Hard Kick to the Nuts: The Confederacy Burns

Could the American Confederacy have continued to fight a guerilla campaign after their regular forces were defeated? Despite how this looks, it works out much worse for the Confederacy than OTL

Got an idea for a timeline where this causes extensive damage to the Confederacy. They keep fighting until Confederate land is so badly damaged and the cost of the war so high that the Union pulls out. The Confederacy never recovers from this and collapses into a failed state in the same vein as OTL Somalia. The area becomes a blight on the North American continent and becomes the source of swarms of refugees and is the source of multiple epidemics. This is due to the lack of health care and squalid conditions in the former Confederacy.

The area is overrun by bandit gangs, pirates and violent Christian extremist groups.
 
I thought that was what the first incarnation of the KKK was? The federal government crushed them OTL, and even if it hadn't, I doubt that things would have descended into anarchy, rather than Reconstruction simply failing earlier.
 
Could the American Confederacy have continued to fight a guerilla campaign after their regular forces were defeated? Despite how this looks, it works out much worse for the Confederacy than OTL

Got an idea for a timeline where this causes extensive damage to the Confederacy. They keep fighting until Confederate land is so badly damaged and the cost of the war so high that the Union pulls out. The Confederacy never recovers from this and collapses into a failed state in the same vein as OTL Somalia. The area becomes a blight on the North American continent and becomes the source of swarms of refugees and is the source of multiple epidemics. This is due to the lack of health care and squalid conditions in the former Confederacy.

The area is overrun by bandit gangs, pirates and violent Christian extremist groups.

Doubt that the USA and the other european nations present in the Americas will allow that kind of thing happen for very long; a Somalia-like situation in a nation so big mean bad news for business and too much troubles in general. The USA will probably begin to absorb little piece of former CSA to have a better border control (plus some part of the Confederation were pro-union), hell even Mexico will try to get back some land in Texas.
The British will launch raid over raid and will enstablish bases on land to suppress the piracy, as it will economical damaging for their interest and will have the support of all other colonial powers; hell after a while Kaiser Willy can think to transform the lawless land in a German colony.

Frankly after a decade of this situation, the general population of the former CSA will glady accept anyone that will bring law and order (plus sanitation) as new ruler.
 
There's not going to be a large-scale guerrilla conflict since most former Confederate soldiers were not only tired of fighting but had no more reason to fight. Slavery was dead and gone and a guerrilla conflict wasn't going to bring it back, it's not like slaveowners could bring their slaves with them when going on the run fighting against Union forces. It's far easier to just rejoin the Union and use democracy to their advantage by trying to limit the democratic rights of freedmen and pass laws that bring back slavery in all but name. It's not going to be another Somalia, there's no tradition of US warlordism where a warlord could feasibly try and take control over America, nor would piracy ever be a major part of the economy.
 
There's not going to be a large-scale guerrilla conflict since most former Confederate soldiers were not only tired of fighting but had no more reason to fight. Slavery was dead and gone and a guerrilla conflict wasn't going to bring it back, it's not like slaveowners could bring their slaves with them when going on the run fighting against Union forces. It's far easier to just rejoin the Union and use democracy to their advantage by trying to limit the democratic rights of freedmen and pass laws that bring back slavery in all but name. It's not going to be another Somalia, there's no tradition of US warlordism where a warlord could feasibly try and take control over America, nor would piracy ever be a major part of the economy.
"Democracy" is an interesting way to say "terrorism and mob violence"... The disenfranchisement of Southern blacks was anything but peaceful or respectful of the democratic process.
 
"Democracy" is an interesting way to say "terrorism and mob violence"... The disenfranchisement of Southern blacks was anything but peaceful or respectful of the democratic process.
Democracy in the context of the 1860's South generally didn't care for the rights or safety of black people, still took advantage of the existing system to do what they wanted. Aside from the KKK and other lynch mobs, people peeling back civil rights were technically doing so legally, doesn't have to be inclusive or righteous to be called a democracy, just look at Athens. Granted, stopping black people from voting was at first done by threats and violence, but the government never tried particularly hard to stop them and once black people lost the vote the whites were free to vote for all the other heinous stuff they wanted.
 
Democracy in the context of the 1860's South generally didn't care for the rights or safety of black people, still took advantage of the existing system to do what they wanted. Aside from the KKK and other lynch mobs, people peeling back civil rights were technically doing so legally, doesn't have to be inclusive or righteous to be called a democracy, just look at Athens. Granted, stopping black people from voting was at first done by threats and violence, but the government never tried particularly hard to stop them and once black people lost the vote the whites were free to vote for all the other heinous stuff they wanted.
Again, I don't really know how assassinating federally-appointed officials and organizing anti-black pogroms can be classed as democracy or working "within the confines of the law." Also, in the aftermath of the Civil War, numerous black politicians were elected into office, and the Republican party had a strong voter base amongst not just blacks but many whites. So I don't know what you mean by "in the context of the 1860s South."
 
My whole gist is that the Confederates got what they wanted anyway without having to resort to guerrilla warfare. Also, they did get the Black Codes passed into law not long after the war was over.
 
I'm thinking if the guerilla campagin happened, it could lead to harsher stuff against him, especially if the former slaves used the opportunity to try and gain prestige and influence
 
Perhaps propaganda in the south is too effective. The power brokers don't want a war but the common people become convinced that it's worth fighting for "states rights", even if slavery isn't on the table anymore
 
Perhaps propaganda in the south is too effective. The power brokers don't want a war but the common people become convinced that it's worth fighting for "states rights", even if slavery isn't on the table anymore
Doubtful, popular sentiment for the Confederacy only really kicked in when the possibility of fighting was completely out the window. Slaveowners are never going to commit to guerrilla warfare because it makes no sense for them to do so, and the poor whites have either been highly disillusioned by the war or were against it in the first place. In fact, that's the second reason I forgot to mention that would make guerrilla warfare in the South impossible, almost all the people in the South with some experience of it were Unionists, or at least deserters from the Confederate Army. The places in the South most amenable to guerrilla warfare are the places where slavery held little sway and the populace was ready to shoot anyone in a reb uniform.

Also can't undersell just how big of a problem desertion was. In 1865 Jefferson Davis himself admitted that up to 2/3rds of his army were AWOL. During Sherman's March to the Sea, when you might expect people to put up stiff resistance in defense of their homes, the Confederate Army in Georgia was actually disintegrating through desertion. They weren't standing their ground against the Yankee invaders, and they weren't going home so they could fight a guerrilla war against the federal army by their lonesome, they just wanted to live and to make sure their families were still safe. That ain't a recipe for continued warfare after the surrender.
 
Could there have been some die hard guerillas, sure but a unified "movement" not at all. Guerilla wars are not always won by the insurgents, in spite of what some people believe. In a defeated south, especially since the vast majority of the inhabitants were left alone to live their lives, the 2/3-3/4 of Confederates who did not own slaves are not going to be in a hurry to keep going. If an area is supporting guerillas, I don't see Sherman or his devotees having any compunction about burning down every building and crop in the area - as was done to the Shennendoah Valley and parts of Georgia. Also, if the CSA has thrown in the sponge with all legitimate military forces surrendering, Union forces and politicians will have no trouble considering guerillas to be "illegitimate" combatants and criminals. If summary justice is not used, a military court martial and then the long drop with a short rope.
 
Well then, how do we make the defeat of the Confederacy even worse? This includes further tarnishing the legacy and bonus points if this leads to better treatment of the former slaves earleir on and aafeguarding them
 
Well then, how do we make the defeat of the Confederacy even worse? This includes further tarnishing the legacy and bonus points if this leads to better treatment of the former slaves earleir on and aafeguarding them
even more terrorism on their part than IOTL could work. here's some actual events that could be extrapolated from (pasted verbatim from a Word document of mine):
  • raiders attacking Lawrence, Kansas, to rob banks, raze most of the town, (including forcing civilians back into buildings and then torching them) and murder every man and boy they could on August 21 1863
  • planning to ship and sell clothing infected with yellow fever to Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., in December 1863
  • threatening to burn down Hagerstown, Maryland, as a means of extortion on July 6 1864
  • burning Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, to the ground after failing to extort money from civilians
  • attempting to burn down St. Albans, Vermont, after shooting civilians and robbing banks
  • trying to burn down New York City by lighting fires in hotels in the middle of the night on November 24 1864
the Confederate government had also authorized the execution and enslavement of Union POWs. to make it even more clear than IOTL that they're objectively evil, it could amount to an official statement by the Confederates as the war goes on that "For every one of our men you damnyankee savages don't give back to us, we're executing ten of yours, no trials!!! Because we are civilized Southern gentlemen and this is how rational people behave."
 
even more terrorism on their part than IOTL could work. here's some actual events that could be extrapolated from (pasted verbatim from a Word document of mine):
  • raiders attacking Lawrence, Kansas, to rob banks, raze most of the town, (including forcing civilians back into buildings and then torching them) and murder every man and boy they could on August 21 1863
  • planning to ship and sell clothing infected with yellow fever to Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., in December 1863
  • threatening to burn down Hagerstown, Maryland, as a means of extortion on July 6 1864
  • burning Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, to the ground after failing to extort money from civilians
  • attempting to burn down St. Albans, Vermont, after shooting civilians and robbing banks
  • trying to burn down New York City by lighting fires in hotels in the middle of the night on November 24 1864
the Confederate government had also authorized the execution and enslavement of Union POWs. to make it even more clear than IOTL that they're objectively evil, it could amount to an official statement by the Confederates as the war goes on that "For every one of our men you damnyankee savages don't give back to us, we're executing ten of yours, no trials!!! Because we are civilized Southern gentlemen and this is how rational people behave."

So have these events become escalated and worsen as the CSA is losing the war. That would definitely help, especially if more people became aware of it. Another thing could be former slaves/freemen trying to stop it and the Union government using it to put them on a pedestal to further villanize the COnfederacy
 
Of course there were die-hard guerillas. What do you think Jesse James was doing? He wasn't robbing for himself. He was accumulating a war chest for a 2nd rebellion. So were others like him.
 
Top