3, p. 14.

"May 29 [1865]....Peace. Peace herself, at last, for [Kirby] Smith and [John] Magruder have surrendered, if General [Edward] Canby's dispatch to the War Department be truthful. So here I hope and believe ends, by God's great and undeserved mercy, this chapter [page 314] of this journal I opened with the heading War on the night of April 13, 1861. We have lived a century of common life since then. Only within the last two months have I dared to hope that this fearful struggle would be settled so soon."

1865: May 26, 1865, Kirby Smith's Surrender: The New York Times:

"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. [103] The New York Times; May 29, 1865. Page 1. "WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, May 27, 1865.... "Maj.-Gen. Dix: "A dispatch from Gen. CANBY, dated at New-Orleans, yesterday, the 26th inst., states that arrangements for the surrender of the Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi Department have been concluded. They include the men and material of the army and navy. EDWIN M. STANTON, "Secretary of War."

1865: Trans-Mississippi surrender order

• The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series 1, Volume 48, In Two Parts. [104] Part 2, Page: 530

General Orders No. 24 } Headquarters Third Div., 7th Army Corps. Fort Smith, Ark. June 2, 1865 …............. 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

1865: May 26, 1865

• Storke, Elliot G. and L. P. Brockett, M.D. A Complete History Of The Great American Rebellion, Embracing Its Causes, Events And Consequences. Volume II. Auburn, N. Y.: The Auburn Publishing Company. 1865. E. G. Storke, Publishing Agent. OCLC 78690710.

Page 1426: “On the 19th of April, an officer of the rebel General Dick Taylor's staff, arrived at General Canby's headquarters, with a flag of truce, to make a surrender of his army. For some cause, the negotiations were protracted until the 4th of May, when the surrender took place at Citronelle, Ala. The terms accorded were in substance those granted to General Lee, by General Grant. The number of troops surrendered by this capitulation, somewhat exceeded twenty thousand. This surrender was followed by that of Forrest, Jeff. Thompson, Morgan and all the other commanders of rebel bands east of the Mississippi. The rebel General E. Kirby Smith, commanding in the Trans-Mississippi region, had nominally a large army, and at first was defiant, proclaiming his intention of maintaining his position of hostility. General Sheridan was ordered thither with a large cavalry force; but the rebel [page 1427] General, on finding that all the rebel armies east of the Mississippi, had surrendered, that Davis was a prisoner, and that his own troops were deserting and abandoning the conflict by thousands, reconsidered his decision, and made propositions for surrender, which was finally consummated on the 26th of May, at New Orleans, General Buckner representing Smith on the occasion, while that worthy made his escape into Mexico, with a large sum of money, the fruit of his cotton speculations. The army thus surrendered, had been greatly reduced in numbers by the abandonment of the service of which we have already spoken, and the number paroled was not large.

“With this surrender, the war, so far as the territory of the United States was concerned, ceased. The greater part of the Union army was disbanded, only about one hundred thousand men being retained in the service, and army corps being reduced to divisions, divisions to brigades, and brigades to regiments. The blockade was raised, the revocation of the rights they had accorded to belligerents demanded from foreign powers, and the remaining rebel war vessels on the high seas declared pirates. Military and provisional governors were appointed in the States which had been in revolt.”

1865: Total of Events

U.S. Army and Navy Journal, Volume 3, New York, August 26, 1865. [105] Page 8.

“Practically the war is over – for the purposes of business, of campaigning, of ordinary life. Constructively, and for the purposes of settling certain relations which it disturbed, the war is not over. Some such distinction is necessary for comprehending, supporting and legalizing the present action of the Government; and it is founded in reason." [Trials by military commission; government of insurgent states by military authority.]

"At the very outset, the greatest difficulty is encountered in determining the precise close of an unsuccessful insurrection, whether it be a petty affair of a SHAY, or a DORR, or a CALHOUN, in a single State, or the gigantic scheme of a DAVIS in a dozen States. We believe no day can be named, nor any month even, in which the present Rebellion ended. Was it when LEE surrendered, or JOHNSTON, or TAYLOR, or KIRBY SMITH? Was it upon the capture of DAVIS, its representative head. At what subsequent date then? There is no treaty of peace to fix the epoch, and there never could have been, because it would have given the insurrection a sovereign belligerent treaty-making power which we always deny."

1865/1868: Total of events of Jefferson Davis's capture and surrenders of Confederate armies, but clearly taking it to the last surrender of the armies.

• Duyckinck, Evert A. National History Of The War For The Union, Civil, Military and Naval. Volume III. New York: Johnson, Fry And Company, 1868 (Originally published 1865, Registered Date 1861) OCLC 77344397

Page 640: “With these events the war was fully terminated. The Confederate armies had surrendered, and the heads of the rebel government were prisoners or fugitives. The military and civil organizations of the great revolt had alike perished. As an immediate consequence, the leading armies of the United States were disbanded or greatly reduced to a force simpty adequate for the maintenance of order in the late insurgent districts; the naval equipments were in like manner curtailed; restrictions were removed from foreign and internal trade; the new state of affairs were recognized by foreign governments, and before the 4th of July, 1865, with the important exception of the regulations affecting the restoration or reconstruction of civil government in the late rebel States, and the position of parties engaged in the rebellion, the administration of the national affairs had mainly returned to its accustomed channels.”

1866: Presidential Proclamation: August 20, 1866 Official or Legal End of the War as confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Anderson, 76 U.S. 56 (1869).

• President 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 August 20, 1866 ................ "Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare that the insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of Texas is at an end and is to be henceforth so regarded in that State as in the other States before named in which the said insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the 2d day of April, 1866. "And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end and that peace, order, tranquillity, and civil authority now exist in and throughout the whole of the United States of America. "In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. "Done at the city of Washington, this 20th day of August, A.D. 1866, and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-first."

Note: 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. Neff Page 204: Section Heading “Ending a War” In certain respects, the end of the Confederate war effort came about in an orderly fashion, with the formal surrender of the various Southern armed forces to their union foes.... Neff Page 207: “This array of different termination measures and policies inevitably made it difficult to say with any confidence when the war itself actually ended in legal terms....In April 2, 1866, President Johnson proclaimed “the insurrection” to be ended in all of the Confederate states except Texas. Finally, on August 20, 1866, he pronounced it to be over in that state as well.” Shown below in the choronological order of publication.

1867: May 26, 1865 (On land, Kirby Smith's surrender)

• Greeley, Horace. The American Conflict: a history of the Great Rebellion in the United States, 1860-'65. Volume II. Hartford: O. D. Case and Company, 1867. OCLC 936872302.

Page 757: “Though the war on land ceased, and the Confederate flag utterly disappeared from this continent with the collapse and dispersion of Kirby Smith's command; it was yet displayed at sea by two of the British-built, British-armed and (mainly) British manned cruisers engaged in the spoliation of our commerce;....”

1870: May 26, 1865

Draper, John William. History of the American Civil War. [106] Volume 3. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1870. OCLC 830251756. Retrieved July 28, 2022.

Page 618: "The surrender of Johnson to Sherman was followed, on the 14th of May, by that of General Taylor, with all the remaining Confederate armies east of the Mississippi, to General Canby. [typo? May 4th usually cited] On the 26th of the same month General Kirby Smith surrendered his entire command west of the Mississippi to General Canby. With this, all military opposition to the government ended."

1881: Kirby Smith's Surrender; Surrender of the Armies: Jefferson Davis

• Davis, Jefferson. The Rise And Fall Of The Confederate Government. Volume II. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1881. {OCLC|1249017603}}.

Page 630, Near the end of Chapter LIV: “With General E. K. Smith's surrender the Confederate flag no longer floated on the land; only one gallant sailor still unfurled it on the Pacific. Captain Waddell, commanding the Confederate cruiser Shenandoah swept the ocean from Australia nearly to Behring's Straits....” Chapter LVI first sentence, Page 663: “When the Confederate soldiers laid down their arms and went home, all hostilities against the power of the Government of the United States ceased.”

1885: May 26, 1865: Adam Badeau

• Badeau, Adam. Military history of Ulysses S. Grant: from April, 1861, to April, 1865, Volume 3. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1885. OCLC 316897152. Retrieved July 26, 2020 .

Page 639: "In fact the history of the war after the 9th of April is nothing but an enumeration of surrenders. On the 14th of April, Johnston made his first overtures to Sherman; on the 21st, Cobb yielded Macon; on the 4th of May, Richard Taylor surrendered all the rebel forces east of the Mississippi. On the 11th of May, Jefferson Davis, disguised as a woman and in flight, was captured at Irwinsville, Georgia; and on the 26th of the same month, Kirby Smith surrendered his entire command west of the Mississippi River. On that day the last organized rebel force disappeared from the territory of the United States."

1886: May 26, 1865: Ulysses S. Grant

• Grant, Ulysses S. Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant. Volume 2. [107] New York: Charles L. Webster & Company, 1886. OCLC 255136538.

Page 522: "General E. Kirby Smith surrendered the trans-Mississippi department on the 26th of May, leaving no other Confederate army at liberty to continue the war."

1886: May 26, 1865

• Logan, John A. The Great Conspiracy, Its Origin and History. New York: A. Hart & Co., Publishers, 1886. (Major General, Union Army) [108]

unpaginated e-book; end of Chapter XXX

"Meanwhile on the 5th of April, Grant, who had kept Sherman, as well as Sheridan, advised of his main movements, had also ordered the former to press Johnston's Army as he was pressing Lee, so as, between them, they might "push on, and finish the job." In accordance with this order, Sherman's Forces advanced toward Smithfield, and, Johnston having rapidly retreated before them, entered Raleigh, North Carolina, on the 13th. The 14th of April, brought the news of the surrender of Lee to Grant, and the same day a correspondence was opened between Sherman and Johnston, looking to the surrender of the latter's Army—terms for which were actually agreed upon, subject, however, to approval of Sherman's superiors. Those terms, however, being considered unsatisfactory, were promptly disapproved, and similar terms to those allowed to Lee's Army, were substituted, and agreed to, the actual surrender taking place April 26th, near Durham, North Carolina. On the 21st, Macon, Georgia, with 12,000 Rebel Militia, and sixty guns, was surrendered to Wilson's Cavalry-command, by General Howell Cobb. On the 4th of May, General Richard Taylor surrendered all the armed Rebel troops, East of the Mississippi river; and on the 26th of May, General Kirby Smith surrendered all of them, West of that river." "On that day, organized, armed Rebellion against the United States ceased, and became a thing of the past. It had been conquered, stamped out, and extinguished, while its civic head, Jefferson Davis, captured May 11th, at Irwinsville, Georgia, while attempting to escape, was, with other leading Rebels, a prisoner in a Union fort.”

1890: Kirby Smith Surrender (May 26, 1865)

• Coffin, Charles Carleton. Freedom triumphant : the fourth period of the war of the rebellion. New York : Harper & Bros., Franklin Square. 1890. ((OCLC|34656450}}.

Page 490: “Far away, in Texas Gen. E. Kirby Smith enacted the last scene – surrendering the last armed soldier of the Confederacy.”

1902: Anxiety while Davis at large, and unsurrendered army west of Mississippi River.

• Dana, Charles A. Recollections Of The Civil War. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1902. [109] Copyright, 1898 By D. Appleton and Company. CHARLES A. DANA, Assistant Secretary Of War From 1863 To 1865

“Pages 282-3: “While the trial was going on in Washington, Jefferson Davis was captured, on May 10th, near Irwinsville, Ga., by a detachment of General Wilson's cavalry. Mr. Davis and his family, with Alexander H. Stephens, lately Vice-President of the Confederacy, John H. Reagan, Postmaster General, Clement C. Clay, and other State prisoners, were sent to Fortress Monroe. The propeller Clyde, with the party on board, reached Hampton Roads on May 19th. The next day, May 20th, Mr. Stanton sent for me to come to his office. He told me where Davis was, and said that he had ordered General Nelson A. Miles to go to Hampton Roads to take charge of the prisoners, transferring them from the Clyde to the fortress. Mr. Stanton was much concerned lest Davis should commit suicide; he said that he himself would do so in like circumstances. "I want you to go to Fortress Monroe," he said, "and caution General Miles against leaving Davis any possible method of suicide; tell him to put him in fetters, if necessary. Davis must be brought to trial; he must not be allowed to kill himself." Mr. Stanton also told me that he wanted a representative of the War Department down there to see what the military was doing, and to give suggestions and make criticisms and send him full reports.

“The status of Jefferson Davis at the time explains Mr. Stanton's anxiety. It should be remembered that Davis had not surrendered when the capital of the Confederacy, Richmond, was captured; neither had he surrendered with either of the two principal armies under Lee and Johnston. At that time the whole Confederate army west of the Mississippi was still at large. To allow Davis to join this force was only to give the Confederacy an opportunity to reassemble the forces still unsurrendered and make another stand for life.”

1905: May 26, 1865

• Wood, W. Birkbeck and Major J. E. Edmonds. A History of the Civil War in the United States 1861-1865. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons; London: Methuen & Co., 1905. OCLC 84404168

Page 619: “For a time Smith's attitude seemed so threatening, that Sheridan was sent from Washington to bring him to reason. After one more skirmish, near Brazos, quite needless, Smith, too, on the 26th of May, surrendered his whole armed force to Canby, receiving the same generous terms accorded to other Confederate armies. And thus was slavery's grand levy of war against the United States brought to a conclusive end.”

1908: May 26, 1865

• Dyer, Frederick H. A compendium of the War of the Rebellion. [110] Des Moines, IA: Dyer Publishing Co., 1908. OCLC 8697590.

Full entry on last Table of Contents page (unnumbered on download): "Alphabetical Index of Campaigns, Battles, Engagements, Actions, Combats, Sieges, Skirmishes, Reconnaissances, Scouts and Other Military Events Connected with the "War of the Rebellion" During the Period of Actual Hostilities, From April 12, 1861, to May 26, 1865................595"

1911: Surrender of the armies; end of May 1865

• Nys, Ernest. Professor of International Law at the University of Brussels. Francis Lieber--His Life and His Work. [111] The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Apr., 1911). Published by: Cambridge University Press.

Page 387: “The Civil War had ended in the months of April and May, 1865. April 9 the army of Virginia, under the command of Lee, had surrendered to General Grant: officers and soldiers had to promise not to take up arms against the United States so long as they were not regularly exchanged, and were then given their freedom. In April and May the other Confederate armies submitted under the same conditions. By the end of May hostilities were no longer in progress anywhere, and the soldiers of the Federal armies were disbanded and sent home. June 6 the Southern prisoners shut up in Northern posts were freed. Victory was a fact; there was neither vengeance nor cruel repression, but as soon as possible all citizens were restored to the enjoyment of their rights.

1919: May 26, 1865

• Stephenson, Nathaniel W. The Day of the Confederacy, A Chronicle of the Embattled South, Volume 30 in The Chronicles Of America Series. [112] New Haven: Yale University Press; Toronto: Glasgow, Brook & Co.; London: Oxford University Press, 1919

Pages 201-202: “The surrender at Appomattox on April 9, 1865, compelled another migration of the dwindling executive company. General Johnston had not yet surrendered. A conference which he had with the President and the Cabinet at Greensboro ended in giving him permission to negotiate with Sherman. Even then Davis was still bent on keeping up the fight; yet, though he believed that Sherman would reject Johnston's overtures, he was overtaken at Charlotte on his way South by the crushing news of Johnston's surrender. There the executive history of the Confederacy came to an end in a final Cabinet meeting. Davis, still blindly resolute to continue the struggle, was deeply distressed by the determination of his advisers to abandon it. In imminent danger of capture, the President's party made its way to Abbeville, where it broke up, and each member sought safety as best he could. Davis with a few faithful men rode to Irwinsville, Georgia, where, in the early morning of the 10th of May, he was surprised and captured. But the history of the Confederacy was not quite [page 202] at an end. The last gunshots were still to be fired far away in Texas on the 13th of May. The surrender of the forces of the Trans-Mississippi on May 26, 1865, brought the war to a definite conclusion.”

1919: May 26, 1865

• Ponsonby, Arthur, Wars And Treaties, 1815 to 1914. [113] London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.; New York The Macmillan Company, 1919'

Page 42: "AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 1861–1865" Page 43: "On May 26th the war came to an end, after a desperate struggle of nearly four years."

1937: War or no war does not depend on wishes or interests of third States

• Walker, Wyndam Legh. Recognition of Belligerency and Grant of Belligerent Rights [114] Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 23, Problems of Peace and War, Papers Read before the Society in the Year 1937 (1937), pp. 177-210. Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Page 200: “To make the existence of war or no war depend on the wishes or interests of third States is to create a rule neither satisfying to the requirements of consistent legal principle, nor in general, I venture to think, to the need of the statesman dealing with practical problems as they arise – it is a doctrine likely to create more complications than it will assuage.”

Page 206: “What recognition does is not to operate as a grant of rights of war, but create at most a species of estoppel. The neutral State estops itself from denying that a true war exists....I have laboured the point that recognition of belligerency is the acknowledgement of an existing fact, not the conferring of a status, still less a privilege (even those who adopt the status view point out that it is given for the benefit of the recognising State's own subjects, not for that of the insurgents)."

1963: May 26, 1865

• Robertson, Jr., James I. The Civil War. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil War Centennial Commission, 1963. OCLC 299955768. [115]

“The Commission is deeply indebted to the Editorial Advisory Board members, each of whom rendered valuable assistance toward the final draft of the narrative. James I. Robertson, Jr., Executive Director U. S. Civil War Centennial Commission” Page 31 “Lee’s surrender left Johnston with no place to go. On April 26, near Durham, N. C., the Army of Tennessee laid down its arms before Sherman’s forces. With the surrender of isolated forces in the Trans-Mississippi West on May 4, 11, and 26, the most costly war in American history came to an end.”

1965: May 26, 1865

• Catton, Bruce. The Centennial History of the Civil War. Vol. 3, Never Call Retreat. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. p. 445. “...and on May 26 he [E. Kirby Smith] surrendered and the war was over.”

1967: US Attorneys argued in 1869 in United States v. Anderson that war ended May 26, 1865; US Supreme Court held that for legal purposes it ended with Andrew Johnson's proclamation of August 20, 1865

• Murray, Robert B. The End Of The Rebellion. The North Carolina Historical Review, Vol. 44, No. 4 (October, 1967), pp. 321-341. Published By: North Carolina Office of Archives and History The North Carolina Historical Review [116]

Page 332: United States v. Anderson was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States at its December, 1869 term. Hoar and Hale, for the government made the same points previously stressed in the Court of Claims. The attorneys argued that the claim, filed June 5, 1868, was too late; that when the courts were reopened and when armed aggression against government had ceased, there was no longer civil war. They contended that the rebellion was suppressed as a matter [page 333] of fact after Kirby Smith surrendered on May 26, 1865, and that Anderson's right to file a claim expired two years from that date. Presidential proclamations were regarded by the government attorneys as executive recognition of the fact that peace was restored; these proclamations did not in themselves create peace. They continued their argument to the effect that if an executive act was, indeed, necessary to establish the fact of suppression, then that of April 2, 1866, recognized an end to the rebellion in South Carolina and was applicable to Nelson Anderson. Because the cause of action arose in that state, the statute would run from the time the rebellion was suppressed there. They discussed other acts and proclamations relating to the war's end, arguing that they had no applicability to the Captured and Abandoned Property Act.”

Page 336: “The important issue was concerned with the date of expiration of two years after the suppression of the rebellion. The Supreme Court held that the suppression in one locality was not tantamount to suppression of the rebellion and that an interpretation which allowed one rule for one area and a different standard for another section could not be permitted.....”

“Though various other proclamations and acts of Congress had a bearing on the subject, [Justice] Davis stated that it was only necessary to notice the presidential proclamation of August 20, 1866, and the act of Congress of March 2, 1867. The August 20, 1866, proclamation related to Texas, and it in the President stated:

And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end, and that peace, order, tranquility and civil authority now exist in and throughout the whole of the United States.”

“This was the first official declaration that the rebellion had been suppressed everywhere; this proclamation was accepted by Congress when, on March 2, 1867, the provision was made that the act of June 20, 1864, fixing the pay of non-commisioned officers and privates through the term of the rebellion, was to remain in force for three years after the close of the rebellion as announced by the President in his proclamation. Congress thereby, said the court adopted August 20, 1866, as the day of close for this purpose. The Supreme Court reasons that Congress would certainly not intend a harsher rule for claimants, and that the point of time should be construed liberally in favor of those who adhered to the Union. The court accepted the August 20, [Page 337] 1866, date as being applicable so far as rights secured by the Captured and Abandoned Property Act was concerned.”

1971: End of May 1865, by implication in introduction to next months' entry.

• Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123. At the end of the items for May 1865, Long uses a section title “Aftermath” for almost six pages of items for the remainder of 1865 and the two proclamations for the end of the war in 1866. The section begins with an introduction on page 691: “The War was over and the Peace had begun. All the major forces of the Confederate States of America had surrendered, and President Davis was in prison.” At the end of the day-by-day narrative after the item for August 20, 1866 at page 697, Long wrote “The Civil War was over and the painful days of reconstruction had begun.”

1974: Many ending dates (thus Spring 1865 or total of events) Cites May 10, 1865 and said some take this to be end of the war, but notes only an uncited US Supreme Court case which does not line up with United States v. Anderson (1869)

• 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 p. 1013 cites the May 10, 1865 proclamation that “armed resistance to the authority of this Government in the said insurrectionary States may be regarded as virtually at an end. This was subsequently taken by some, including the nine Supreme Court justices to mark the close of the war...”

(Foote does not cite the case. I could not find it. In United States v. Anderson, 76 U.S. 56 (1869), the Court wrote that the August 20, 1866 date marked the date of the “suppression of the rebellion” throughout the country by Johnson's proclamation and that Congress had accepted the date for “the close of the rebellion." So I don't think the statement about an uncited case can be verified. In any event, the later statement by Foote below expresses the many endings or piecemeal view of the end of the war.)

Foote noted at page 1019 that the statement was premature by three days because the Battle of Palmito Ranch was the last sizeable clash of arms in the whole war. At page 1040, Foote expressed the several endings of the war view as follow: “Appomattox was one of several endings; Durham Station, Citronelle, Galveston [presumably the June 2 signing of the May 26 surrender terms by E. Kirby Smith although not definitely distinguished from the lifting of the blockade at Galveston on June 23] were others; as were Johnson's mid-May proclamation and the ratification of the 13th Amendment, which seven months later freed the slaves not freed in the course of the four-year struggle...”

1982: Many events as recited.

• McPherson, James M. Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982. ISBN 978-0-394-52469-6, Written before Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford History of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ISBN 978-0-19-503863-7.,” which states in summary fashion many of the events after the surrenders of Lee and Johnston. He does not mention the May 10 proclamation in either book.

1994: Most specific reference is to August 20, 1866, as noted by US Supreme Court as legal end of war.

• 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. In the May 11. 1865 “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.'” cited by Trudeau, p. 353.

Trudeau Pages 396-397: 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. 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.

Trudeau Page 397: “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.”

1995: Spring 1865

• McDonough, James L. Tennessee and the Civil War. [117] Tennessee Historical Quarterly Vol. 54, No. 3 (Fall 1995). Published by: Tennessee Historical Society

Page 208: “When the Civil War finally ended in the spring of 1865, the conflict had been a tragedy without parallel for the state of Tennessee.”

1997: Spring 1865

• Gallagher, Gary W. The Confederate War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0-674-16056-9. Page 157: “The Confederacy capitulated in the spring of 1865 because the northern armies had demonstrated their ability to crush organized southern military resistance.”

2001: Several events. Notes substance of proclamation but states that in fact armed resistance wasn't quite at an end. Goes on to state several events.

• Eicher, David J. The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. ISBN 978-0-684-84944-7 Covers events at the end of the Civil war in a chapter “The End of the Civil War”, pages 841-851. This is the closest Eicher comes to declaring an end date; no other more specific statement is made in the chapter's recitation of events. P. 842-3: “On the same day as Davis's capture, President Johnson proclaimed armed resistance at an end (though it wasn't quite yet).” P. 843: “On May 12 came the final land battle of the war. Far out in the Trans-Mississippi, to which news traveled slowly, forces clashed near Brownsville, Texas at Palmito Ranch....” (Note that this was a 2-day battle, May 12-13.)

2003: May 26, 1865

• Gallagher, Gary W., Stephen D. Engle, Robert K. Krick & Joseph T. Glatthaar, Forward by James M. McPherson. The American Civil War, This Might Scourge of War. New York: Osprey Publishing, Ltd., 2003. ISBN 978-1-84176-736-9.

Page 308: "By 26 May, General Edward Kirby Smith had surrendered the Rebel forces in the trans-Mississippi west. The war was over.

2009: May 10 order cited in events by date; implies this is the end of armed resistance, except for Palmito Ranch, but does not specifically say it is the end of the war.

• 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. Civil War Time Line at page 51 has this in the entries for May, 10, 1865. “President Andrew Jackson proclaims armed resistance at an end – though one more small land engagement will be fought May 12 at Palmito Ranch, Texas.” [In fact the battle was a two day affair on May 12-13 and is sometimes listed just under May 13, as already noted.]

In Wagner, the entry for May 29 on the same page 51 reads: “By proclamation, President Johnson grants amnesty and pardon to all persons who directly or indirectly participated in the 'existing rebellion' – with some exceptions – upon the taking of an oath declaring their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and laws.” It further states that this is an indication Johnson will pursue a moderate Reconstruction policy.

2009: Surrender of Confederate armies starting with Appomattox surrender.

• Taafe, Stephen R. Commanding Lincoln's Navy: Union Naval Leadership During the Civil War. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2009. ISBN 978-1-59114-855-5.

Page 251: "In early April the Army of the Potomac finally broke through rebel lines in front of Petersburg, seized Richmond, and ran Lee's army to earth at Appomattox Court House on 9 April, beginning a chain of events that led in a little more than month to the surrender of all the Confederacy's armies and an end to the war."

2010: Victories Bringing Armed Struggle to End (total of events or piecemeal); Concluding with Stand Watie surrender, June 23 Notes legal end with proclamation of August 20, 1866.

• 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.

Neff Page 203: “By the spring of 1865, the combined effects of the Union naval blockade and the victories of the federal land forces finally brought the armed struggle to a conclusion....Because various aspects of the war were terminated at different times, it became difficult to say, with the precision so obsessively demanded by lawyers, exactly when the state of war actually terminated.”

Neff Page 204: Section Heading “Ending a War” In certain respects, the end of the Confederate war effort came about in an orderly fashion, with the formal surrender of the various Southern armed forces to their union foes....concluding with the submission of a force of Cherokee Indians allied to the Confederacy on June 25.” (June 23, Long. p. 695, Trudeau, p. 360)

Neff Page 207: “This array of different termination measures and policies inevitably made it difficult to say with any confidence when the war itself actually ended in legal terms....In April 2, 1866, President Johnson proclaimed “the insurrection” to be ended in all of the Confederate states except Texas. Finally, on August 20, 1866, he pronounced it to be over in that state as well.”

2015: Surrender of the Armies Also discusses other theories such as when the last State of the old Confederacy's representatives was seated in Congress.

• Blair, William A. (Professor at Penn State University) Finding the Ending of America's Civil War The American Historical Review Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association Vol. 120, No. 5 (December 2015) [118]

Page 1759: “The large-scale fighting between the Confederacy and the Union during the U.S. Civil War closed with the surrenders of four Confederate armies – at Appomattox, [page 1760] Virginia; at Durham Station, North Carolina; at Galveston, Texas; and at Citronelle, Alabama. The terms were lenient: If soldiers laid down their arms and obeyed the laws of the United States, they remained safe from prosecution. Where this left the civilian population, especially the leaders of the rebellion, was unknown – as was the status of civic participation by white and black people in the South. But no one was hanged for treason against the United States.” “The leniency toward former enemies had begun without the United States taking the counsel of Europe. It was a leniency created to end the fighting, to encourage reunion, and to deny further resistance by creating martyrs or by encouraging Confederates to seek foreign partners to continue the fight, such as through an alliance with the French in Mexico.”

Page 1761: “If the war did not end with the Surrenders, then when did it end? Only recently has the question gained fresh currency. More that four decades ago, historian Avery Craven made the bold statement “The American Civil Ward did not end at Appomattox, adding “Until the Negro's place in American life was fixed, the war was not over.” But he remained a minority voice, as the sheer weight of scholarship has leaned toward portraying the surrenders of the Confederate armies as the end of the war. Although violence continued in the South – much of it aimed at either controlling elections or preserving the racial orders – historians have disagreed over whether to interpret this as a continuation of warfare. On the one hand, those who see the end of the war with surrenders in 1865 argue that the rebels did not secede again, and also that the violence involved only a tiny fraction of the South's white males. At the same time, according to the argument, the violence featured minimal interstate cooperation, belying the notion of a concerted, organized leadership. On the other hand, the violence did fulfilll the goal of conducting what one historian has called a counterrevolution that overturned Republican state governments in favor of a regime friendlier to the interests of the former Confederates. More recently, Gregory P. Downs has revived the provocative idea that we should consider the end of wartime as coming around 1870, with the admission of the last southern states under Radical Reconstruction.”25 FN25...For the argument against war continuing beyond the surrenders, see, for instance, Gary W. Gallagher, The Confederate War: How Popular Will, Nationalism, and Military Strategy Could Not Stave Off Defeat (Cambridge, Mass. 1997), 206, n.1....The literature as a whole remains tilted toward the war ending with the surrenders....”

Page 1762: “Attorney General James Speed argued for maintaining martial law – a status that continued for all of 1865 and part of 1866, until Andrew Johnson proclaimed the final restoration of peace and civil authority in the South on August 20, 1866.”

Page 1764: “After the seating of a Georgia senator in Congress in 1871 completed the process for all the former states in rebellion, not even a diehard Radical could legitimately stretch the definition of wartime anymore....Whether the war ended in the spring of 1865, or with Johnson's declaration of August 1866, or not until 1871, all of these endpoints featured no negotiated settlement and no intervention by a third party....Ultimately, what happened in the United States was homegrown.”

No end dates given:

Guelzo, Allen C. Fateful Lightning: A New History of the Civil War & Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-19-984328-2. I found no statement of an end date for the war. I saw that the book ends with a lengthy analysis of consequences of the war without noting specific dates after Guelzo had written about the April surrenders.

Murray, Williamson and Wayne Wei-Siang Hsieh, A Savage War: A Military History of the Civil War. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2016. ISBN 978-0-691169408 has an extended analysis at the “end of the war” but does not carry on the narrative of events beyond the surrender of Johnston's army.

Starr, Steven. The Union Cavalry in the Civil War 3 volumes, does not specify an end date for the war and does not carry the narratives beyond the Grand Reviews. Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Juneteenth June 19,1865 is by federal mandate the end of the Civil war.

As a federal holiday proclaiming the end of the civil war and the enslavement of black slaves. June 19 1865 is the end of the Civil war. Not the made-up date of May 9, 1865, someone came up with. 184.16.71.20 (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A major point of the above threads was to show that May 9 was not a proper date for the end of the war, so that is quite right. However, to assert that June 19 is the correct date based solely on the recent proclamation of a federal holiday, which is a rememberance only of the freedom of the slaves in general and not the end of the war, is also quite simply wrong, without historian or other support and an example of "recentism". See the threads above especially that concerning historians and contemporaries views of the end of the Civil War. No source or scholar views General Granger's order with respect to Texas and the freedom of the slaves in Texas, which was already proclaimed as to the Confederate States by the Emancipation Proclamation, as ending the war or freeing the slaves, just simply as notification of the freedom of the slaves which no doubt was otherwise ignored in Texas. In addition, other and earlier annoucements in other States, such as North Carolina, were the same as General Granger's announcement. May 26 or surrender of the armies is the date given by the majority of historians and every contemporary source that mentions a specific date that research for the extensive postings here has found. No reference or source is cited, and none can be found, for June 19, 1865 being the end of the Civil War in fact, or even "by federal mandate." More than 150 years of history cannot be overturned "by federal mandate." Donner60 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Donner60 above; clear consensus this isn't a good single end date. Hog Farm _Talk 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The only other date where major combat arms were surrendered past June 19 would be June 23, 1865 . Thats when the last Confederate general surrendered his army. Also, June 23 is the day after the last confederate attack at sea by the Shenandoah. The union considered the war over by July 1, 1965 as that is the start of mass discharges of Union troops. IF you look at the federal rolls of soldiers under arms July,Augest,September Whole armys were disbanded. If you went with June 23,1865 that would be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.16.71.20 (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable suggestion but it won't work in view of the weight of most, if not all, contemporaries and many historians' views on the end date as May 26, 1865. I would not have brought up the end date question if that had been the date used. June 23 is mentioned in the end of the war section and both dates, June 19 and June 23, are shown in the text if the article and the Conclusion of the American Civil War article, which is linked twice in this article. May 26, 1865 seems to be the most widely accepted, and is indeed a quite accurate, end date, especially with explanation and inclusion of other dates signifying in one way or another the end of the war. Donner60 (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

is it, source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Assume you are referring to missing June 19 reference in end of war section. I had put June 19 only in timeline on talk page; thought it was in article but I had not added it; should have checked more closely rather than adding that date to above (probably unnecessary) reply from recent memory; is now in end of war section; was and is in conclusion article. Donner60 (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

NO I am asking for a source that says this is the official (federally mandated) end to the USCW. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's in the article and in the threads, especially the historians/contemporary views thread above, with citations. The date is settled by the reliable, verifiable sources cited. As to the end of the hostilities, the weight of historian's viewpoints has been and contemporary opinion was, that the end date was May 26, 1865. As established by a law of Congress anticipating a presidential proclamation, the definitive presidential proclamation itself of August 20, 1866 and the 1867 law referencing it, the legal end date of the war was the date of that proclamation This was confirmed by the cited and quoted U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Anderson, 76 U.S. 56 (1869), cited and quoted above and cited in the article. There is no later or other "officially mandated" end of the war and Wikipedia guidelines and policies certainly don't require that something different, which doesn't exist, should be added.

You appear to be looking for something in regards to Juneteenth and perhaps a recent Congressional act that declares this date was the end of the war. This is the entire text of the law establishing Juneteenth as a holiday and it says nothing about the end date of the war.

Shown at Congress.gov here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/475/text in its entirety

Public Law No: 117-17 (06/17/2021)

117th Congress Public Law 17

From the U.S. Government Publishing Office

Page 135 STAT. 287

Public Law 117-17

117th Congress

An Act

To amend title 5, United States Code, to designate Juneteenth National Independence Day as a legal public holiday.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Juneteenth National Independence Day Act.

SEC. 2. JUNETEENTH NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE DAY AS A LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY.

Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to Memorial Day the following:

"Juneteenth National Independence Day, June 19.".

Approved June 17, 2021.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 475:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 167 (2021):

June 15, considered and passed Senate.

June 16, considered and passed House.

DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2021):

June 17, Presidential remarks.

As Professor Blair wrote, as cited in footnote 1, "the sheer weight of scholarship has leaned toward portraying the surrenders of the Confederate armies as the end of the war." If you can come up with anything that supplements or refutes Professor Blair and the numerous cited reliable sources that are verifiable, often to online sources, feel free to cite them. The sources I have cited are in full compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and overwhelmingly support the changes made. They are more than thoroughly and extensively researched for the article. They are also shown in more extended references and quotes in the talk page threads. And they are not based on a personal opinion or interpretation. Donner60 (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the May 26 1865 change. Until June 19 slaves in Texas were under confederate control. Obviously, the war is not over if your black and still a slave. Thousands of Confederate army and Navy people were still active until June 23,1865. Once the last General surrendered the president lifted the blockade on June 23,1865. It is obvious June 23,1865 is the correct date of the end of the war. July 1,1865 is when the Union Army started the mass discharges of troops . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It may seem obvious but the very change you suggest was rejected when I, in fact, added it previously. Now that I have fully and extensively researched the sources and found "the sheer weight of scholarship has leaned toward portraying the surrenders of the Confederate armies as the end of the war," I realize that the little support I had previously found for June 23, and any interpretation one might make from the sequence of events, simply is inadequate under Wikipedia guidelines and also historical scholarship and contemporary opinion.

I think you can at least agree that May 26 is a much more logical date than May 9 which was based solely on a modern interpretation of a NY Times headline and an overly broad reading of the limited language about the war almost being at an end and the limited application of the proclamation (actually dated May 10) and the fact that it was basically ignored at the time and has barely been mentioned by historians since. Even that obvious improvement of the article end date took much time, research and citations to establish beyond any reasonable argument to keep the previous date, or for that matter to use a different one. The different events that ended the war are stated, however, in the end of the war section and the conclusion of the American Civil War article. In some respects, the end of the war was a series of events and at least a few historians frame in that way.

The talk page threads showing the extensive research and, more briefly but still adequately, the article changes and added footnotes show the best dates to use: May 26, 1865 for the end of hostilities, August 20, 1866 for the legal end date. Even though August 20, 1866 is acknowledged by various historians as the legal end date, almost all of them consider the end date to be when the fighting stopped and the major armies had surrendered. I think that would be the sense that most people would consider a war to end, that seems correct. And note, in a civil war, there is not going to be a formal peace treaty; there certainly wasn't in this civil war.

I suppose that one could argue that the war did not ending until all slaves were officially, legally freed by the Thirteenth Amendment but that would be a recentism reinterpretation and not based on the historical sources under Wikipedia guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The only thing i can say positive about the change from May 9,1865 to May 26,1865 it makes the monument for the Texas battle that occurred after May 9,1865 a Civil war battle and not some after the Civil war action. They key thing that proves the June 23,1865 Civil war end date is correct is the lifting of the anaconda plan of blocking Confederate ports. That would happen when the Union Government thought the war was over and it was time to rebuild. Until that point even though occupied ports they were considered hostile and not freely open to anyone not working for the union. The day the last Hostile Confederate General surrendered the Anaconda plan was lifted. And starting July 1,1865 mass discharges of Union army troops happened because they were no longer needed as no major Confederate combat force was active. When does a war end? When all the troops called up for war are now being sent home because the war is over. That happened soon after June 23,1865. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

There is one other important point looked over. The Union army was still drafting troops for the Civil war up to June 1,1865. IF the war ended on May 26,1865 how could they be drafted for a war that does not exist? 50.102.147.20 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Book correction

Footnote 296 had "James McPherson" (which should be "James M. McPherson") and Why did the Confederacy Lose?. There is no book by that title, by McPherson or anyone else. I took a guess and substituted Why the Confederacy Lost, edited by Gabor S. Boritt, which includes an essay by McPherson. Perhaps someone who has a copy of the book can see whether I guessed correctly and, if I did, insert the name of McPherson's essay, which is "American Victory, American Defeat," and a page number. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with fn.8

The hidden link, which you get to when you click DCAS Reports, is dead. The bare link under it is incorrect. The latter apparently should be https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/home. I give up trying to fix the footnote. Would someone else care to try? Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Apparently the page has been restructured, should be good now. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence has become practically unreadable (as have the first two citations), with four uses of parentheses!! I have absolutely no expertise in this topic, so do not want to change meanings by altering it. I would be most grateful if others could attempt tackling this. Aza24 (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done I removed the parentheses, tightened up paragraphing, and used parallel construction for percents-of-population, white and black.

FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE ARTICLE INTRODUCTION now reads:

The American Civil War (April 12, 1861– May 26, 1865) was a civil war in the United States between the United States, the Union or "the North", who were about two-thirds of the white male population, and the Confederacy or "the South", who were about one-third of the white male population. In 1860, four million of the 32 million Americans or about 13% were enslaved black people, almost all in the South. The central cause of the war was the status of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery into the western territories.

Rationale for white male proportions: The total 1860 popular vote among the white males eligible to vote in all US states in the Electoral College, among three candidates for Union totaled two-thirds of all votes cast: two presidential candidates publicly avowing to fight for Union against secession (Lincoln & Douglas), and a third presidential candidate (Bell) asserting any unilateral secession by a state without a Constitutional Amendment.

A fourth presidential candidate (Breckinridge) campaigned on "states' rights to secede". As Buchanan's Vice President, Breckinridge chaired the Joint Session of Congress to certify Lincoln's Constitutional election as US President in 1861, and then he tried to organize a constitutional secession of slave-holding states from the Union. However, neither the House nor Senate found a two-thirds majority for an Amendment. He subsequently resigned as a US Senator from Kentucky (serving from March 4, 1861), to accept a commission as a Confederate General in the Army of Virginia, until his 1865 appointment as Confederate Secretary of War. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments: