[jeffersondem]

“Every CSA surrender was “unconditional” including the delivery of weapons and disbanding of units, though, iirc, officers kept their sidearms and cavalry their horses.”

Retaining sidearms and horses was a condition of surrender so your claim the surrender was unconditional doesn’t make sense. Perhaps the use of quotes around the word unconditional was your way of acknowleding it was, in fact, conditional.

In the case of Lee’s army, surrendered Confederates did even have to agree not to take up arms against the Yanks again - only until they were properly exchanged.

“The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged and each company of regimental commander to sign a like parole for the men of their commands.”

Of course, that did not happen. The disaster at Appomattox is why the federal government debt is thirty trillion dollars; most acquired from non-defense spending.

Or is it thirty two trillion dollars today?

https://historical.ha.com/itm/military-and-patriotic/civil-war/-terms-of-surrender-letters-signed-by-confederate-general-robert-e-lee/a/674-72102.s

[x]

Much depends on 1) whether keeping horses and sidearms (for officers) was a condition without which Lee (and Johnston and others) wouldn’t have surrendered or a generous concession by the victors that they didn’t have to make to receive the surrender of the defeated, 2) whether you are using “condition” to refer to the terms of the surrender or you recognize a difference between “conditions” and “terms,” and 3) what constitutes a negotiation: do the two sides have to sit down and hash out terms or does the victor’s presentation of terms, take them or leave them, constitute a negotiated and conditional surrender?

There’s a controversy about Japan’s surrender in WWII. The Allies demanded Japan’s unconditional surrender. We occupied their country and dissolved their government and military, yet we let them keep their emperor. Was that a condition or a concession? Was the surrender conditional or unconditional? I’d have to do more reading to come up with an answer.

Discussion is further complicated by “unconditional surrender” in the ancient world which made no guarantees to the defeated whatsoever. Cities could be destroyed, populations enslaved or massacred. Few “unconditional surrenders” in modern times are like that. In the modern sense of the term, Lee’s surrender does look a lot like an unconditional surrender.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Retaining sidearms and horses was a condition of surrender so your claim the surrender was unconditional doesn’t make sense.
Perhaps the use of quotes around the word unconditional was your way of acknowleding it was, in fact, conditional."

Yes, like the Japanese surrender in 1945 was said to be "unconditional", but in fact Japan did keep its emperor.
Also, in 1781, at the Battle of Yorktown, the British surrender was said to be "unconditional", but in fact there was a long list of terms which included officers keeping their sidearms, every soldier keeping his private property and prisoners to be fed the same rations as US soldiers.

jeffersondem: "Of course, that did not happen. The disaster at Appomattox is why the federal government debt is thirty trillion dollars; most acquired from non-defense spending."

Sure, I get it, you'd like to blame everything on Lincoln, but I can just as easily blame everything on, for example, Jefferson Davis.
If Davis had not ordered Fort Sumter "reduced", then there would be no Civil War and none of those other bad things which so vex you, would have happened.

So, don't blame Lincoln, blame Davis.