Talk:American Civil War/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 24

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Huntcanwritesogoodlike.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Events leading to US Civil War template

I am wondering: The infobox for the Civil War is already quite long in the regular view of the article. The {{Events leading to US Civil War}} makes another long column on the right-hand side. I am wondering if the template can be removed since the first section is "Causes of secession", with a {{Main}} link to Origins of the American Civil War, which has that template.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No objection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson I'm not strongly invested, but I do kind of like it. I don't think its really doing any harm by being there: its just taking up what would otherwise be whitespace due to the very long table of contents. As a side note, I do at some point intend to tweak that template some, organize it better if I can. Maybe trim some entries. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. You're right - the only purpose would be to create some negative / white space. (Oh my, you'd almost think I knew what I was talking about. I just never had a chance before this to use it in a sentence. Have no idea when or how much white space is good.) –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The photos and their captains are not aligned on phone

Note sure if it’s caused by the responsive layout but they are misaligned.

Also, I think there is a missing bullet point in front of the first line of the result “Union victory” 50.54.240.148 (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For people like me who work on a laptop, here's the link to the mobile view of the article. I don't think a bullet is missing for "Union victory" in the infobox. It's a heading / key point with related bullets.

I see your point about the images. I'll see what I might be able to do.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's summary of what I did, just so that it's clear that I did have a strategy:

• There were some cases where the file information was imbedded at the end of a paragraph. It gets kind of lost in the wikilinks, so I put them on their own rows for easy identification, but without changing the spacing.
• In some cases the image was placed a row or more about above the section heading. I moved it down to fall under the section heading, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION.
• I moved images to be inline with (or close to) the relevant text.
• Added wikilinks to relevant articles and subsections - more of a personal preference for those of us who scan the images. Not a big deal, but it might be nice to at least keep the ones to specific battles and subsections.
• I removed one image (about bayonet charges, with no relevant text, and where there was crowding. I swapped in one image about a battle - replacing two less important aspects.
• In some cases I changed the font size to the default size if large doesn't seem needed (people can always click on the image to zoom in).

That's my take. See what you think of the layout now. And, whether it's better to find some of the generals in action, like on a horse on a battlefield, over a portrait.

How is the article looking in mobile view now?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Correction: "about" to "above". Indented last two rows.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

Please remove the word" BLACK" to Africans Free Men wear no labels 173.26.65.146 (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

MAybe that is true, but as many of them were not free at the start of the war (and indeed in some places even after it for a while) I am unsure this is a valid argument. Also plenty of RS use the term black.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Tags in article

There are several places where there are tags in the article.

• Yesterday I added content and a source re: Prince Albert here
• Regarding However, neo-Confederate writers [who?] have claimed it as a Southern grievance. In 1860–61 none of the groups that proposed compromises to head off secession raised the tariff issue.[100] - What is needed here? Why isn't "neo-Confederate writers" enough?

 Done Removed the {{who}} tag. Not sure why this is needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• For this The adoption of this compromise likely would have prevented the secession of every Southern state apart from South Carolina, but Lincoln and the Republicans rejected it.[120][better source needed] It was then proposed to hold a national referendum on the compromise. The Republicans again rejected the idea, although a majority of both Northerners and Southerners would likely have voted in favor of it.[121][better source needed] and citation needed tags:

 Done Resolved better source tags here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to look into this, but would like to first choose among the best Civil War books. What do you think of this list:

• Battle Cry of Freedom (1988), by James McPherson: Widely regarded as the most authoritative one-volume history of the war.
• The Fiery Trial (2010), by Eric Foner: A new Pulitzer-Prize-winning and authoritative account of President Abraham Lincoln's navigation through the politics of abolition; it won the Pulitzer Prize for History.
• This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War (2008), by Drew Gilpin Faust: A moving examination of the ways in which the slaughter changed Americans' ideas on mortality and influenced the way they chose to remember the war.
• Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant (1885): it "surpasses any other military memoir of the Civl War and stands alone as the best presidential autobiography every published," says Joan Waugh, author of U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth (2009), itself a fine biography.
• Robert E. Lee: A Biography (1934-35), by Douglas Southall Freeman: A portrait of the man in full four volumes on the leader of the Army of Northern Virginia.
• Mary Chesnut’s Civil War (1981), edited by C. Vann Woodward: a collection of writings, in diary form, of the doyenne whose sharp eye and tart tongue left an indelible impression of civilian life in the South during the war years.

• The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties[which?]... Does this just need to be reworded to something like "federal properties for the Confederate states that left the Union"? Something else?

 Done here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Potter says Davis's new Confederate government sent 3 delegates to negotiate a peace treaty. No mention of paying for federal property. I revised accordingly. Rjensen (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks, Rjensen.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the sources, perhaps a better question is: What are the best sources in American Civil War#Bibliography. Who are among the best Civil War sources that are missing in this article?-CaroleHenson (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

... for resolving the 34 citation needed tags and the other tags.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubt they are "missing" per se, they are probably not used every place they could be though, and it involves pulling down the books and going over it again. One thing that unfortunately happens in our editing process is refs get separated from content (one of the "annoying" ones for me is a paragraph is supported by a source, but then someone comes along and breaks up the paragraph -- it is what it is though.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I know exactly what you are talking about. Bugs me, too, when cited paragraphs are split without adding the citation mid-split.

It sounds like the easiest thing is to go back and try and find out when the splits were made. I will try a year back, two years back, etc. to see if I can find a clean cited and pre-split version(s).–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, There was a pretty good version of the article in March 2015. I was able to glean some citations, but it looks as if there is a fair amount of uncited content that has been that way for a number of years.

So, it seems that the next best step is to identify good sources to review. Noone has stepped forward stating that the sources above are problematic, McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. seems to be one of the best books about the Civil War - and is already used in this article... so my next step is to see if I can use that as a source for as many of the uncited content that I can. Please let me know if you — or anyone else — has a better approach.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Update {{who}} tag above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC) More updates + added {{done}} to make it easier to spot the updates. Now there are 29 (from 34) {{citation needed}} tags.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson McPherson's book is my preferred source. I have been slowly going through it with a fine focus and bringing this article up to snuff, but its slow going. I always end up improving some sub-article first... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

CaptainEek, Good to know, thanks! McPherson doesn't provide great definitions, from what I have seen so far - so I am using Jones, Terry L. (2011). Historical Dictionary of the Civil War for that. I hope that's okay. And, then picking a way at other uncited content researching McPherson first, and then other sources where needed. Does that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson Great work! Keep it up! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Real reason for civil war

This article is historically inaccurate. The real reason why the confederates are fighting is to protect their state’s rights from Northern Aggression.. Not slavery 107.77.203.124 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Or not, as recent (I.E. non lost cause narrative) says it was, as they did at the time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings, but I feel that both considerations should be presented. The three sources used to make the statement that is was definitely not about states rights, seem weak and potentially biased. I'm sure we can find as many or more that will argue the opposite. I would say that it was about states' rights, but that the right most contested was slavery. However, there were other trade and cultural considerations. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

States right to have slaves http://civildiscourse-historyblog.com/blog/2018/7/1/secession-documents-south-carolina Robjwev (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kevin Murray The other considerations are discussed, and given their WP:DUE weight, which is: not much. I do intend to improve the causes sections further, since they are still not top quality. But scholarly sources overwhelmingly agree: the cause was slavery. So aside from ensuring the quality of the other sections, I'm not sure what you suggest. Regarding the quality of sources in the States rights section though, there are actually some 6 sources in the section, among them the quote from McPherson, who I think sums it up the best. Seeing as McPherson's is one of the most eminent and qualified Civil War historians, I think that section is sufficient. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding; I appreciate you caring. As you say there is room for improvement as the section is not "top quality". As a long term wikipedian, the section strikes me to be written more as an argument lacking credibility, than it does inaccurate. The tenor and tone seem defensive. I have never liked extensive use of quotes and references in the text to one or a few writers, possibly move to footnotes? One of the cited sources for the statement about "consensus of historians" is a political reporter at Quartz, I think removing that reference would be an improvement; the other two seem to be respected authorities. Iam less of a writer at WP lately, but I love the project and like to see our credibility remain high. Please reachout to me when you have worked toward your goals. I would be happy to be a sounding board and assist you as I can. Cheers and thank you! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with you all. This sounds like a high schooler's US History notes or something. Completely obliterates any complexity/nuance for an extremely superficial narrative that is not-so-subtly influenced by 21st century political narratives. There was violent disagreement in most states over the prospect of secession, civil war, and slavery. Most people even in the South did not own slaves. And freed blacks often faced terrible discrimination in the North. The whole section is really just a disgrace, I hope someone more capable scraps the entire thing and rewrites it. 128.12.88.50 (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The section at this article is a summary. The full narrative is covered elsewhere, see Origins of the American Civil War. Though I am open to specific suggestions on how to improve, I very much doubt the overall thesis will change. In short: slavery was the overwhelming cause of the war, the backdrop to all other issues, and one of the chief political concerns in 19th century American politics. The war would not have started but-for slavery. This view is very well supported by the sources. Not just 21st century ones, McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom is from the 80's. So absent someone putting forward a quality scholarly book arguing otherwise, I can't see removing slavery as the focus, or trying to raise other concerns as supposedly more important than is currently said. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I see, that article is indeed much better. I certainly don't dispute the centrality of the issue of slavery. But why does the history have to be told through the lens of this contrived dispute over 'the main cause' of the Civil War? If this is a summary for the naive reader, must they know of this pointless debate, what the good guys say, and what the bad revisionists (read: racists) say, before they even have a sense of the Civil War itself? It really drains the objectivity and depth I usually encounter on historical articles. So I guess my main suggestion would be to mention the controversy if you must, link to one of the several fuller articles about the controversy, and rewrite the section without the controversy coloring every subsection. One can discuss the role of States' rights without knowing that "Proponents of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy often suggest that the real cause of the war was states' rights." I don't care what "Proponents of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy" think!!! I'm not even entirely sure what this is referring to... even after looking at the enormous Wiki devoted specifically to that subject. 128.12.88.50 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the cause of the war, and I have citations if needed. The major issues that caused the American Civil War were slavery and the rights of states. The southern states used a system of slavery that abolitionists in the north believed was immoral. The southern states believed that outsider attempts to limit slavery were interfering with states' rights. The slaves were Africans, who had a natural resistance to malaria that made them a superior labor force for harvesting crops that were essential to the southern economy. Thus, the war became a conflict where many northerners (the Union) sought to end the Confederacy for moral reasons, while Confederate states wanted to keep the status quo for economic reasons. TwoScars (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed; neither are your "thoughts on the cause of the war." If you have sources that say what you claim (without synthesis), I'm sure there's a section for it. If you find that historical consensus backs this (it doesn't), you can argue for changing it. But honestly I have a hard time understanding the argument that Confederate States were merely protecting abstract states rights, while ignoring the South's support for the Fugitive Slave Act, an act which subverts State authority to the Federal government for a single purpose: Slavery. Sheriffjt (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The previous two comments again illustrate why the cause of the war should not be presented in such a simplified and polarizing manner. It is obvious to anyone familiar with the history and documents leading up to the Civil War that both slavery and states rights were but-for, necessary, interwoven elements of the conflict.

Just read South Carolina's declaration of secession: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp. It very plainly explains that the attempt to dismantle the institution of slavery was viewed as a violation of the slaveholding states' sovereignty and property rights, leading to the secession. The insistence that 'slavery', to the exclusion of 'states' rights', must be the primary cause of the war, is baffling. One does not detract from the other. The slaveholding states viewed it as their right to retain the institution of slavery. States' rights were intruded upon. The specific 'right' was control over the institution of slavery. The current presentation contorts this into an absurd polarity, whereby discussion of states' rights--EVEN if the right is related to slavery--is delegitimized as the conspiratorial ravings of some "Lost Cause of the Confederacy." This is madness.

I cannot fathom why one would cling to the notion that those discussing the role of states' rights are somehow in opposition to those noting the primacy of slavery to the conflict. Why poison such an important part of our history? Must everything be cast as The Righteous Consensus vs. The Revisionist Conspiracy?? Again I would urge that this section be written without casting these two issues against each other. The frequent associations of "states rights" with revisionist motives, neo-confederates, and fringe perspectives are offensive and will taint the understanding of any casual reader. Such language should be removed entirely. 128.12.88.50 (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am a little confused. It would be really helpful to have reliable sources for recommended content changes, right? Otherwise, this seems to be just a war of words about differences of opinions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Edit: my response was overly harsh, I see you are making genuine improvements to the article and appreciate the effort. Toned it down.) What are you confused about? My argument is based on the fact that slavery and states' rights should not be in contention--slavery was the states right at issue. I cited and linked South Carolina's declaration of secession, though my point is already made in the article: "Historian James McPherson points out that even if Confederates genuinely fought over states' rights, it boiled down to states' right to slavery." (Citing McPherson in footnote). None of the premises on which my recommendations are based are disputed, though sources have been provided. 128.12.88.50 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this. I agree with the point of not trying to duplicate content that is already covered in other articles, like the Origins of the American Civil War. I have a thought, though. I wonder if there should be a Background section to discuss events up to about 1850:

• Economics in the Northern, Southern, and Deep South states leading up to the war (including tobacco, then cotton economies) -- and including information from the Sectionalism subsection
• Abolitionism
• Westward expansion, including Texas and Mexico

Then, in the Causes of secession section, the following subsections and how they are interrelated.

• Slavery, perhaps from an economic perspective
• State's rights
• Constitutional rights
• Territorial crisis
• Protectionism
• Nationalism and honor
• Lincoln's election

Would that help? Ideas for sources? Sorry if I came off too strong above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but I don't think I support it. Then the article would be quite overlong. We don't need to discuss the entirety of American history leading up to the war. I think the Origins article, and the links in this article, are sufficient. I don't that would fix the underlying issue: as a matter of American politics, a subset of people disagree with the historical consensus on the war. We can cover those political and historiographical disagreements, but we should give them only DUE weight and nothing more.

I agree that the "States Rights" issue boils down to a states' right to slavery, which is we've curated that quote from McPherson. But the other information has so far remained because when a lot of people say "states rights", they don't mean a state's right to slavery. They're using it as a canard to lessen the importance of slavery to the war. So if you have better suggested wording, it'd be appreciated. But I'm hesitant to just remove the discussion, which is a fundamental part of the modern dispute over the civil war. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• The current intro/causes section was hashed out several years ago. I don't know if going through that again is a good idea (not that there are not multiple ways to set up this article but I think the present is fine). The intro/causes section already basically goes over the relevant history-in-brief. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! No one else has weighed in so this seems a closed issue - no change to the American Civil War#Origins of the American Civil War subsections.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Casualties subsection: para. makes no sense

In the para. which starts “Confederate records compiled…” the second sentence has “brings the ..total to 94,000”, but that doesn’t make sense. And there’s no way that the figure at the end of the para. can be arrived at from others provided, so the final sentence makes no sense, either. Boscaswell talk 20:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

What to edit survey

Let's do a survey. Over the next week say if this article is a good article and should be nominated or if it is not a good article and should not be nominated. Please give detailed reasoning for your opinion. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not yet. I've been working on this article for a long while and I don't think so yet. I had to majorly rewrite whole sections, and I only got about a third of the way through. I'm only a third of the way through my copy of Battle Cry of Freedom, and every chapter I find more things that need changing or including. Plus a lot of old sources need double checking. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with the captain. I think this thread could be useful if we were to use this opportunity to figure out the quick-fail possibilities and address those immediately, then develop a to-do list and create a working group to move this forward. I have mentioned before that to me WWII is our model. WWII is a far more complex subject than this, with more casualties and affected, more global context and involvement, vastly more available sourcing, and more global impact. Yet the WWII page is tight, written entirely in summary style, and has been able to maintain this condition for a long time. In my mind, the primary work here is to 1) create and/or build sub articles to hold the material unnecessary here, 2) create a working outline of the target version on talk, and 3) prepare a section by section draft for talk approval by the group. Everything else comes after that. I'm not sure this article even qualifies for B-class at this moment. Given the difficulty of moving such a highly-visible page forward to GA, I'd estimate about three to six months' work. BusterD (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, this is not a good article. This is going to be a huge challenge, but we must do it. We gotta make this a good article. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Bonds

Sure what section this belongs in. "Our results suggest that European investors gave the Confederacy approximately a 42 percent chance of victory prior to the battle of Gettysburg/Vicksburg. News of the severity of the two rebel defeats led to a sell-off in Confederate bonds. By the end of 1863, the probability of a Southern victory fell to about 15 percent." [1] Benjamin (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsure that passes wp:RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Defenitely not becoming a source. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Changes

What should we change in this article to make it a good article? Let's try making a to-do list of things to change. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• End of the War date. See item posted immediately below and lengthy rationale posted in response to Captain Eek's post on End of the War further below. Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ping Possibly Interested Editors Regarding Changes; End of the War Date

@SteelerFan1933, BusterD, CaptainEek, Maurice Magnus, GELongstreet, Hog Farm, Djmaschek, Mojoworker, Jojhutton, Rjensen, CaroleHenson, Alanscottwalker, Kevin Murray, TheVirginiaHistorian, and TwoScars:.

To give the topic/posts above a little more current exposure, I am pinging editors who are interested in the American Civil War and seem to have been actively contributing to Civil War articles recently. I omitted a few users who I would have pinged some time ago but from whom I don't see recent activity or I see only minor activity on a few articles on different topics. I apologize to anyone whom I missed and invite those pinged to ping others whom they think may be interested. I invite anyone who sees this item and is interested to join the discussion and the article improvement project generally. I agree with Captain Eek and BusterD that this is not a "good article" as it stands. It makes many good, general points but certainly has at least a few ambiguities or mistakes, even omissions, and probably needs more citations.

Since this post has turned out to be a little longer than SteelerFan1933 probably anticipated being posted in the above topic on listing possible changes, I am posting it separately to be less intrusive. Also, somewhat regrettably I think, the topic is already a few months old and has yet to generate further notice or interest. I think that talk pages often do not attract much interest, absent some pings, and I must admit that I am not frequently alert to such posts.

For changes, although this is perhaps just a small point in the scheme of things,I would start at the very beginning with changing the end date for the war in the first sentence/infobox. I planned, and may need to have, a further post asking for consensus on that point. The main rationale for change is already stated in my lengthy post in response to CaptainEek in the thread on the end of the war below. The revert of my recent change of the date with brief edit summary explanation stopped me from proceeding with a further review of the article which I had embarked on. I have been working on a comprehensive analysis for the change of date. I intended/intend a review of this article to pick out items that I thought obviously needed editing, revision or references. CaptainEek and a few others have been doing, and have intended to do, more comprehensive work than that. (I can understand that a talk page discussion was probably needed for the change of end date due to the persistence of the May 9 date and the need to explain in detail why the basis for using it is inaccurate.)

I think the end date is of some significance because, as I explain in more detail in the thread below, May 9 (more accurately May 10) is not a good date to use for the end of the war. The reasons for using it do not stand up to analysis. It is based mainly on a faulty New York Times headline and a misinterpretation of the May 10 proclamation that it declared an end to the war (it didn't) and that it withdrew "belligerent rights" from "Rebels" as erroneously stated in the New York Times article headline. The proclamation's substantive order, which I link in full below, only applied to continuing commerce raider crews. A broader reading of "Rebels" is not supported by the language of the proclamation or by any references that I can find, which are few and noted. E.B. Long specifically states the application of the withdrawal of belligerent rights was only to commerce raiders. It did not criminalize further armed resistance or rebellion in general after the order date. I realize that the end of the war date is subject to differing opinions because it is not clear cut and may depend on context. However, I think that an end date in the first sentence of this article with a basis that can be so easily analyzed, criticized and rejected is not a good start. I provide links to the full language of the May 9 order and May 10 proclamation.

I will plan further review of this article in line with the proposal when I finish and post a new end of the war item below if I need to do so. Perhaps this will no longer be necessary or productive. Since I would ping the same editors for my planned additional post as I have done here, perhaps comments and consensus might be reached from the current thread started by Captain Eek below. Then I can move on to other items without thinking I gave up on a point of at least some significance. In any event, I hope to give more suggestions or revisions for this article as time permits. Revising such a large, comprehensive article as this one is certainly going to be a challenge and will take some time, even assuming considerable work by some and a consensus among the participants, much less others. I suppose it will likely need some considerable interest to move it up to GA. Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Number of deaths

Before the edits I just made, the entry stated, incomprehensibly:

Confederate records compiled by historian William F. Fox list 74,524 killed and died of wounds and 59,292 died of disease. Including Confederate estimates of battle losses where no records exist would bring the Confederate death toll to 94,000 killed and died of wounds. However, this excludes the 30,000 deaths of Confederate troops in prisons, which would raise the minimum number of deaths to 290,000.[6] This says that 94,000 + 30,000 = 290,000.

I took some guesses as to what was meant, but I did no research. Perhaps another editor will examine this further. The paragraph preceding the one I quoted was also poorly written and required some guesswork.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

At first, I thought that "74,524 killed and died of wounds and 59,292 died of disease" meant that 74,524 died of wounds and 59,292 died of disease, but I rejected that thought because those two numbers add up to more than 94,000. Therefore, I changed it to "74,524 deaths of which 59,292 were from disease." But, again, this was a guess.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus I don't think that is right either, because by your math, that means only 15,232 were killed/died of wounds, which is impossible. Frankly, I think we should probably just remove the whole paragraph and mention of Fox, since that total is from 1889! Much more modern and thorough work has been done on the subject. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing it is fine with me. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus and CaptainEek: Citing Dyer, Fox, Livermore and a few other sources, Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123. Page 710: "Exact counting was difficult then; it is, to understate the matter, impossible now." Page 710: "Total Federal army deaths from all causes are put at 360,222 by the War Department. Total battle deaths, both killed in action and mortally wounded numbered 110,100...Disease claimed 224,580, although the exact figure is in dispute. Of the total deaths in the Federal forces, some 30,192 died while prisoners of war." The remaining approximately 24,000 deaths were from a variety of stated additional causes. "...many men were wounded more than once. The Federal Army wounded are put at 275,175." The Navy listed "1804... as killed or wounded with 3000 dead of disease and accidents, and 2226 wounded." Page 711: "Casualties for the Confederacy are subject to more controversy than the Federal. Probably the best and most accepted estimate is 94,000 Confederates killed in battle or mortally wounded, while 164,000 died of disease. Total deaths came to 258,000. One incomplete record places wounded at 194,026. Estimates of Confederates who died in Northern prisons are put at 26,000 to 31,000. Total deaths in the Civil War for both sides may be placed at least at 623.026, with a minimum of 471,427 wounded, for a total casualty figure of 1,094,453." Even though 50 years old, I think this compilation, or something very close to it, represents the still commonly accepted numbers.

Modern research work and analysis makes an interesting and perhaps correct argument for revising the likely number of deaths and/or casualties to a higher number, although just what it should be is arguable. Some earlier authors acknowledged that the records, especially Confederate records as Long noted, were incomplete due to destruction or failures to file reports and the actual numbers could be higher than the commonly accepted numbers. On the other hand, many recent modern sources also still use the older numbers and some reject the new analysis outright. Two articles at the American Battlefield Trust web site are illustrative and I quote relevant sentences. From: "Should the number be higher?" https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/should-number-be-higher "Applying the tools of modern demographic and statistical analysis is immensely valuable to furthering our understanding of the Civil War--we are always striving to add new threads to the tapestry of our shared historical experience. Dr. Hacker provides important insight into the tragic loss of life from 1860-1870. However, his final estimate is very broad, includes civilian casualties, and is not directly linked to the war years of 1861-1865. The American Battlefield Trust will continue to use Fox's and Livermore's calculation of 620,000 military deaths in the Civil War. We look forward to continued research from Dr. Hacker and others." From: "Civil War Casualties" https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/civil-war-casualties "Compiling casualty figures for Civil War soldiers is a complex process. Indeed, it is so complex that even 150 years later no one has, and perhaps no one will, assemble a specific, accurate set of numbers, especially on the Confederate side." And after posing several unanswered and probably unanswerable questions related to compiling accurate numbers, the article concludes: "A wholly accurate count will almost certainly never be made." As information. Donner60 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Experts agree the old data is a bad estimate of Confederate soldier deaths. James M. McPherson states:

As I was working on my two syntheses of the Civil War era, Ordeal by Fire and Battle Cry of Freedom, I became increasingly aware that the standard estimate of 258,000 Confederate war dead was a significant undercount. Many Confederate records were lost or incomplete, especially for the last and bloodiest—year of the war. The number of disease-related deaths of Confederate soldiers was clearly underreported. There were no reported Confederate noncombat deaths from “miscellaneous” causes—accidents, drownings, causes not stated, et cetera—compared with nearly twenty-five thousand such deaths recorded for Union armies." [quote from p. 309 https://wordpress.viu.ca/davies/files/2018/03/A-Census-Based-Count-of-the-Civil-War-Dead.pdf .Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Right on the mark with an excellent reference, as always, Professor. Glad that we have interacted again - after quite a few years now. Donner60 (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

To follow up, citing McPherson, James M. "America's Wicked War" The New York Review of Books. February 7, 2013, Ron Chernow in Chernow, Ron. Grant. New York: Penguin Press, 2017, ISBN 978-1-59420-487-6, p. 516 wrote: "The Civil War had been a contest of incomparable ferocity, dwarfing anything in American history. It claimed 750,000 lives, more than the combined total losses in all other wars between the Revolutionary War and the Vietnam War." Donner60 (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

End date disputed?

I am not knowledgeable about this matter and am merely raising it for your consideration. Is the end date of Civil War really disputed, or is it, rather, subject to interpretation? In other words, is the question really, what constitutes the end of the Civil War? If so, then one's answer to that question would determine the end date, and "disputed" should be changed to "subject to interpretation."Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Disputed and subject to interpretation have a similar meaning in my mind? At any rate, see the above few sections where Donner has done some very extensive research into the end date, with no apparent scholarly consensus. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to "disputed" but I do not like "subject to interpretation" (in part, that phrase strikes me as a tone problem for the encyclopedia), and would prefer a one-word statement, perhaps, but not sure, "unclear" or "debated". Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I will change it to "debatable"; if either of you disagrees, I'll defer. I prefer "debatable" to "debated" because I don't know whether anyone debates it. The historians Donner lists have various interpretations, but that's because they view different events as constituting the end of the war. None seems to say that another historian is wrong. The date of the end of the war would seem to me a pointless question to debate, because the answer to the question is, "If you consider X the end of the war, then it ended on such-and-such date, but if you consider Y the end of the war, then it ended on a different date." There is no right answer to the question. To quote Donner: "Neff Page 205: "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." Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Insofar as historians are concerned, the end date is debatable or debated. However, many appear to either directly or indirectly (by naming several events but not singling out one of them) to favor the piecemeal over a period of time approach, Neff, Foote specifically. Insofar as what Wikipedia shows as an end date in the first sentence and the infobox is concerned, it is disputed. We have one or a few users who have insisted on the May 9 date (which should be May 10) and reverted my previous change. (June 23, 1865, the date of Stand Watie's surrender is accepted by Jamieson in particular as an end date.) So for the time being, unless those users are persuaded or there is a consensus of at least several users, and perhaps dispute resolution, the is disputed here with respect to the end date as placed in the article. The end date for the first sentence and the infobox is the question I think we are trying to answer. May 9/10 is not at all a good date in my opinion. I think I have posted enough information and analysis to show that, including works of historians and Grant's General Orders No. 90 cited above. I plan to have a summary analysis pointing to a few specific sources posted here, including two or three key new ones that I noted above, such as Neff, Grant, but I don't have time for a few days to put it together as properly as I would like. But since I noticed this post is drawing some answers or comments regarding the question now, I thought I should give a conclusion and a short analysis about the end date since it will be some days before I look at it for one last comment. It may be I can keep it about the same length as this post but better organized and to the point.

Most of the specific references that I have discovered, and the almost total lack of support by historians for May 9 or 10 being an exact date, with most not mentioning that date(s) at all, clinch either the date range conclusion or May 26, I think. So I am willing to state my conclusion that the "Spring 1865" or "April-June 1865" (May?) end dates are the best fit with many, though admittedly not quite all, historians and sources that I have found. I think the firm date of May 26, expressed by Bruce Catton, Alvin Josephy, Noah Andre Trudeau, Robert Dunkerly and some others, is the next best, probably the best for a single date, if we must use one. Officially of course the Trans-Mississippi surrender did not occur until June 2, 1865 and the Supreme Court held that the legal date for the end was August 20, 1866. Note the contemporary sources: E.A. Pollard's "Lost Cause..." referenced above concludes that there was no armed resistance left after the Smith surrender, dated to May 26. Also, the US Attorney in the 1867 (1869) Anderson case noted above also cited May 26 as the date of the suppression of the rebellion. So a strong case for May 26, 1865 appears possible. "Debatable" will require an explanation, though in fact some of the text, even in the introduction, also points to various dates. We would need to be sure it explains that debatable or different dates for different purposes is expressed regardless of the term or date is the starting point end date in the first sentence and infobox. Donner60 (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I should have looked at the change being made before commenting on what I thought was a substitution rather than an addition. At least the addition is an improvement. However, I think the May 9 is unacceptable as a stated date for the reasons I have given earlier on the page and also summarized in the previous post. I'll add my further analysis and ping users pinged earlier when I post it. I hope that post will be no later than the end of this week. Donner60 (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll note my original edit put April 9, but it was changed back to May 9. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Historians on the End of the American Civil War

This thread has been expanded, revised and thus superseded by Talk:American Civil War#Historians/Contemporaries Views on the End Date of the American Civil War a few threads below, revised as late as July 29, 2022.

I post this in a separate thread in order to not unduly lengthen the already long "end of the war" thread and to allow for a more clear end to the thread through opinions, comments or recommendations as to whether the end date in the article should be changed. I may post my final analysis and recommendation there or summarize there and put citations and comments in support in yet another post.

Works of historians searched for this post often end with an event or several events at the end of the war without specifying one of them as "the" end date. I have noted a few of these in summary for noted historians. I do not have access to every possible source for these viewpoints, of course. So I cannot claim this post is all-inclusive or that I did not miss something. I found few references to the May 9 (actually May 10) order at all, much less any that declared it an end date or criminalized future actions; General Grant's May 11, 1865 order, not generally noted in the histories, does appear to do so, thus I include it at the end. I do think is representative of how historians treat the end of the war.

Most likely this will be the complete compilation that I will post in this thread unless I happen to come across something as I write up my final comments. If any editors have any further relevant quotations, I invite them to add them to this list.

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."

Catton, Bruce. Grant Takes Command. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1968. ISBN 978-0-316-13210-7. p. 490 "Sheridan and his new army did not have to fight anyone. Smith surrendered on May 26, bringing the last of the Civil War to a close."

Dunkerly, Robert M. To the Bitter End: Appomattox, Bennett Place and the Surrenders of the Confederacy. El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beatie, 2015. ISBN 978-1-61121-252-5. Page 116: "Buckner arrived first. On May 26, he, Maj. Gen. Sterling Price, and Maj. Gen. Joseph L. Brent arrived at Baton Rouge the proceeded on to New Orleans. At the St. Charles Hotel, Buckner met with Union Maj. Gen. Peter Osterhaus, representing Canby." P. 117: "Buckner and Carter proposed to surrender their forces based on the same terms granted at Appomattox and Bennett Place. These were the only terms Union commanders were authorized to accept, so there was little to discuss." "On May 27, Smith reached Houston, only to learn that his war was over. The day before, Buckner had surrendered the Trans-Mississippi Department on his behalf." P. 131: "There Watie surrendered the First Indian Cavalry Brigade, consisting of Cherokee, Creek, Seminole and Osage troops. This was the last Confederate military force to surrender." "Rather than a surrender, this was actually a treaty of peace, ending hostilities and returning the Cherokee to their former relationship with the United States government." P. 139: "On August 20, 1866, President Andrew Johnson declared the War officially over." P. 144: "Long neglected in traditional Civil War studies, the surrender process of the Trans-Mississippi has almost no tangible remains today."

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.)

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..."

(Note: I would like to see the case, which Foote does not cite, to see where an end of the war statement is mentioned in context in an opinion by all nine justices. 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." I will spend a little time more looking for the "nine justices" case. So far I have not found it and I think it will be difficult to find in history books and articles, especially without a citation.)

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..."

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."

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.

Jamieson, Perry D. Spring 1865: The Closing Campaigns of the Civil War. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2015. ISBN 978-0-8032-2581-7. Page 204: "With the surrender of Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, Federal forces extinguished the once-raging bonfire of Confederate military resistance. But some embers remained scattered across the South, and they continued to glow. Each was small but had to be stamped out against the possibility, however slight, that the fire would rekindle." Page 214: "With Watie's capitulation, the last of the scattered embers was extinguished."

Josephy, Jr., Alvin M., The Civil War in the American West. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1991. ISBN 978-0-394-56482-1. p. 385: "On May 26, 1865, more than six weeks after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox in northern Virginia, General Simon Bolivar Buckner, acting for General Kirby Smith, surrendered what was left of the Trans-Mississippi Confederacy to Major General Edward R. S. Canby. One month after that, on June 23, 1865, General Stand Watie, the weather-beaten, bowlegged Cherokee guerrilla leader, came into Doaksville, the capital of the Choctaw's country in the Indian Territory, and surrendered his Southern Indian forces to Federal officers. He was the last Confederate general to stop fighting. With his submission, the Civil War in the American West came to an end."

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."

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.

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, 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. In McPherson, James M. 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, McPherson ends the last chapter before the epilogue with Lee's surrender, Lincoln's April 11 address from the White House balcony and John Wilkes Booth's reaction. He starts the epilogue with "The weeks after Booth fulfilled his vow on Good Friday in a dizzying sequence events." One of those listed is "...Confederate armies surrendering one after another as Jefferson Davis fled southward hoping to re-establish his government in Texas and carry on the war to victory...." McPherson, Battle Cry, p. 853.

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..."The question of determining when the Civil War itself came to an end – i.e. when the state of war between the two sides terminated – was distinct from the military surrenders. This was not merely an empty exercise for obscurantists. A number of important practical questions turned on it." (listed)

Neff Page 205: "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 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. [2] It is apparently necessary to understand the diplomatic language used at the time for such matters to discern Neff's interpretation. It may appear a little dense and technical to a modern reader without Neff's expert analysis.

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."

Pollard, Edward A. The Lost Cause; A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates. New York, E. B. Treat & Co., 1867. Reprint by New York: Bonanza Books, 1974. ISBN 978-0-517-16010-7. A Southern view of the end of the war from E. A. Pollard, Editor of the Richmond Examiner during the War in 1866/67 (leaving out any consideration of Stand Watie's force). Page 725-726: "On the 26th of May, and before the arrival of Sheridan's forces, he [Kirby Smith] surrendered what remained of his command to Gen. Canby. The last action of the war had been a skirmish near Brazos in Texas. With the surrender of Gen. Smith, the war ended, and from the Potomac to the Rio Grande there was no longer an armed soldier to resist the authority of the United States."

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.

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."

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.

Posting this again here because it seems quite relevant: 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. [3] Donner60 (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Donner60 You've done some really awesome research here, it would make a great addition to Conclusion of the American Civil War, which is kinda skimpy. I just expanded it a bunch, but more work could be done. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Great work. I am sorry to suggest, but perhaps we should also survey how tertiary sources (encyclopedia) deal with it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I had previously searched in:

• 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.
• Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: 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. Articles cited > In Historical Times Illustrated History of the Civil War, edited by Patricia L. Faust. New York: Harper & Row, 1986. ISBN 978-0-06-273116-6.
• Heidler, David S., and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000. ISBN 978-0-393-04758-5. Articles cited> 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. and
• 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.

I only quoted Wagner because I could find nothing in the other works that I previously searched on the subject. Then again, there could be an article title that is less obvious than the ones I searched that has something in it that I missed. I'll look at a few other possible headings. I have a few other works that are similar but shorter and I think less likely to have something specific but I will look at them later in the week. As for more general encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, I would be able to look at whatever I can find on line. I won't have time to do this for a few days at least - and I will need to defer all but the most general reply to the following thread as well. Donner60 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

While I am dubious as to the quality of other online encyclopedias, here's what I found:

• Encyclopedia.com: "There Lee surrendered on 9 April. A few days later, Johnston surrendered to Sherman at Raleigh, North Carolina. With the surrender of the two major field armies resistance throughout the South ended despite the pleas of President Davis. The war was over."
• Britannica Counts April 26, i.e. Johnston's surrender.
• New World Encyclopedia Doesn't give an exact date, just 1861-1865. Its relevant paragraph mentions April 9, May 13, and the Shenandoah.
• Encyclopedia Virginia April 26.

Of course I think paper encyclopedias probably have more convincing arguments for their dates, but this gives some context. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This thread has been expanded, revised and thus superseded by Talk:American Civil War#Historians/Contemporaries Views on the End Date of the American Civil War a few threads below, revised as late as July 29, 2022.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

For the 1 million death number in the infobox, I propose adding this NYT source, given below:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/books/sick-from-freedom-by-jim-downs-about-freed-slaves.html

While the current quote text provides information about the origin of the number, I think it would be easier/nicer for readers to directly read the information from a source. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:977:EFAC:754B:F185 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC) 2601:85:C101:C9D0:977:EFAC:754B:F185 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Well the NYT source doesn't actually mention the one million number, and explicitly says "the statistics offered in “Sick from Freedom” are certainly sobering, if necessarily tentative." I wouldn't call that a rousing endorsement from the Times. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

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

In his 1967 paper, [4] 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 [5] 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 [6]

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 [7]

• 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 [8] 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 [9]

"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 [10]:

"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 [11]

"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: [12]

"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 [13]] 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 [14]

"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 [15]

"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 [16]

• [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. [17] 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 [18]

"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 [19]

"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. [20]

• Army and Navy Journal, July 22, 1865 Page 763 Volume II Number 48 [21]

"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 [22]

"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. [23]

• Army and Navy Journal, November 11, 1865, p. 187 [24]

"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 [25]

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) [26], 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. [27]

"Lieut. Gen. U. S. Grant:

"....

Page 1082 [28]

"....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 [29]

"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 [30]

"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. [31]

"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 [32]

"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 [33]

"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 [34] 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)