Content deleted Content added
Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2010-04-09. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger |
|||
Line 105:
One could make that claim for any of the subordinate commanders, but as I said above, our guideline to list only the uppermost commander on each side unless a subordinate had some unique contribution (and we don't do that very often, either). [[User:Hlj|Hal Jespersen]] ([[User talk:Hlj|talk]]) 22:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
== Traditional end to the Civil War? ==
Am I the only Ameircan who remembers thinking of this as the end of the Civil War all through school - even in high school? If this is commonly taught, should it be noted, even if wrong, since it is a common point to this battle?
I suppose that - even if it would be mentioned - we would also need sources which called it that, as well as reasons. I have none of the former, but of the latter, I think that it would be fair to say that:
1. Lee's army was the most important, and any extra was just mopping up. Sort of like the soldiers who kept fighting after [[V-J Day]], though that, of course, is an extreme example;
2. Lee's Armywas seen as even more signifcant becuase he was the head of all Confederate Armies - it was unlikely that anyone would keep fighting for many more weeks once he surrendered;
3. The main goal all along had been Richmond (though it fell on April 3, the ANV were the official defenders); and, though not quite as important,
4. Lincoln didn't live to see the others - if others are like me, that could be a reason. It's a little less sad to read about Lincoln's death if I consider that he lived to see the end - even if it wasn't officially "the end."[[Special:Contributions/209.244.187.155|209.244.187.155]] ([[User talk:209.244.187.155|talk]]) 09:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
| |||