[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.

[jeffersondem]

“Yes, like the Japanese surrender in 1945 was said to be “unconditional”, but in fact Japan did keep its emperor.”

Not sure General Grant was anticipating the circumstances of Japan’s surrender when he interviewed General Lee, but I have no doubt Sherman would have welcomed the opportunity to drop an atomic bomb on Mt. Vernon.

As to your earlier claim that began: “Every CSA surrender was “unconditional” . . .”

That is not correct. No big deal. You were probably just repeating something you heard.