ThePest179
Banned
With a POD of 1865, what would create a guerilla movement in the South for several years and leave the region devastated for several more?
Southern resistance movement
- Thread starter ThePest179
- Start date
TFSmith121
Banned
How familiar are you with the 13th, 14th, and 15th
Um, how familiar are you with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution? The Ku Klux Klan? Redeemer politics? Jim Crow?
There was a guerilla movement, and it did leave the South devastated...look up Colfax, Louisiana.
Some would argue the South remains devastated to this day.
Best,
Um, how familiar are you with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution? The Ku Klux Klan? Redeemer politics? Jim Crow?
There was a guerilla movement, and it did leave the South devastated...look up Colfax, Louisiana.
Some would argue the South remains devastated to this day.
Best,
U.S David
Banned
How is the Southern United States still devastated?
But to answer the question....
These things must happen
1. Have Jefferson Davis flee the country, in OTL he tried to go to either Cuba, England, France or even Texas. He can be a Goverment in Exile, giving hope to fighters.
2. Have Robert E. Lee not surrender to Grant, he just disbands his Army and tells them to flee to the hills to fight a guerilla movement. In OTL, some of his lower commanders begged him to do this, but he refused. Get Joesph Johnson to do this as well. This gets the two largest CSA armies to fight aother day.
3. Booth's plan is larger and more complex, and does better then OTL. He kills Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Seward, and Stanton. Congress allows General Grant to form a Emergency Military Goverment, with him as acting President. He gets elected in 1868. He decides to punish the south much harder then OTL.
General Sherman is made Governor of the entire south, where he fights a long war aganst the guerilla movement. The fact he burned Atlanta gives fire to a lot of people.
Maybe have the US invade Canada over the Trent Claims. The war is short but nasty, and the British want revenge. So they send arms to the south, though Mexico.
What do you guys think?
Anaxagoras
Banned
This was just not in the cards. Lee and Johnston were both Virginia gentlemen of the old school. They detested the idea of partisan warfare and recognized that it would lead to nothing but more misery for the people of the South. Even if it would have been effective, they would not have done it. But it wouldn't have been effective in any event. Partisan bands would have no access to supplies and would have had to plunder Southern civilians simply to avoid starving. It would have simply dissolved into outlawry and banditry within a few months at most.
I concur. Without any support from the outside, even a huge uprising of 20,000 skilled veterans probably wouldn't last much more than 6 months at most without giving up and/or being killed(for the most part, at least).
I agree with you 100%! It was not in Lee's nature to do such a thing. For one thing it was futile which he was fully aware of. He gave the same reasons you did, that the Confederate Army would wind up as bandits.
Johnston was just as opposed as Lee to partisan warfare as he saw it as useless and would just increase the pain on the South. Even Nathen Bedford Forrest decided against it.
TFSmith121
Banned
Infant mortality is pretty stark
Infant mortality is pretty stark.
See the Kaiser Family Foundation site, here (figures from 2007-2009):
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/infant-death-rate/
National average is 6.6 per 1,000 live births; in terms of US states, the five states with the highest infant mortality rates are:
1. Mississippi 10.0
2. Alabama 9.2
3. Louisiana 9.0
4. North Carolina 8.2
5. Tennessee 8.2
The five states with the lowest are:
1. New Hampshire 4.8
2. Utah 5.0
3. Massachusetts 5.0
4. Washington 5.1
5. California 5.1
California and Washington being tied, so call them 4 and 5; I'd give California the edge, given the size of the population, especially first generation and immigrants.
It is worth noting that among the five with the lowest rates, the states run the gamut in terms of population, demographics, climate, economics, etc.
What is the common denominator of the five with the highest rates?
There are a lot of other measurements that show the same or similar patterns - life expectency, generally and by gender/ethnicity, education, obesity, etc. - but infant mortality rates are undeniable.
The South was devastated by slavery, which amounted to an internal war for almost nine decades after US independence of almost unimaginable but officially sanctioned violence against a third of the southern population; this was followed by another nine decades of unofficial violence against that (roughly) a third of the population...
The South is, as a region, still devastated by slavery.
Best,
Infant mortality is pretty stark.
See the Kaiser Family Foundation site, here (figures from 2007-2009):
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/infant-death-rate/
National average is 6.6 per 1,000 live births; in terms of US states, the five states with the highest infant mortality rates are:
1. Mississippi 10.0
2. Alabama 9.2
3. Louisiana 9.0
4. North Carolina 8.2
5. Tennessee 8.2
The five states with the lowest are:
1. New Hampshire 4.8
2. Utah 5.0
3. Massachusetts 5.0
4. Washington 5.1
5. California 5.1
California and Washington being tied, so call them 4 and 5; I'd give California the edge, given the size of the population, especially first generation and immigrants.
It is worth noting that among the five with the lowest rates, the states run the gamut in terms of population, demographics, climate, economics, etc.
What is the common denominator of the five with the highest rates?
There are a lot of other measurements that show the same or similar patterns - life expectency, generally and by gender/ethnicity, education, obesity, etc. - but infant mortality rates are undeniable.
The South was devastated by slavery, which amounted to an internal war for almost nine decades after US independence of almost unimaginable but officially sanctioned violence against a third of the southern population; this was followed by another nine decades of unofficial violence against that (roughly) a third of the population...
The South is, as a region, still devastated by slavery.
Best,
Last edited:
In fact ALL of the top ten highest infant mortality states are former slave states. ALL the bottom ten highest infant mortality states were free states during the ACW.
TFSmith121
Banned
Yep. I went for the top five simply because
Yep. I went for the top (and bottom) five simply because the geography, and because I was trying to pose a question that might lead to a lightbulb moment...
As I said, it is pretty stark.
Best,
Yep. I went for the top (and bottom) five simply because the geography, and because I was trying to pose a question that might lead to a lightbulb moment...
As I said, it is pretty stark.
Best,
Also of the top ten per capita income states only Virginia is a former CSA state while only two Delaware and Maryland are former slave states with Delaware being a very nominal slave state. Out of the bottom ten 7 were former slave states, possibly 8 if you count WV as a slave state as it was part of Virginia at the outbreak of the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
TFSmith121
Banned
True, but there are (arguably) a lot of forces at work in the economic rankings;
True, but there are (arguably) a lot of forces at work in the economic rankings; infant mortality is just so damn stark, and so obviously a matter of resources (providing pre-natal and neo-natal care is not exactly astrophysics, much less a dark art; the answers to "how do we lower infant mortality?" are pretty straightforward) that it tends to leave the "yeah, but..." arguments at the wayside.
And even among those with various axes to grind, keeping newborns alive through their first year is (generally) seen as a social good, and as something that can not be gamed or endlessly debated and qualified...
Either a baby lives to their first birthday, or they don't.
Best,
True, but there are (arguably) a lot of forces at work in the economic rankings; infant mortality is just so damn stark, and so obviously a matter of resources (providing pre-natal and neo-natal care is not exactly astrophysics, much less a dark art; the answers to "how do we lower infant mortality?" are pretty straightforward) that it tends to leave the "yeah, but..." arguments at the wayside.
And even among those with various axes to grind, keeping newborns alive through their first year is (generally) seen as a social good, and as something that can not be gamed or endlessly debated and qualified...
Either a baby lives to their first birthday, or they don't.
Best,
You're basically looking at OTL and that ended up with stuff like the James gang, the KKK, Jim Crow and all the anti-black terrorism that came with it, and a whole host of other forms of very brutal violence. The only thing that would really change it substantially is if the 1876 election goes differently and federal troops continue to occupy the South for another generation which, in the long term, might be more of a net positive than pulling them out was.
Nothing.
Bear in mind that the Southern population could be divided into three groups:
- White Secessionists
- White Unionists
- Blacks
The white Unionists were a substantial force in many areas.
The blacks were a majority in most of the Deep South.
Only the remaining white Secessionists would support a guerrilla resistance, and there weren't enough of them left. Where they were most numerous, there were lots of blacks. Where there weren't many blacks the whites were mostly Unionist.
In short, there was no place where guerrillas could operate.
One of the bad characteristics of this forum is the habit of branding (with lots of erudite rationalising) as impossible/outlandish what is too painful to consider.
There is no need to wonder what could have happened because southern resistance did happen. It was called James-Younger band. Less than a dozen determined men, sustained by a friendly population, kept a whole state in turmoil for a decade.
Multiply by 1000 (conservative estimate of ~10000/15000 guerrillas in the whole south) and you have an idea of what would have happend if Lee (in a POD I suggested Lee's stroke happens before that fatal war council) had not prevented hardliners like general Alexander from "disbanding" the ANV, move that would be likely followed by other confederate armies.
Standing armies have no formal training to handle counterinsurgency operations and in most cases, even today, they simply go mongol on the population, pouring napalm on the fire; the union army would not even have historical examples on how to handle the situation (or better, it would, under the form of Scotland 1745, Ireland 1798, Spain 1808).
Assassinations, arsons, rapings, kidnappings, "free contributions to the cause", scorched earth techniques, hostages and hostage executions, forced deportations, torture, outright banditry capitalizing on the turmoil, sadists of every kind having a day enacting their perverse fantasies under the cover of patriotism or duty, etc. etc. in the whole south, for a decade.
OTL legacy of hate would be peanuts in comparison of that of TTL.
There is no need to wonder what could have happened because southern resistance did happen. It was called James-Younger band. Less than a dozen determined men, sustained by a friendly population, kept a whole state in turmoil for a decade.
Multiply by 1000 (conservative estimate of ~10000/15000 guerrillas in the whole south) and you have an idea of what would have happend if Lee (in a POD I suggested Lee's stroke happens before that fatal war council) had not prevented hardliners like general Alexander from "disbanding" the ANV, move that would be likely followed by other confederate armies.
Standing armies have no formal training to handle counterinsurgency operations and in most cases, even today, they simply go mongol on the population, pouring napalm on the fire; the union army would not even have historical examples on how to handle the situation (or better, it would, under the form of Scotland 1745, Ireland 1798, Spain 1808
).Assassinations, arsons, rapings, kidnappings, "free contributions to the cause", scorched earth techniques, hostages and hostage executions, forced deportations, torture, outright banditry capitalizing on the turmoil, sadists of every kind having a day enacting their perverse fantasies under the cover of patriotism or duty, etc. etc. in the whole south, for a decade.
OTL legacy of hate would be peanuts in comparison of that of TTL.
Anaxagoras
Banned
The whole question was summed up by John C. Breckinridge when he told Davis, "This has been a magnificent epic. Don't let it end as a farce."
One of the bad characteristics of this forum is the habit of branding (with lots of erudite rationalising) as impossible/outlandish what is too painful to consider.
There is no need to wonder what could have happened because southern resistance did happen. It was called James-Younger band. Less than a dozen determined men, sustained by a friendly population, kept a whole state in turmoil for a decade.
Multiply by 1000 (conservative estimate of ~10000/15000 guerrillas in the whole south) and you have an idea of what would have happend if Lee (in a POD I suggested Lee's stroke happens before that fatal war council) had not prevented hardliners like general Alexander from "disbanding" the ANV, move that would be likely followed by other confederate armies.
Standing armies have no formal training to handle counterinsurgency operations and in most cases, even today, they simply go mongol on the population, pouring napalm on the fire; the union army would not even have historical examples on how to handle the situation (or better, it would, under the form of Scotland 1745, Ireland 1798, Spain 1808
Assassinations, arsons, rapings, kidnappings, "free contributions to the cause", scorched earth techniques, hostages and hostage executions, forced deportations, torture, outright banditry capitalizing on the turmoil, sadists of every kind having a day enacting their perverse fantasies under the cover of patriotism or duty, etc. etc. in the whole south, for a decade.
OTL legacy of hate would be peanuts in comparison of that of TTL.
True enough but in the end the South would still lose. It would be farther behind the North than now. It might be at where it was in 1970 in OTL.
True, Breckenridge was one of the few decent politicians the South had.
TFSmith121
Banned
Actually, the AUS had recent and very effective experience in COIN in the 19C
Replace the Dragoons of the Trail of Tears era with regular, USV, and USCT cavalry armed with Spencers and Henrys and the Cherokee with "chivalry" armed with nothing and there the answer lies...irony applies, obviously.
From a historical perspective, the former rebels of 1861-65 were very fortunate to have been treated as they were...
Best,
Standing armies have no formal training to handle counterinsurgency operations and in most cases, even today, they simply go mongol on the population, pouring napalm on the fire; the union army would not even have historical examples on how to handle the situation (or better, it would, under the form of Scotland 1745, Ireland 1798, Spain 1808
Replace the Dragoons of the Trail of Tears era with regular, USV, and USCT cavalry armed with Spencers and Henrys and the Cherokee with "chivalry" armed with nothing and there the answer lies...irony applies, obviously.
From a historical perspective, the former rebels of 1861-65 were very fortunate to have been treated as they were...
Best,
Last edited:
Resistance does not have to mean guerilla warfare. Sending the army into the bush and telling them to keep fighting won't have much of an effect, though the few seriously disturbed individuals who will keep fighting are liable to have a broad impact. More gangs fighting the federals in any way they can (which would quickly mean basically a twisted form, of social banditry) will keep the temperature high and the occupation forces on edge. But that's not the main worry.
The main worry is that you could have a lot of armed, violent men living in the Southern communities. Most days, they will simply do the thing they do, running shops, cutting hair, farming, whatever. But some nights, they go out to restore Southern pride, punish scalawags, put nigrahs in their place and drive out carpetbaggers. OTL these groups mainly targeted blacks. That was nasty enough (Ireland had far less violence than the Reconstruction South, and it was widely regarded as a big deal at the time). Now imagine these people decide to do the 'brave' thing and shoot the odd federal soldier, trash government offices, lynch officials. It would not pose a serious military problem, as these go, but it would mean that government officials would need military escorts everywhere. The kind of people who will do that job are few, and they are not usually the nicest charcters. Also, they are liable to come from the unionist community, and hardline at that. The air will be thick enough to cut with a knife. Every larger town is going to look like Belfast, with them living there and us living here, and young men patrolling our streets to make sure theirs don't do mischief.
That's your postwar South. Soldiers only go out in groups, with bayonets fixed and rifles loaded. Elections are a farce, boycotted by the rebels, gerrymandered by the government. State governments lack legitimacy. People fear the sunset and what may happen in the dark. Jumpy military patrols and citizen militias run heavy-handed raids on suspects. Masked men exact revenge on their families and communities at night. Things suck.
The main worry is that you could have a lot of armed, violent men living in the Southern communities. Most days, they will simply do the thing they do, running shops, cutting hair, farming, whatever. But some nights, they go out to restore Southern pride, punish scalawags, put nigrahs in their place and drive out carpetbaggers. OTL these groups mainly targeted blacks. That was nasty enough (Ireland had far less violence than the Reconstruction South, and it was widely regarded as a big deal at the time). Now imagine these people decide to do the 'brave' thing and shoot the odd federal soldier, trash government offices, lynch officials. It would not pose a serious military problem, as these go, but it would mean that government officials would need military escorts everywhere. The kind of people who will do that job are few, and they are not usually the nicest charcters. Also, they are liable to come from the unionist community, and hardline at that. The air will be thick enough to cut with a knife. Every larger town is going to look like Belfast, with them living there and us living here, and young men patrolling our streets to make sure theirs don't do mischief.
That's your postwar South. Soldiers only go out in groups, with bayonets fixed and rifles loaded. Elections are a farce, boycotted by the rebels, gerrymandered by the government. State governments lack legitimacy. People fear the sunset and what may happen in the dark. Jumpy military patrols and citizen militias run heavy-handed raids on suspects. Masked men exact revenge on their families and communities at night. Things suck.