Talk:Conclusion of the American Civil War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

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 with others. I do think is representative of how historians treat the end of the war.

If any editors have any further relevant quotations, I invite them to add them to this list.

Original texts of June 14, 2022, July 5, 2022 and July 25, 2022 are now replaced with this revised and expanded text.

I thought my original compilation would be complete but I found some additional sources, including from the Civil War period, which I think add some value to how the end date of the war has been seen over the years.

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

I originally prepared this to support a change in the infobox and first line of the article. Whether this results or not is still in question but is heading toward a resolution on July 25, 2022. Regardless of the outcome, this material may be of interest and of use in further research or for inclusion in this or another article, such as Conclusion of the American Civil War.

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

1865: Predicated on the surrender of the armies

• The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series 1, Volume 46, Part 3, Page 1134. [2]: May 11, 1865. “General Orders No. 90 } War Department, Adjt. General's Office, Washington, May 11, 1865. Punishment of Guerrillas.

“All the forces of the enemy east of the Mississippi River having been duly surrendered by their proper commanding officers to the Armies of the United States, under agreements of parole and disbandment, and there being no authorized troops of the enemy east of the Mississippi River, it is - “Ordered', That from and after the first day of June, 1865, any and all persons found in arms against the United States, or who may commit acts of hostility against it east of the Mississippi River, will be regarded as guerrillas and punished with death. The strict enforcement of this order is especially enjoined upon the commanding officers of all U.S. forces with the territorial limits to which it applies. “By command of Lieutenant-General Grant: “E. D. TOWNSEND, “Assistant Adjutant General”

1865: May 26: Kirby Smith's Surrender

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

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

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

"END OF THE REBELLION.; THE LAST REBEL ARMY DISBANDS. Kirby Smith Surrenders the Land and Naval Forces Under His Command. The Confederate Flag Disappears from the Continent. THE ERA OF PEACE BEGINS. Military Prisoners During the War to be Discharged. Deserters to be Released from Confinement. [OFFICIAL.] FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GEN. DIX. [3] The New York Times; May 29, 1865. Page 1. "WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, May 27, 1865.... "Maj.-Gen. Dix: "A dispatch from Gen. CANBY, dated at New-Orleans, yesterday, the 26th inst., states that arrangements for the surrender of the Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi Department have been concluded. They include the men and material of the army and navy. EDWIN M. STANTON, "Secretary of War."

1865: Trans-Mississippi surrender order

• The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series 1, Volume 48, In Two Parts. [4] Part 2, Page: 530

General Orders No. 24 } Headquarters Third Div., 7th Army Corps. Fort Smith, Ark. June 2, 1865 …............. The Trans-Mississippi (rebel) Department having surrendered to General Canby on the 26th of May, requires that all soldiers in arms against the United States immediately report to the nearest military post, when they will be paroled on delivering their arms to the U. S. authorities. All such persons who remain in arms engaged in acts of hostility to the United States after a reasonable time to be informed of their surrender, will be regarded as guerrillas and outlaws, and when arrested will be shot. By Order of Brig. Gen. Cyrus Bussey: L. A. Duncan, Acting Assistant Adjutant-General

1865: May 26, 1865

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

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

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

1865: Total of Events

U.S. Army and Navy Journal, Volume 3, New York, August 26, 1865. [5] Page 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1870: May 26, 1865

Draper, John William. History of the American Civil War. [6] Volume 3. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1870. OCLC 830251756. Retrieved July 28, 2022.

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

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

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

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

1885: May 26, 1865: Adam Badeau

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

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

1886: May 26, 1865: Ulysses S. Grant

• Grant, Ulysses S. Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant. Volume 2. [7] New York: Charles L. Webster & Company, 1886. OCLC 255136538.

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

1886: May 26, 1865

• Logan, John A. The Great Conspiracy, Its Origin and History. New York: A. Hart & Co., Publishers, 1886. (Major General, Union Army) [8]

unpaginated e-book; end of Chapter XXX

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

1890: Kirby Smith Surrender (May 26, 1865)

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

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

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

• Dana, Charles A. Recollections Of The Civil War. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1902. [9] Copyright, 1898 By D. Appleton and Company. CHARLES A. DANA, Assistant Secretary Of War From 1863 To 1865

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

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

1905: May 26, 1865

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

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

1908: May 26, 1865

• Dyer, Frederick H. A compendium of the War of the Rebellion. [10] Des Moines, IA: Dyer Publishing Co., 1908. OCLC 8697590.

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

1911: Surrender of the armies; end of May 1865

• Nys, Ernest. Professor of International Law at the University of Brussels. Francis Lieber--His Life and His Work. [11] The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Apr., 1911). Published by: Cambridge University Press.

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

1919: May 26, 1865

• Stephenson, Nathaniel W. The Day of the Confederacy, A Chronicle of the Embattled South, Volume 30 in The Chronicles Of America Series. [12] New Haven: Yale University Press; Toronto: Glasgow, Brook & Co.; London: Oxford University Press, 1919

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

1919: May 26, 1865

• Ponsonby, Arthur, Wars And Treaties, 1815 to 1914. [13] London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.; New York The Macmillan Company, 1919'

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

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

• Walker, Wyndam Legh. Recognition of Belligerency and Grant of Belligerent Rights [14] Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 23, Problems of Peace and War, Papers Read before the Society in the Year 1937 (1937), pp. 177-210. Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

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

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

1963: May 26, 1865

• Robertson, Jr., James I. The Civil War. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil War Centennial Commission, 1963. OCLC 299955768. [15]

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

1965: May 26, 1865

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

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

• Murray, Robert B. The End Of The Rebellion. The North Carolina Historical Review, Vol. 44, No. 4 (October, 1967), pp. 321-341. Published By: North Carolina Office of Archives and History The North Carolina Historical Review [16]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Foote, Shelby. The Civil War: A Narrative. Vol. 3 (III), Red River to Appomattox. New York: Random House, 1974. ISBN 978-0-394-74622-7 p. 1013 cites the May 10, 1865 proclamation that “armed resistance to the authority of this Government in the said insurrectionary States may be regarded as virtually at an end. This was subsequently taken by some, including the nine Supreme Court justices to mark the close of the war...”

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

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

1982: Many events as recited.

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

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

• Trudeau, Noah Andre. Out of the Storm: The End of the Civil War, April–June 1865. Boston, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1994. ISBN 978-0-316-85328-6. In the May 11. 1865 “General Order No. 90 of the War Department stated unequivocally that 'from and after the first date of June, 1865, any and all persons found in arms against the United States, or who may commits acts of hostility against it east of the Mississippi River, will be regarded as guerrillas and punished with death.'” cited by Trudeau, p. 353.

Trudeau Pages 396-397: In the case of United States v. Anderson, 76 U.S. 56 (1869) “The U.S. attorneys argued that the Rebellion had been suppressed following the surrender of the Trans-Mississippi Department, as established in the surrender document negotiated on May 26, 1865. Anderson's lawyer, in turn, argued that the end of the war was a legislative matter, not a military one, and that Congress had previously recognized President Johnson's August 20 proclamation as the first official declaration that the Civil War had ended everywhere.

Trudeau Page 397: “The Supreme Court ruled that Nelson Anderson was entitled to recompense from the United States government for his cotton. The court's key determination was that the legal end of the American Civil War had been decided by Congress to be August 20, 1866 – the date of Andrew Johnson's final proclamation on the conclusion of the Rebellion. For legal purposes at least, the end of the Civil War was a matter of record.”

1995: Spring 1865

• McDonough, James L. Tennessee and the Civil War. [17] Tennessee Historical Quarterly Vol. 54, No. 3 (Fall 1995). Published by: Tennessee Historical Society

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

1997: Spring 1865

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

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

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

2003: May 26, 1865

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

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

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

• Wagner, Margaret E., Gary W. Gallagher, and Paul Finkelman. The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, Inc., 2009 edition. ISBN 978-1-4391-4884-6. First Published 2002. Civil War Time Line at page 51 has this in the entries for May, 10, 1865. “President Andrew Jackson proclaims armed resistance at an end – though one more small land engagement will be fought May 12 at Palmito Ranch, Texas.” [In fact the battle was a two day affair on May 12-13 and is sometimes listed just under May 13, as already noted.]

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

2009: Surrender of Confederate armies starting with Appomattox surrender.

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

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

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

• Neff, Stephen C. Justice in Blue and Gray: A Legal History of the Civil War. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-674-03602-4.

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

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

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

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

• Blair, William A. (Professor at Penn State University) Finding the Ending of America's Civil War The American Historical Review Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association Vol. 120, No. 5 (December 2015) [18]

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

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

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

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

No end dates given:

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

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

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

Revised July 29, 2022.

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 [19]

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 [20]

• 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 [21] 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 [22]

"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 [23]:

"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 [24]

"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: [25]

"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 [26]] 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 [27]

"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 [28]

"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 [29]

• [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."

• Andrew Johnson, Proclamation 133—Raising the Blockade of Certain Ports Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project [30]

"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."

• 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. [31] 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."

• Army and Navy Journal, June 24, 1865 Page 695 Volume II Number 44 [32]

"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. [33]

• Army and Navy Journal, July 22, 1865 Page 763 Volume II Number 48 [34]

"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 [35]

"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. [36]

• Army and Navy Journal, November 11, 1865, p. 187 [37]

"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 [38]

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) [39], 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. [40]

"Lieut. Gen. U. S. Grant:

"....

Page 1082 [41]

"....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 [42]

"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 [43]

"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. [44]

"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 [45]

"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 [46]

"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 [47] 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)