WI: Confederate Resistance Movement?

Suppose that some in the Confederacy saw the writing on the wall and realized that they were going to lose to the North. But, they decided that that even if the Union occupied the whole of the south, that they would never give up and never surrender.

What effect might an organized Confederate Resistance movement have in history? How might it have been organized, and what sort of tactics might it have employed? And could, through asymmetric warfare, the Confederate Resistance secure independence for their nation?

It's important to remember is that there is no "they" only individuals. While certainly individual groups could choose to go underground and resistance, it is highly unlikely the entire country does.

Guerilla engagements in this time period is rare. The weaponry is not conducive to guerilla engagements. A few people with revolvers and Civil War era rifles is not the same as having an AK-47.

The rebels will also not have any foreign support or safe zones they can retreat to, which is essential for any successful guerilla war.

The South does have some excellent terrain the Confederate rebels could utilize (the Apallachian mountains, pine barrens, etc.), unfortunately the population there is overwhelming pro-Union and won't tolerate that nonsense.

You also have large parts of the population everywhere hostile to any such rebels. You have white Unionists and ex-slaves not to mention "collaborators" who can see how this will end. There is going to be a large number of people who will eagerly cooperate with the government.

At best you have sporadic resistance groups for one or two years that are eventually hunted down and wiped out. In order to preserve order, the Federal government probably cracks down a lot on whoever is aiding these groups. Plantations might be seized, and trials and executions held treating them as bandits and murderers and not lawful combatants. To create a loyal population, the government could likely do more to create a real economic base for emancipated slaves. It will also likely arm them to make sure people can defend themselves against Confederate attacks. It also delays end of Reconstruction for any states with severe problems. So while this doesn't look good for the Confederates, it may be very good for the freedmen in the long term.

Pine barrens? Now I'm wondering what if New Jersey was part of an anti-federal uprising, like they are in Brian Wood's DMZ.

Well, look at The Troubles. The PIRA guys were basically guerillas par excellence, and after striking deals with Gaddafi and his ilk abroad, they acquired some pretty decent equipment. Mind you, military-grade modern equipment : Rocket launchers, submachine guns and assault rifles, decent supplies to make a lot of explosives and bombs. And, despite all that infrastructure, effort and terror, their ultimate objective of scaring the British into giving away Northern Ireland didn't succeed and eventually wound down with a barely audible whimper.

Now, imagine the Confederate equivalent of Latvian "forest brothers" or German "werwolf"-s, equipped with 1860s/1870s technology, with probably low numbers and low support due to the CSA population being fed up with the war and the freed slaves being double unwilling to join any CSA-recreation guerillas. Compare the size of the former CSA with that of Northern Ireland. Do you think those volunteer CSA stalwarts could achieve what even the PIRA and offshoots at their most succesful didn't manage to achieve at all ? These CSA resistance guys wouldn't be exactly like the pan-nationally united Spanish guerillas from the times of the Peninsular War. Yes, those 19th century guerillas wooped Nappy's arse with even older firearm tech and common sence cunning, but their motivation, background and inside/outside support was distinctly different.

Also, pissing off the reconstruction era Union government with repeated guerilla warfare will probably not bode well for the armed movement in the long run. And people being people, it could lead to the greater ostracization of moderate and non-vengeful former CSA citizens. This would make the "morally bankrupt Southerners against the good upstanding Yankees and pioneers" mythology of OTL even bigger and longer lived, leaving some ugly social scars and prejudices among the American public for a far longer time. Regional chauvinism wouldn't be a fringe notion as in OTL, but an accepted part of domestic politics and culture.

Skimming over, I see people bringing up IRA and AK-47s. But wouldn't a better example of an insurgency in this period be the Polish uprisings in the 1800s?

But there was a Confederate resistance movement. They were called the KKK. And they won, given the death of Reconstruction.

Incognito said:

Skimming over, I see people bringing up IRA and AK-47s. But wouldn't a better example of an insurgency in this period be the Polish uprisings in the 1800s?

Click to expand...

I used three comparison points : The PIRA, the forest brothers and the Peninsular War guerillas (originators of the very term). I prominently explained the comparison with the Spanish events and their resistance movement.

Let's face it, "the dixie brothers" aren't going to have it easy. The closest in terms of effectiveness would be said forest brothers. Or the Romanian anti-communist resistance. In OTL, they were still up and running well into the late 1950s or so, with minimum weaponry, in the more remote parts or Romania (you gotta love that Carpathian mountain chain...). The forest brothers ended sooner, around the mid 1950s, though some wannabe imitators kept a token effort going until the fall of the Soviet Union (though they accomplished even less than their predecessors).

And yes, the KKK can be seen as a kind of terrorist group founded by discontented southern nationalists/slaveholders.

Blackfox5 said:

At best you have sporadic resistance groups for one or two years that are eventually hunted down and wiped out. In order to preserve order, the Federal government probably cracks down a lot on whoever is aiding these groups. Plantations might be seized, and trials and executions held treating them as bandits and murderers and not lawful combatants. To create a loyal population, the government could likely do more to create a real economic base for emancipated slaves. It will also likely arm them to make sure people can defend themselves against Confederate attacks. It also delays end of Reconstruction for any states with severe problems. So while this doesn't look good for the Confederates, it may be very good for the freedmen in the long term.

Click to expand...

This would be an awesome TL, and I would support anyone attempting it.

Petike said:

This would make the "morally bankrupt Southerners against the good upstanding Yankees and pioneers" mythology of OTL even bigger and longer lived, leaving some ugly social scars and prejudices among the American public for a far longer time. Regional chauvinism wouldn't be a fringe notion as in OTL, but an accepted part of domestic politics and culture.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but when Robert E. Lee is presented in the light of 'national hero", the idea that "morally bankrupt Southerners" is how most people portrayed the Confederacy is bunk.

Lee, Stonewall Jackson - others depending on where.


That idea might exist in TTL, but it would not have much resemblance with how the losers wrote the ACW history books for a century.

Strategos' Risk said:

Pine barrens? Now I'm wondering what if New Jersey was part of an anti-federal uprising, like they are in Brian Wood's DMZ.

Click to expand...

Never occurred to me people would think I was talking about New Jersey, although I admit those pine barrens are probably the best known. I meant the pine barrens down in Mississippi where Jones County was.

You would have to take the organizing power away from the plantation owners, who would be fucked by guerrilla warfare.

Strategos' Risk said:

But there was a Confederate resistance movement. They were called the KKK. And they won, given the death of Reconstruction.

Click to expand...

While I understand your point and it is an important one, I don't think it's really applicable. First, the KKK did not attack Federal soldiers or attack the government. Second, the Confederate states remained within the Union. They continued to pay taxes and obey federal law. They accepted they lost the war and were not fighting for independence. Third, as an organized group the KKK disappeared by 1874 (although it would be revived in various forms decades later) precisely because the government did target the group for destruction. Although the tactics of the KKK were used to further suppress blacks and ensure white rule.

So the tactics of the KKK had limited success. It ensured white rule through violence and discriminated against blacks, but it did not challenge the Federal government or the unity of the country. Compared to the OP's standard of "never surrender" and "secure independence", it's a defeat.

Blackfox5 said:

So the tactics of the KKK had limited success. It ensured white rule through violence and discriminated against blacks, but it did not challenge the Federal government or the unity of the country. Compared to the OP's standard of "never surrender" and "secure independence", it's a defeat.

Click to expand...

It very much did challenge the Federal government. It just did so via making a mockery of the democratic process and rule of law (as opposed to what in no uncertain terms was terrorism) than overthrowing Federal rule per se.

Not just the KKK, but the whole anti-Reconstruction movement, in regards to that statement.