Johnston’s Surrender: Compare Joseph E. Johnston’s Surrender to Sherman in North Carolina with Lee’s Surrender to Grant in Virginia

Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

The conclusion of the American Civil War witnessed two pivotal surrenders that effectively ended Confederate resistance: Robert E. Lee’s surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia, on April 9, 1865, and Joseph E. Johnston’s surrender to William T. Sherman at Bennett Place, North Carolina, on April 26, 1865. While both surrenders marked the end of major Confederate armies, they differed significantly in their circumstances, negotiations, terms, and immediate consequences. This essay examines the comparative aspects of these two critical moments in American history, analyzing the military situations, political contexts, negotiation processes, surrender terms, and lasting impacts of each event. Through this comparison, we gain deeper insights into the complexities of ending a civil war and the different approaches taken by Union and Confederate leaders in securing peace and reconciliation.

Introduction

The American Civil War’s conclusion was not marked by a single decisive moment but rather by a series of surrenders that gradually brought Confederate resistance to an end. Among these, two surrenders stand out as particularly significant: General Robert E. Lee’s capitulation to Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia, and General Joseph E. Johnston’s surrender to Major General William T. Sherman at Bennett Place, North Carolina. These events, occurring within seventeen days of each other in April 1865, represented the effective end of organized Confederate military resistance and the beginning of the nation’s long journey toward reunification (McPherson, 1988).

The circumstances surrounding these two surrenders reveal fascinating contrasts in military strategy, political considerations, and personal leadership styles. While Lee’s surrender has often been romanticized as the quintessential end of the Civil War, Johnston’s surrender actually involved a larger number of troops and covered a broader geographical area. Moreover, the negotiations between Sherman and Johnston initially went far beyond military matters, attempting to address broader political questions about Reconstruction and the future of the South. Understanding these differences provides valuable insights into the complexities of ending a civil war and the challenges of transitioning from warfare to peace (Glatthaar, 2010).

Background and Context

Military Situation Leading to the Surrenders

The military situations that led to both surrenders were shaped by the Union’s overwhelming strategic advantages by early 1865. The Confederacy faced critical shortages of men, supplies, and resources, while Union forces had grown stronger and more coordinated in their operations. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, once the Confederacy’s most formidable fighting force, had been steadily weakened by the brutal Overland Campaign of 1864 and the prolonged Siege of Petersburg. By April 1865, Lee’s army numbered fewer than 30,000 effective troops, many of whom were poorly equipped, inadequately fed, and demoralized by months of defensive warfare (Trudeau, 2002).

In contrast, Johnston’s Army of Tennessee and other Confederate forces under his command in North Carolina represented the last substantial Confederate military presence in the field. Following the devastating March to the Sea and subsequent campaigns through South Carolina, Sherman’s forces had demonstrated the Union’s ability to operate with impunity in the Confederate heartland. Johnston, who had been recalled to command by Jefferson Davis in February 1865, inherited a desperate military situation with approximately 90,000 troops scattered across North Carolina, though many were demoralized militia and poorly trained recruits. The fall of Richmond and Lee’s subsequent surrender had effectively eliminated any hope of Confederate victory, leaving Johnston in an untenable position (Barrett, 1963).

Political Climate and Leadership Considerations

The political contexts surrounding both surrenders were markedly different, reflecting the evolving nature of the conflict and the Union leadership’s approach to ending the war. Lee’s surrender occurred at a time when President Lincoln was still alive and actively shaping Union policy toward the defeated South. Lincoln’s approach, as outlined in his Second Inaugural Address, emphasized malice toward none and charity for all, suggesting a relatively lenient approach to Reconstruction. Grant, as the Union’s commanding general, was well aware of Lincoln’s desires for a magnanimous peace and conducted his negotiations with Lee accordingly (Donald, 1995).

Johnston’s surrender, however, took place in a dramatically altered political landscape. President Lincoln’s assassination on April 14, 1865, had fundamentally changed the Union’s political leadership and potentially its approach to Reconstruction. Andrew Johnson’s ascension to the presidency created uncertainty about future policies toward the South, while Radical Republicans in Congress pushed for harsher treatment of the defeated Confederacy. Sherman, operating in this uncertain political environment and perhaps influenced by his own views on the need for comprehensive peace, initially exceeded his military authority by attempting to negotiate broader political settlements with Johnston (Marszalek, 1993).

The Surrender at Appomattox Court House

Circumstances and Negotiations

Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House emerged from a desperate military situation that left the Confederate commander with few viable options. After evacuating Petersburg and Richmond, Lee’s army had been in continuous retreat westward, harassed by Union cavalry and pursued by overwhelming infantry forces. The Confederate commander’s hope of reaching supplies at Lynchburg and potentially linking up with Johnston’s forces in North Carolina was effectively ended when Union forces blocked his path at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865 (Calkins, 1997).

The negotiations between Lee and Grant were conducted with remarkable civility and mutual respect, reflecting both commanders’ desire to end the bloodshed with dignity. Grant’s initial terms were generous, allowing Confederate officers and men to return home unmolested provided they observed their paroles and obeyed the laws. The Union commander’s magnanimity extended to practical matters as well, permitting Confederate officers to retain their sidearms and personal horses, recognizing that many would need these animals for spring planting. This approach reflected Lincoln’s policy of reconciliation and Grant’s understanding that harsh treatment of the defeated army might encourage guerrilla warfare or continued resistance (Simpson, 2000).

Terms and Immediate Consequences

The formal surrender terms at Appomattox were relatively simple and focused primarily on military matters. Lee’s army would lay down its arms, with officers giving their individual paroles and enlisted men signing company rolls before being released to return home. The approximately 28,000 Confederate soldiers present were allowed to retain personal property and horses, while Union forces provided rations to feed the hungry Confederate troops. These generous terms helped establish a precedent for other Confederate surrenders and demonstrated the Union’s commitment to magnanimous victory (Marvel, 2002).

The immediate consequences of Lee’s surrender extended far beyond the approximately 28,000 troops directly involved. News of the surrender spread rapidly throughout the remaining Confederate forces and civilian population, effectively ending hope for Confederate victory and encouraging other Confederate commanders to consider surrender. The respectful treatment of Lee and his army helped prevent the kind of bitter guerrilla warfare that might have prolonged the conflict indefinitely. However, the surrender also created challenges for the Union, as the sudden end of major military operations required rapid demobilization of Union forces and transition to peacetime governance of the occupied South (Wert, 2008).

The Surrender at Bennett Place

Circumstances and Negotiations

Johnston’s surrender at Bennett Place occurred under markedly different circumstances than Lee’s capitulation at Appomattox. While Lee had been cornered by superior Union forces with no realistic hope of escape, Johnston’s military situation, though desperate, still offered some theoretical options for continued resistance. The Confederate general commanded a larger force than Lee’s at Appomattox, with approximately 90,000 troops under his overall command, though many were poorly equipped militia and recent conscripts of questionable military value (Hughes, 2012).

The negotiations between Sherman and Johnston began on April 17, 1865, at Bennett Place, a small farmhouse near Durham Station, North Carolina. These discussions were complicated by several factors that had not been present at Appomattox, including Johnston’s broader authority over Confederate forces across multiple states and Sherman’s ambitious attempt to negotiate a comprehensive peace settlement. The talks were also influenced by Lincoln’s assassination, which had occurred just three days earlier, creating uncertainty about Union policy and adding urgency to the need for a settlement that would prevent further violence and potential guerrilla warfare (Bradley, 1995).

Initial Agreement and Federal Rejection

The initial agreement reached between Sherman and Johnston on April 18, 1865, was far more comprehensive than the purely military terms negotiated at Appomattox. Sherman’s draft agreement addressed not only the surrender of Confederate forces but also broader political questions including the recognition of existing state governments, the restoration of political rights to Confederate citizens, and guarantees regarding property rights and slavery. This ambitious document essentially attempted to establish the basic framework for Reconstruction, going far beyond Sherman’s military authority and into areas that were properly the province of civilian government (Glatthaar, 2010).

The reaction in Washington to Sherman’s initial agreement was swift and decisively negative. The new Johnson administration, influenced by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and other officials, rejected the terms as exceeding Sherman’s authority and potentially undermining federal policy toward the defeated South. Stanton’s public criticism of Sherman was particularly harsh, suggesting that the general had been duped by Confederate negotiators and had potentially committed treasonous acts. This rejection forced Sherman to return to Bennett Place and negotiate new, more limited terms similar to those granted to Lee at Appomattox (Marszalek, 1993).

Final Terms and Resolution

The final surrender terms agreed upon at Bennett Place on April 26, 1865, were much more limited in scope and closely followed the precedent established at Appomattox. Johnston’s forces would lay down their arms, with officers and men giving their paroles and returning home. The agreement covered not only Johnston’s immediate army but also Confederate forces across a wide geographical area, including parts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. This made Johnston’s surrender numerically larger than Lee’s, involving approximately 90,000 Confederate troops across multiple commands (Barrett, 1963).

The final resolution of the Bennett Place negotiations had several important consequences. For Johnston and his army, the terms provided an honorable end to military service while avoiding the harsh treatment that some feared might follow Lincoln’s assassination. For Sherman, the episode represented a significant professional challenge that temporarily damaged his reputation but ultimately demonstrated his commitment to ending the war quickly and completely. The surrender also effectively ended organized Confederate resistance in the Carolinas and Georgia, contributing to the rapid collapse of remaining Confederate forces throughout the South (Hughes, 2012).

Comparative Analysis

Military Aspects and Troop Numbers

The military aspects of the two surrenders reveal significant differences in scale and scope. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox involved approximately 28,000 Confederate troops, representing the remnant of what had once been the Confederacy’s premier army. These men were veterans of numerous campaigns but were exhausted, poorly supplied, and effectively trapped by superior Union forces. The surrender was a clear-cut military capitulation with no realistic alternatives available to the Confederate commander (Trudeau, 2002).

Johnston’s surrender, in contrast, involved a much larger number of troops—approximately 90,000—spread across multiple commands and geographical areas. While many of these were militia or recently conscripted troops of limited military value, the sheer numbers involved made Johnston’s surrender quantitatively more significant than Lee’s. The geographical scope was also broader, effectively ending Confederate military resistance across several states rather than just in Virginia. This difference in scale reflected Johnston’s broader command responsibilities and the different strategic situation in the Carolinas compared to Virginia (Barrett, 1963).

Leadership Styles and Negotiation Approaches

The leadership styles and negotiation approaches of the four principals involved—Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Johnston—revealed important differences in personality and strategic thinking. Grant’s approach at Appomattox was characterized by magnanimity tempered with firmness, reflecting both his natural generosity and his understanding of Lincoln’s policies toward the defeated South. His terms were generous enough to encourage acceptance while being simple enough to avoid political complications. Lee’s response demonstrated his practical understanding of the military situation and his desire to spare his men further suffering (Simpson, 2000).

Sherman’s initial approach at Bennett Place was more ambitious and politically oriented, reflecting his broader understanding of the war’s causes and his desire to achieve a comprehensive peace settlement. His willingness to address political questions directly, while ultimately exceeding his authority, demonstrated a strategic vision that went beyond purely military considerations. Johnston’s response was similarly broad-minded, showing his recognition that the Confederacy’s cause was lost and his desire to secure the best possible terms for his troops and the Southern civilian population (Glatthaar, 2010).

Political Implications and Federal Response

The political implications of the two surrenders differed dramatically, largely due to the different approaches taken by the Union commanders and the changed political situation following Lincoln’s assassination. Grant’s limited, military-focused terms at Appomattox received general approval from the Lincoln administration and helped establish a precedent for magnanimous treatment of defeated Confederate forces. The political simplicity of the arrangement avoided controversial questions about Reconstruction policy while achieving the immediate military objective of ending organized resistance (Donald, 1995).

Sherman’s initial attempt at comprehensive political settlement at Bennett Place, however, provoked a political crisis that temporarily damaged his reputation and highlighted the tensions between military and civilian authority in democratic governance. The harsh federal rejection of his initial terms, particularly Stanton’s public criticism, demonstrated the post-Lincoln administration’s determination to maintain tight control over Reconstruction policy. This episode illustrated the dangers of military commanders exceeding their authority, even with the best of intentions (Marszalek, 1993).

Long-term Impact and Historical Significance

Immediate Effects on Reconstruction

The immediate effects of both surrenders on Reconstruction were significant but different in nature. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, coming as it did while Lincoln was still alive, helped establish the tone of magnanimous victory that the martyred president had advocated. The generous terms granted to Lee’s army provided a model for treating defeated Confederate forces that helped prevent guerrilla warfare and encouraged other Confederate commanders to surrender rather than continue futile resistance. This approach contributed to the relatively rapid end of organized military resistance throughout the South (McPherson, 1988).

Johnston’s surrender at Bennett Place, while ultimately following the Appomattox model in its final form, had more complex immediate effects on Reconstruction. The initial controversy over Sherman’s exceeded authority highlighted tensions between different approaches to reunifying the nation and demonstrated the challenges of coordinating military and civilian policies during the transition from war to peace. The episode also illustrated how Lincoln’s assassination had changed the political dynamics of Reconstruction, with the new Johnson administration taking a more cautious approach to broad political settlements (Bradley, 1995).

Historical Memory and Commemoration

The historical memory and commemoration of the two surrenders have evolved differently over time, reflecting their different circumstances and the broader patterns of Civil War memory in American culture. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox has often been romanticized as the quintessential end of the Civil War, with popular culture emphasizing the dignity of both commanders and the magnanimous terms of surrender. This narrative has contributed to the “Lost Cause” mythology that portrayed the Confederate defeat as honorable and the Union victory as generous (Wert, 2008).

Johnston’s surrender at Bennett Place has received less attention in popular memory, despite involving more troops and covering a broader geographical area. This relative obscurity may be due to the controversy surrounding Sherman’s initial negotiations and the less dramatic circumstances of the final surrender. However, historians have increasingly recognized the significance of Johnston’s surrender in effectively ending Confederate resistance in the Carolinas and contributing to the rapid collapse of the remaining Confederate government (Hughes, 2012).

Conclusion

The comparison between Joseph E. Johnston’s surrender to William T. Sherman in North Carolina and Robert E. Lee’s surrender to Ulysses S. Grant in Virginia reveals the complexity of ending a civil war and the different approaches taken by military and political leaders in securing peace. While both surrenders shared the common goal of ending organized Confederate resistance, they differed significantly in their circumstances, negotiations, terms, and immediate consequences.

Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, though involving fewer troops, has achieved greater historical prominence due to its dramatic circumstances, the respectful conduct of both commanders, and its occurrence while Lincoln’s magnanimous policies were still in effect. The simple, military-focused terms established a precedent for generous treatment of defeated Confederate forces that helped prevent guerrilla warfare and encouraged rapid reconciliation.

Johnston’s surrender at Bennett Place, while ultimately successful in ending Confederate resistance across a broader geographical area, was complicated by Sherman’s initial attempt to negotiate comprehensive political settlements and the changed political climate following Lincoln’s assassination. The episode illustrated both the potential and the dangers of military commanders exceeding their authority in pursuit of broader peace settlements.

Together, these two surrenders marked the effective end of the American Civil War and the beginning of the challenging process of national reunification. Their comparison illuminates the different leadership styles, political considerations, and strategic approaches that shaped the war’s conclusion and influenced the early stages of Reconstruction. Understanding these differences provides valuable insights into the complexities of ending civil conflicts and the importance of coordinating military and civilian authorities in achieving lasting peace.

The legacy of both surrenders continues to influence American historical memory and understanding of the Civil War’s conclusion. While popular culture has often emphasized the drama and dignity of Appomattox, historical scholarship increasingly recognizes the broader significance of Johnston’s surrender in ending Confederate resistance and contributing to national reunification. Both events demonstrate the importance of magnanimous victory and respectful treatment of defeated opponents in achieving lasting peace after civil conflict.

References

Barrett, J. G. (1963). Sherman’s march through the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press.

Bradley, M. R. (1995). This astounding close: The road to Bennett Place. University of North Carolina Press.

Calkins, C. A. (1997). The Appomattox campaign: March 29-April 9, 1865. Combined Books.

Donald, D. H. (1995). Lincoln. Simon & Schuster.

Glatthaar, J. T. (2010). The March to the Sea and beyond: Sherman’s troops in the Savannah and Carolinas campaigns. Louisiana State University Press.

Hughes, N. C. (2012). Bentonville: The final battle of Sherman and Johnston. University of North Carolina Press.

Marszalek, J. F. (1993). Sherman: A soldier’s passion for order. Free Press.

Marvel, W. (2002). Lee’s last retreat: The flight to Appomattox. University of North Carolina Press.

McPherson, J. M. (1988). Battle cry of freedom: The Civil War era. Oxford University Press.

Simpson, B. D. (2000). Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph over adversity, 1822-1865. Houghton Mifflin.

Trudeau, N. A. (2002). Out of the storm: The end of the Civil War, April-June 1865. Little, Brown and Company.

Wert, J. D. (2008). The sword of Lincoln: The Army of the Potomac. Simon & Schuster.