In the Bennett Place article, it has a paragraph "Largest Surrender of the Civil War" with more details, although it is not cited. I've been searching around for more details on exactly what troops surrendered and haven't come up with anything substantive, other than a variety of websites that seem to share the same information amongst them. The NY Times reported ( here) that Grant said that it covered "all troops from here to the Chattahoochee." Perhaps this article can help clear this up. By the way, an interesting side note is that the surrender was signed on the same day John Wilkes Booth was tracked down and killed. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 17:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the recent addition of a Statistics section for two reasons:
Hal Jespersen ( talk) 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
im not sure where i read it but i remember reading that a few confedarate units fled over the border with mexico and join up with there military rather then surrendur to the union. if someone could find souces for it itd be a good thing to add. 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The story that Jefferson Davis dressed as a woman to escape capture is false, as determined by recent research, verified by the accounts of members of the Union army party that captured him. Davis merely wore a shawl over his head so as not to be recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.250.220 ( talk) 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Could use some better organization 68.57.61.5 ( talk) 18:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The article used May 10 for this date, which is the date that the NY Times reprinted the proclamation; but the proclamation itself is dated Tuesday, May 9, as one can see by following the link the article supplied. -- Tbanderson ( talk) 15:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The Battle of Columbus, Georgia was not the last land battle of the war nor is it "widely regarded" as such. The assertion is based on a single 2010 book, which was repeated in two books on ghosts in the Columbus area that only touched on the topic of the battle, a few guidebooks and a book on linotype, a few personal web page or blog entries, mainly by local boosters, and a few statements or recollections by a few old soldiers many years after the war (first published in the November 1896 issue of Confederate Veteran; and expounded upon by a local historian in 1915)- who were encouraged by a few letters of support by some old commanders who might have wished they had fought in the last battle or did not wish to upset the old gentlemen who sought their support. This is insufficient.
Little if any other support can be found for the assertion that Columbus was the last battle of the war, as contrasted with the last "significant" battle, or last battle in the east, which are not even accurate. The arguments used to support the claim border on sophistry, such as asserting that Columbus was a "battle" but Palmito Ranch, and presumably Boykins Mill, similar size engagements, and other actions after April 16, were something less. Dyer classifies none of them as battles. NPS classifies Palmito Ranch as a battle. (From Selcer, Richard F. Civil War America, 1850 to 1875. New York: Facts On File, 2006. ISBN 978-0-8160-3867-1. Retrieved January 17, 2014. Page 234: "According to the best estimate, some 10,455 clashes of arms were fought between 1861 and 1865....Unfortunately there is no handy guide to Civil War field operations that carefully defines every clash of arms in terms of numbers engaged, duration, casualties and other details.") Charles A. Misulia, author of Columbus, Georgia, 1865: The Last True Battle of the Civil War (March 2010) even hedges a little on his assertions. Here for the record, and in support of changing the assertions in Wikipedia articles about the Battle of Columbus, are quotations from reliable web sites and then books in reverse chronological order which show the vast consensus from 1866 through the present day that the Battle of Palmito Ranch was the last land battle of the war, followed by a list of some battles that took place after Columbus, Georgia, and the references that I could find that refer to the Battle of Columbus, with or without qualification as being the last battle of the war.
The battle of Palmito Ranch was fought between regularly organized forces of the Union and Confederacy. The Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi Deparment under General E. Kirby Smith had not surrendered. The argument that the Civil War was over and this was a "post-war" action is invalid and simply illogical. It makes no sense to describe Palmito Ranch in terms of groups of ex-soldiers fighting each other even though the war was over. They did not think they were ex-soldiers nor do historians. The Confederacy was not going to survive for long. But since neither the government of the Confederate States nor all of its armies had surrendered and Confederate armies were still in the field, the war was not over. Governors and military officers in the Trans-Mississippi wanted to continue the war even after the surrenders in the east were known.
By some of the same arguments used to support the assertion that the Battle of Columbus was the last battle of the war, that it was before Jefferson Davis was captured and Joe Johnston surrendered, the following battles took place later: the Battles of Catawba River or Morgantown, North Carolina (April 17, 1865), Bradford Springs, South Carolina (April 18, 1865), Boykin's Mills, South Carolina (April 18, 1865) (Union casualties noted below), Germantown, Tennessee (April 18, 1865) (Union casualties: 6 killed, 2 wounded, 7 missing), Pleasant Hills, Georgia (April 28, 1865) Double Bridges, Flint River, Georgia (April 18, 1865), Denkin's Mills and Beech Creek, near Statesburg, South Carolina (April 19, 1865), Barnesville, Georgia (April 19, 1865), Spring Hill, Georgia (April 20, 1865), Swannanoa Gap, North Carolina (April 20, 1865), Montpelier Springs, Alabama (April 20, 1865), Mimm's Bridge, Topesofkee Creek, and Rocky Creek Bridge near Macon, Georgia (April 20, 1865), Buzzard's Roost, Georgia (April 22, 1865), Howard's Gap, North Carolina (April 22, 1865), Linn Creek, Missouri (April 22, 1865), Mouth Big Gravois, Missouri (April 22, 1865), Spring Valley, Missouri (April 23, 1865), Munford's Station, Alabama (April 23, 1865), Hendersonville, North Carolina (April 23, 1865), Snake River, Arkansas (April 23, 1865), Boggy Station, Indian Territory (April 24, 1865), Miami, Missouri (April 24, 1865) and Linn Creek, Missouri (April 25, 1865).
Union casualties at Boykin's Mills were 9 killed, 18 wounded, 1 missing. This is a similar number to the Union casualties at Columbus, Georgia, 6 killed, 24 missing, so Boykin's Mills cannot be dismissed as a mere skirmish where a few shots were fired and no one was killed, or maybe even hurt or even as a smaller action than Columbus, Georgia. We also know that the Confederates suffered casualties at Boykin's Mills, including the death of the commanding officer's son.
Here are the only sources I can find in which the Battle of Columbus, Georgia is mentioned as the last battle of the war, with or without qualification. The few unqualified statements are not from books by historians or in books generally about the Civil War. Most of the statements are qualified as shown in bold. If there are other sources which accept the premise that Columbus was the last battle, they are not easily found. (I remember, but could not find, another ghost book which has the "widely regarded" phrase, but without citation.)
I realize this is a long entry but I believe it is probably necessary in order to put to rest both the assertions that the Battle of Columbus, Georgia was the last battle of the war and that it is widely regarded as such. Donner60 ( talk) 06:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Donner60, you are obviously well read, articulate, and put forth tremendous effort and energy in your contributions and edits. The materials and sources you provided above are formidable. But in your enthusiasm for your case, you dismiss too many legitimate historians. There truly is a debate as to where the last battle of the civil war occurred. You have done a commendable job in compiling the sources that support the Palmetto Ranch thesis, and it is a very strong case. But the way you dismiss the other side of the argument as only "based on a single 2010 book," and when you paint the other side as "ghost story writers" and "local boosters" as well as "fool's promoting a fringe theory" you lose all respect as an even-handed sober, judicious, and careful historian.
You provided a list of sources that support the Columbus thesis, highlighting silly ghost books, but you either accidentally overlooked a lot of legitimate scholarly sources, or, more likely and worse, you deliberately failed to include them to bolster your opinion. Wikipedia is not for expressing opinion, it is for providing judicious, balanced, and informative information that considers all scholarly views. I don't begrudge you your opinion. And you may be right about the "last battle." But you are dead WRONG that "The assertion is based on a single 2010 book..." as well as your aspersion that it is "foolish to put forward this local boosterism or fringe theory." It's okay to disagree with experts, it's entirely irresponsible, however, to pretend that they don't exist.
So let's evaluate your "scholarship."
The "single book" you allege to be the only basis of the claim is Charles Misulia, COLUMBUS GEORGIA 1865: THE LAST TRUE BATTLE OF THE CIVIL WAR (University of Alabama Press, 2010). You may not like the Crimson Tide, but this is no local booster website. This is a peer-reviewed scholarly treatment published by an academic press. You don't have to agree with Misulia, but to say that the Univ of Alabama press has published "foolish, local boosterism, fringe theory" (your words) or even to say "this book is not a scholarly/academic treatment," reflects more on your judgment than it does on the scholarly source you are judging. You stated your opinion that "Misulia realizes he is on shaky ground." Nothing could be further from the truth. You have no grounds upon which to make such a reckless assertion. Misulia has a rather impressive host of Civil War scholars who have endorsed his thesis. The scholarly credibility of his reviewers are quite formidable http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Columbus-Georgia-1865,4733.aspx Are you prepared to go on record to say that all of his reputable sources agree with you that "Misulia is on shaky ground"? And what are your credentials that make you a better assessor of Misulia than the reviewers cited by the University of Alabama press?
One such assessment of Misulia that I'd like you to address is James McPherson, quoted in Gardiner, "The Last Battlefield," p. 17, wrote "Misulia makes a plausible case that the cavalry battle at Columbus is the last battle of the civil war."
Are you ready to go on record stating that Princeton's Professor McPherson is supporting foolish, local boosterism, fringe theory? Calling out McPherson as a poor historian is more properly classified as "fringe theory." But that's apparently what you are doing.
You said you did a search to see what sources support Misulia, and all you could come up with was ghost stories, local boosters, and bloggers. Therein is my concern. I have no qualms with the reputability of the sources you provided. I have a tremendous problem with your inability to admit that there are other legit sources you'd rather not face. To wit,
Robert C. Jones refers to Columbus and West Point as "the final battles of the Civil War as they occurred just before Johnston's surrender on April 26, 1865 in North Carolina. Technically, the Battle of Palmito Ranch in Texas occurred after the war was over." (Jones, THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR IN GEORGIA, 92). Jones is the author of almost as many civil war topics as you!; including but not limited to,
(You may not agree with Mr. Jones' conclusion, but to dismiss him as a fool who has no erudition on the topic at hand, reflects more on the quality of your own judgment than it does his).
Gardiner, "The Last Battlefield of the Civil War." Journal of America's Military Past XXXVIII (Summer 2013), 5-22. You seem to entirely avoid this piece of research. Is your view that the peer-review editors/military historians of this Journal are not scholars? The article also provides a plethora of other sources, both primary and secondary, that claim Columbus was the last battle. You address none of them. This doesn't appear to be book about ghosts.
Further, you state that the Columbus thesis came from "a few statements or recollections by a few old soldiers many years after the war first published in the November 1896 issue of Confederate Veteran." Gardiner's article includes at least a dozen sources before 1896 that make the Columbus claim.
Bellware, Daniel A. “The Last Battle. Period. Really,” Civil War Times Illustrated, 42 (April 2003), 48—56. This is no ghost fiction either. But not only do you not deal with it, you entirely omit it.
Dr. Daniel Crosswell, distinguished Military Historian and Professor, "The war ended by the time the Confederate government dissolved and the Battle of Columbus, Georgia was the last engagement which qualifies as a battle prior to the dissolution of the Confederacy." http://www.nightlinx.com/events/eventdetail.php?event_id=343910472473896 are you prepared to tell Dr. Crosswell that he is a fool? Or would it perhaps just be better to say you disagree with his analysis?
Chandler, LAST DAYS OF THE CONFEDERACY IN NE GEORGIA (2015), 79. You couldn't find this book.
Scott, William Force, "The Last Battle of the War," http://books.google.com/books?id=isZuaxHU94oC&pg=PA485
Richard Lifshey; James Bridges; Patrick Cusick, The Last Ditch: The Final Battle of the Civil War (2007). You couldn't find this. It was an award-winning research piece.
Kennedy, Linda, "The Destruction of Columbus, Georgia: The Last Battle of the War Between the States" (1996). Apparently your google doesn't work well.
You state the "old soldiers" began to perpetrate the claim in the Confederate Veteran in 1896. You're patently wrong. For example,
1874- http://archive.org/stream/04608863.3153.emory.edu/04608863_3153#page/n411/mode/2up
1881- https://books.google.com/books?id=ZMb-d7wAApsC&pg=PA28
1885- General Winslow's Memoirs
And then you just dismiss these officers as senile, old, and self-aggrandizing:
General James H. Wilson, "it was the last real battle of the war." http://books.google.com/books?id=ljgOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA265&lpg=PA265&dq=%22the+last+real+battle%22+wilson&source=bl&ots=CWYOoEfrnA&sig=JdEnkH94dF3i8QsDbkgechWakyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwA2oVChMIx9GVjMyTyAIVjJ6ACh2JZgM8#v=onepage&q=%22the%20last%20real%20battle%22%20wilson&f=false)
General Edward F. Winslow, "I have always considered that engagement, by the number present and the results achieved, to be the final battle of the war." http://sites.google.com/a/columbusstate.edu/primary-sources/winslow
General Emory Upton, "By 10.00 p. M. Columbus, with its vast munitions of war, 1500 prisoners and 24 guns was in our hands. This, which was the closing conflict of the war" (Official Records, I:49, Part One, p. 475). Your suggestion that General Upton was only referring to his own division's "closing conflict" would lead any reader with a modicum of judiciousness to question whether you are able to handle sources reasonably or whether you clearly have a "dog in this fight." Colonel Theodore Allen, http://books.google.com/books?id=NX5KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA785 Some of these fellows are West-Pointers with perhaps more military training than even you. You seem to want to dismiss these high ranking officers as buffoons who were only trying to embellish their own importance. I'm not saying you have to agree with their conclusions, but to dismiss them as "fools" whose opinions are not worthy of consideration would cause an educated reader to wonder whether or not your handling of scholarly disagreement can be trusted. And that is a bit concerning given the amount of material you post to Wikipedia.
You also seem to dismiss Swift's article in the Journal of the Military Service Institution simply on the grounds of its publication date. You don't address the merits.
The bottom line is this: you obviously have the right to hold the opinion that the scholars who disagree with you are wrong. What you don't have a right to do is pretend that they don't exist, or dismiss scholars with ad hominems like "ghost story writers, fools, local boosters, fringe theorists, and bloggers." You have a very extensive fingerprint on Wikipedia, and if you wish to be taken seriously, you have to handle issues of scholarly controversy with proper balance. Wikipedia readers lose whenever an opinionated editor comes in and authoritatively rewrites articles to reflect his own opinions rather than reflect the actual debate among experts. That's what you have done here and I think it is bad for Wiki and it's readership.
Sure, you probably have more scholarly noses on your side of the court. Fine. There are more scholars who believe Oswald acted alone than otherwise; but Wiki gives a fair share to those who don't think Oswald acted alone, and doesn't just dismiss them as kooks. That's where you aren't in keeping with the Wiki mission here. And, in the end, your whole argument seems to be reduced to a case of "I have a lot more secondary sources on my side." Whatever happened to relaying facts and letting them be judged on their own merit? (signed:Quag52)
I came here to find information about how Emancipation was implemented—whether there were pockets of resistance, how the news spread, and so on. In my uninformed opinion, this seems like a pretty central story about the conclusion of the Civil War. I was surprised to find no mention of the word "slave". I'm sure it's very valuable to summarize the military events of the end of the war, but could we also add a WP:SUMMARY-style section linking to Slavery_in_the_United_States#The_end_of_slavery? FourViolas ( talk) 00:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This battle – erroneously – has been argued to be the "last battle of the Civil War" and equally erroneously asserted to be "widely regarded" as such.
You describe Lee’s surrender as the official end of the American Civil War. As this page shows, there has never been an 'official end', since Lee did not order a general armistice (and couldn't have done without presidential approval) and there was never a peace treaty. April 9th is simply a convenient date for historians to use, because they need one. We might call it the 'effective end' of the war. Valetude ( talk) 18:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how:
The fighting of the Eastern Theater of the American Civil War between Lieut. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s Army of the Potomac and Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was reported considerably more often in the newspapers than the battles of the Western Theater. Reporting of the Eastern Theater skirmishes largely dominated the newspapers as the Appomattox Campaign developed.
is relevant. I think the following sentences are much better for the Background. Charles Victorio ( talk) 21:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if it qualifies as a "surrender" but the Arrival of Union Troops in Galveston on Jun 19th, 1866 and the reading of General Order #3 is definitely part of the Conclusion of the Civil War. It's such an important day that today a bill has been approved in Congress declaring June 19 - Juneteenth - a federal holiday.
Anyway, what happened with the Confederate troops in Texas. Were they part of the Trans-Mississippi army that had already surrendered. 2601:14A:503:64C0:C2D2:DDFF:FE20:CD83 ( talk) 22:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC) [ileanadu - still unable to sign in]
In the Bennett Place article, it has a paragraph "Largest Surrender of the Civil War" with more details, although it is not cited. I've been searching around for more details on exactly what troops surrendered and haven't come up with anything substantive, other than a variety of websites that seem to share the same information amongst them. The NY Times reported ( here) that Grant said that it covered "all troops from here to the Chattahoochee." Perhaps this article can help clear this up. By the way, an interesting side note is that the surrender was signed on the same day John Wilkes Booth was tracked down and killed. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 17:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the recent addition of a Statistics section for two reasons:
Hal Jespersen ( talk) 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
im not sure where i read it but i remember reading that a few confedarate units fled over the border with mexico and join up with there military rather then surrendur to the union. if someone could find souces for it itd be a good thing to add. 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The story that Jefferson Davis dressed as a woman to escape capture is false, as determined by recent research, verified by the accounts of members of the Union army party that captured him. Davis merely wore a shawl over his head so as not to be recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.250.220 ( talk) 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Could use some better organization 68.57.61.5 ( talk) 18:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The article used May 10 for this date, which is the date that the NY Times reprinted the proclamation; but the proclamation itself is dated Tuesday, May 9, as one can see by following the link the article supplied. -- Tbanderson ( talk) 15:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The Battle of Columbus, Georgia was not the last land battle of the war nor is it "widely regarded" as such. The assertion is based on a single 2010 book, which was repeated in two books on ghosts in the Columbus area that only touched on the topic of the battle, a few guidebooks and a book on linotype, a few personal web page or blog entries, mainly by local boosters, and a few statements or recollections by a few old soldiers many years after the war (first published in the November 1896 issue of Confederate Veteran; and expounded upon by a local historian in 1915)- who were encouraged by a few letters of support by some old commanders who might have wished they had fought in the last battle or did not wish to upset the old gentlemen who sought their support. This is insufficient.
Little if any other support can be found for the assertion that Columbus was the last battle of the war, as contrasted with the last "significant" battle, or last battle in the east, which are not even accurate. The arguments used to support the claim border on sophistry, such as asserting that Columbus was a "battle" but Palmito Ranch, and presumably Boykins Mill, similar size engagements, and other actions after April 16, were something less. Dyer classifies none of them as battles. NPS classifies Palmito Ranch as a battle. (From Selcer, Richard F. Civil War America, 1850 to 1875. New York: Facts On File, 2006. ISBN 978-0-8160-3867-1. Retrieved January 17, 2014. Page 234: "According to the best estimate, some 10,455 clashes of arms were fought between 1861 and 1865....Unfortunately there is no handy guide to Civil War field operations that carefully defines every clash of arms in terms of numbers engaged, duration, casualties and other details.") Charles A. Misulia, author of Columbus, Georgia, 1865: The Last True Battle of the Civil War (March 2010) even hedges a little on his assertions. Here for the record, and in support of changing the assertions in Wikipedia articles about the Battle of Columbus, are quotations from reliable web sites and then books in reverse chronological order which show the vast consensus from 1866 through the present day that the Battle of Palmito Ranch was the last land battle of the war, followed by a list of some battles that took place after Columbus, Georgia, and the references that I could find that refer to the Battle of Columbus, with or without qualification as being the last battle of the war.
The battle of Palmito Ranch was fought between regularly organized forces of the Union and Confederacy. The Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi Deparment under General E. Kirby Smith had not surrendered. The argument that the Civil War was over and this was a "post-war" action is invalid and simply illogical. It makes no sense to describe Palmito Ranch in terms of groups of ex-soldiers fighting each other even though the war was over. They did not think they were ex-soldiers nor do historians. The Confederacy was not going to survive for long. But since neither the government of the Confederate States nor all of its armies had surrendered and Confederate armies were still in the field, the war was not over. Governors and military officers in the Trans-Mississippi wanted to continue the war even after the surrenders in the east were known.
By some of the same arguments used to support the assertion that the Battle of Columbus was the last battle of the war, that it was before Jefferson Davis was captured and Joe Johnston surrendered, the following battles took place later: the Battles of Catawba River or Morgantown, North Carolina (April 17, 1865), Bradford Springs, South Carolina (April 18, 1865), Boykin's Mills, South Carolina (April 18, 1865) (Union casualties noted below), Germantown, Tennessee (April 18, 1865) (Union casualties: 6 killed, 2 wounded, 7 missing), Pleasant Hills, Georgia (April 28, 1865) Double Bridges, Flint River, Georgia (April 18, 1865), Denkin's Mills and Beech Creek, near Statesburg, South Carolina (April 19, 1865), Barnesville, Georgia (April 19, 1865), Spring Hill, Georgia (April 20, 1865), Swannanoa Gap, North Carolina (April 20, 1865), Montpelier Springs, Alabama (April 20, 1865), Mimm's Bridge, Topesofkee Creek, and Rocky Creek Bridge near Macon, Georgia (April 20, 1865), Buzzard's Roost, Georgia (April 22, 1865), Howard's Gap, North Carolina (April 22, 1865), Linn Creek, Missouri (April 22, 1865), Mouth Big Gravois, Missouri (April 22, 1865), Spring Valley, Missouri (April 23, 1865), Munford's Station, Alabama (April 23, 1865), Hendersonville, North Carolina (April 23, 1865), Snake River, Arkansas (April 23, 1865), Boggy Station, Indian Territory (April 24, 1865), Miami, Missouri (April 24, 1865) and Linn Creek, Missouri (April 25, 1865).
Union casualties at Boykin's Mills were 9 killed, 18 wounded, 1 missing. This is a similar number to the Union casualties at Columbus, Georgia, 6 killed, 24 missing, so Boykin's Mills cannot be dismissed as a mere skirmish where a few shots were fired and no one was killed, or maybe even hurt or even as a smaller action than Columbus, Georgia. We also know that the Confederates suffered casualties at Boykin's Mills, including the death of the commanding officer's son.
Here are the only sources I can find in which the Battle of Columbus, Georgia is mentioned as the last battle of the war, with or without qualification. The few unqualified statements are not from books by historians or in books generally about the Civil War. Most of the statements are qualified as shown in bold. If there are other sources which accept the premise that Columbus was the last battle, they are not easily found. (I remember, but could not find, another ghost book which has the "widely regarded" phrase, but without citation.)
I realize this is a long entry but I believe it is probably necessary in order to put to rest both the assertions that the Battle of Columbus, Georgia was the last battle of the war and that it is widely regarded as such. Donner60 ( talk) 06:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Donner60, you are obviously well read, articulate, and put forth tremendous effort and energy in your contributions and edits. The materials and sources you provided above are formidable. But in your enthusiasm for your case, you dismiss too many legitimate historians. There truly is a debate as to where the last battle of the civil war occurred. You have done a commendable job in compiling the sources that support the Palmetto Ranch thesis, and it is a very strong case. But the way you dismiss the other side of the argument as only "based on a single 2010 book," and when you paint the other side as "ghost story writers" and "local boosters" as well as "fool's promoting a fringe theory" you lose all respect as an even-handed sober, judicious, and careful historian.
You provided a list of sources that support the Columbus thesis, highlighting silly ghost books, but you either accidentally overlooked a lot of legitimate scholarly sources, or, more likely and worse, you deliberately failed to include them to bolster your opinion. Wikipedia is not for expressing opinion, it is for providing judicious, balanced, and informative information that considers all scholarly views. I don't begrudge you your opinion. And you may be right about the "last battle." But you are dead WRONG that "The assertion is based on a single 2010 book..." as well as your aspersion that it is "foolish to put forward this local boosterism or fringe theory." It's okay to disagree with experts, it's entirely irresponsible, however, to pretend that they don't exist.
So let's evaluate your "scholarship."
The "single book" you allege to be the only basis of the claim is Charles Misulia, COLUMBUS GEORGIA 1865: THE LAST TRUE BATTLE OF THE CIVIL WAR (University of Alabama Press, 2010). You may not like the Crimson Tide, but this is no local booster website. This is a peer-reviewed scholarly treatment published by an academic press. You don't have to agree with Misulia, but to say that the Univ of Alabama press has published "foolish, local boosterism, fringe theory" (your words) or even to say "this book is not a scholarly/academic treatment," reflects more on your judgment than it does on the scholarly source you are judging. You stated your opinion that "Misulia realizes he is on shaky ground." Nothing could be further from the truth. You have no grounds upon which to make such a reckless assertion. Misulia has a rather impressive host of Civil War scholars who have endorsed his thesis. The scholarly credibility of his reviewers are quite formidable http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Columbus-Georgia-1865,4733.aspx Are you prepared to go on record to say that all of his reputable sources agree with you that "Misulia is on shaky ground"? And what are your credentials that make you a better assessor of Misulia than the reviewers cited by the University of Alabama press?
One such assessment of Misulia that I'd like you to address is James McPherson, quoted in Gardiner, "The Last Battlefield," p. 17, wrote "Misulia makes a plausible case that the cavalry battle at Columbus is the last battle of the civil war."
Are you ready to go on record stating that Princeton's Professor McPherson is supporting foolish, local boosterism, fringe theory? Calling out McPherson as a poor historian is more properly classified as "fringe theory." But that's apparently what you are doing.
You said you did a search to see what sources support Misulia, and all you could come up with was ghost stories, local boosters, and bloggers. Therein is my concern. I have no qualms with the reputability of the sources you provided. I have a tremendous problem with your inability to admit that there are other legit sources you'd rather not face. To wit,
Robert C. Jones refers to Columbus and West Point as "the final battles of the Civil War as they occurred just before Johnston's surrender on April 26, 1865 in North Carolina. Technically, the Battle of Palmito Ranch in Texas occurred after the war was over." (Jones, THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR IN GEORGIA, 92). Jones is the author of almost as many civil war topics as you!; including but not limited to,
(You may not agree with Mr. Jones' conclusion, but to dismiss him as a fool who has no erudition on the topic at hand, reflects more on the quality of your own judgment than it does his).
Gardiner, "The Last Battlefield of the Civil War." Journal of America's Military Past XXXVIII (Summer 2013), 5-22. You seem to entirely avoid this piece of research. Is your view that the peer-review editors/military historians of this Journal are not scholars? The article also provides a plethora of other sources, both primary and secondary, that claim Columbus was the last battle. You address none of them. This doesn't appear to be book about ghosts.
Further, you state that the Columbus thesis came from "a few statements or recollections by a few old soldiers many years after the war first published in the November 1896 issue of Confederate Veteran." Gardiner's article includes at least a dozen sources before 1896 that make the Columbus claim.
Bellware, Daniel A. “The Last Battle. Period. Really,” Civil War Times Illustrated, 42 (April 2003), 48—56. This is no ghost fiction either. But not only do you not deal with it, you entirely omit it.
Dr. Daniel Crosswell, distinguished Military Historian and Professor, "The war ended by the time the Confederate government dissolved and the Battle of Columbus, Georgia was the last engagement which qualifies as a battle prior to the dissolution of the Confederacy." http://www.nightlinx.com/events/eventdetail.php?event_id=343910472473896 are you prepared to tell Dr. Crosswell that he is a fool? Or would it perhaps just be better to say you disagree with his analysis?
Chandler, LAST DAYS OF THE CONFEDERACY IN NE GEORGIA (2015), 79. You couldn't find this book.
Scott, William Force, "The Last Battle of the War," http://books.google.com/books?id=isZuaxHU94oC&pg=PA485
Richard Lifshey; James Bridges; Patrick Cusick, The Last Ditch: The Final Battle of the Civil War (2007). You couldn't find this. It was an award-winning research piece.
Kennedy, Linda, "The Destruction of Columbus, Georgia: The Last Battle of the War Between the States" (1996). Apparently your google doesn't work well.
You state the "old soldiers" began to perpetrate the claim in the Confederate Veteran in 1896. You're patently wrong. For example,
1874- http://archive.org/stream/04608863.3153.emory.edu/04608863_3153#page/n411/mode/2up
1881- https://books.google.com/books?id=ZMb-d7wAApsC&pg=PA28
1885- General Winslow's Memoirs
And then you just dismiss these officers as senile, old, and self-aggrandizing:
General James H. Wilson, "it was the last real battle of the war." http://books.google.com/books?id=ljgOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA265&lpg=PA265&dq=%22the+last+real+battle%22+wilson&source=bl&ots=CWYOoEfrnA&sig=JdEnkH94dF3i8QsDbkgechWakyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwA2oVChMIx9GVjMyTyAIVjJ6ACh2JZgM8#v=onepage&q=%22the%20last%20real%20battle%22%20wilson&f=false)
General Edward F. Winslow, "I have always considered that engagement, by the number present and the results achieved, to be the final battle of the war." http://sites.google.com/a/columbusstate.edu/primary-sources/winslow
General Emory Upton, "By 10.00 p. M. Columbus, with its vast munitions of war, 1500 prisoners and 24 guns was in our hands. This, which was the closing conflict of the war" (Official Records, I:49, Part One, p. 475). Your suggestion that General Upton was only referring to his own division's "closing conflict" would lead any reader with a modicum of judiciousness to question whether you are able to handle sources reasonably or whether you clearly have a "dog in this fight." Colonel Theodore Allen, http://books.google.com/books?id=NX5KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA785 Some of these fellows are West-Pointers with perhaps more military training than even you. You seem to want to dismiss these high ranking officers as buffoons who were only trying to embellish their own importance. I'm not saying you have to agree with their conclusions, but to dismiss them as "fools" whose opinions are not worthy of consideration would cause an educated reader to wonder whether or not your handling of scholarly disagreement can be trusted. And that is a bit concerning given the amount of material you post to Wikipedia.
You also seem to dismiss Swift's article in the Journal of the Military Service Institution simply on the grounds of its publication date. You don't address the merits.
The bottom line is this: you obviously have the right to hold the opinion that the scholars who disagree with you are wrong. What you don't have a right to do is pretend that they don't exist, or dismiss scholars with ad hominems like "ghost story writers, fools, local boosters, fringe theorists, and bloggers." You have a very extensive fingerprint on Wikipedia, and if you wish to be taken seriously, you have to handle issues of scholarly controversy with proper balance. Wikipedia readers lose whenever an opinionated editor comes in and authoritatively rewrites articles to reflect his own opinions rather than reflect the actual debate among experts. That's what you have done here and I think it is bad for Wiki and it's readership.
Sure, you probably have more scholarly noses on your side of the court. Fine. There are more scholars who believe Oswald acted alone than otherwise; but Wiki gives a fair share to those who don't think Oswald acted alone, and doesn't just dismiss them as kooks. That's where you aren't in keeping with the Wiki mission here. And, in the end, your whole argument seems to be reduced to a case of "I have a lot more secondary sources on my side." Whatever happened to relaying facts and letting them be judged on their own merit? (signed:Quag52)
I came here to find information about how Emancipation was implemented—whether there were pockets of resistance, how the news spread, and so on. In my uninformed opinion, this seems like a pretty central story about the conclusion of the Civil War. I was surprised to find no mention of the word "slave". I'm sure it's very valuable to summarize the military events of the end of the war, but could we also add a WP:SUMMARY-style section linking to Slavery_in_the_United_States#The_end_of_slavery? FourViolas ( talk) 00:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This battle – erroneously – has been argued to be the "last battle of the Civil War" and equally erroneously asserted to be "widely regarded" as such.
You describe Lee’s surrender as the official end of the American Civil War. As this page shows, there has never been an 'official end', since Lee did not order a general armistice (and couldn't have done without presidential approval) and there was never a peace treaty. April 9th is simply a convenient date for historians to use, because they need one. We might call it the 'effective end' of the war. Valetude ( talk) 18:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how:
The fighting of the Eastern Theater of the American Civil War between Lieut. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s Army of the Potomac and Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was reported considerably more often in the newspapers than the battles of the Western Theater. Reporting of the Eastern Theater skirmishes largely dominated the newspapers as the Appomattox Campaign developed.
is relevant. I think the following sentences are much better for the Background. Charles Victorio ( talk) 21:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if it qualifies as a "surrender" but the Arrival of Union Troops in Galveston on Jun 19th, 1866 and the reading of General Order #3 is definitely part of the Conclusion of the Civil War. It's such an important day that today a bill has been approved in Congress declaring June 19 - Juneteenth - a federal holiday.
Anyway, what happened with the Confederate troops in Texas. Were they part of the Trans-Mississippi army that had already surrendered. 2601:14A:503:64C0:C2D2:DDFF:FE20:CD83 ( talk) 22:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC) [ileanadu - still unable to sign in]