The tales of popular narratives notwithstanding, insurgencies don't survive, let alone succeed, without outside support. Who's backing the Confederates in this scenario?
If The Confederate Armies Dissolve Into Guerrilla Bands, Could the Union Have Still Won?
- Thread starter frustrated progressive
- Start date
Yes, and fairly easily.
By 1865, Southern morale was close to rock-bottom.
A very large part of the Army of Northern Virginia deserted during the winter of 1864-1865. They were hungry, exhausted, could see that they were facing overwhelming power, and their families were suffering. Very few would try to fight as guerrillas. They wanted to go home.
Southern civilians were also demoralized. It should be recalled that large areas of the South had opposed secession, and welcomed Union troops as liberators - notably east Tennessee. Also German settlements in south Texas. Many of those who had supported secession in 1861 were disillusioned and exhausted by the endless demands of the CSA government - for men, food, draft animals, and more. A large part of Mississippi was in active rebellion against the CSA (the "Free State of Jones"); there were similar movements elsewhere. These people would not support or join any guerrilla campaign.
Guerrillla warfare could plague the Yankees, but it could not prevent the liberation of all the slaves - which had been the entire reason for secession in the first place.
Over 40% of the population was black; they would oppose any Confederate guerrillas.
The leaders of the South still had a lot to lose in terms of property at risk. Support the guerrillas and the Yankees burn you out. Don't support the guerrillas and they burn you out. The bankers, brokers, and merchants in Southern cities would have little or no business.
And finally, the CSA functioned, like any government, by force. Men were conscripted and supplies paid for with taxes or just "nationalized". The guerrillas can't do any of that. (Well, they can, but the people will get really tired of it.)
So such Confederates as try guerrilla operations will be hunted down fairly quickly, IMO. They will alienate most of the population by perpetuating the war that everyone else is sick of.
Last edited:
So the thread's collective opinion is that Missouri only lasted for four years because there was a Confederacy supporting the guerriilas?
I believe that normal levels of desertion and war fatigue would be somewhat ameliorated by Lee publicly turning partisan.
I believe that normal levels of desertion and war fatigue would be somewhat ameliorated by Lee publicly turning partisan.
No, not at all. In fact, him going partisan and asking his army to do so VS ASB making ALL his officers do it while he gives up the fight would have little difference. Lee's prestige kind of took a hit by this point and asking one to continue the war would have only made it worse. Also, remember the Army of Northern Virginia wanted to thrown in the towl at this point.
Edit: Fixed a typo
Last edited:
Yeah, "Invincible Lee" took a hit from Appomattox when he proved to be not so invincible to Grant.
The POD explicitly prevents Appomattox from happening.
IIRC , it was during Appomattox that it was proposed. By going guerrilla at that point you are pretty much conceding the battle as you are no longer there to fight.
Let us review the reason why there was bushwhacking in Missouri. Pro-Confederates were dominated the ground around Kansas City while Unionists dominated the ground around Saint Louis. But supporters of each cause were dispersed throughout the state. The state was very intensely divided on their loyalties which fueled the fire for Jayhawkers and Bushwhackers.
I think you underestimate the rate of desertion in the Army of Northern Virginia at this time. The Union Army had shattered the Army of Northern Virginia at Petersburg and was crushing the AoNV during the pursuit to Appomattox Court House. By then, even the true believers were deserting the army to go home.
The Union probably wouldn't think the war was winnable if it became a true people's war; the point of the Civil War for the Union was not just subjugating the south, but preserving republican government. Fighting an insurgency would require large, standing armies permanently occupying much of the country, and carrying out reprisals against civilians, according to the accepted methods of counter partisan warfare of the age. This is absolutely incompatible with the ideals of constitutionalism and republican government; a victory that sacrifices them is no victory at all.
Nonsense the Union was doing exactly that since at least early 1864.
Forgive me if i'm not terribly impressed by 'large standing armies permanently occupying large portions of the country' for a grand total of a year.
There is zero, I repeat zero evidence that the Union would give up merely because it has to occupy the South with a large army. The Union Army simply rounds up the population where there is considerable resistance and ships them out into the Western Deserts. Southerners can discover how much they like living among the cacti and coyotes.
Would there have been the political will to deport what I'd expect to be a quarter of the entire southern population for an indefinite period? I'm not entirely convinced.
Why not? They have all proved themselves to be traitors. Besides which how many would continue to rebel if they knew they would be deported to live among the cacti and coyotes? A lot less than a quarter almost certainly.
Considering the fact that 95% of the US Army had been disbanded within a couple years of the surrender despite ongoing violence, the political will of the North to sustain an occupation of the South that can actually suppress an insurgency is very much in doubt. It is not a struggle that can be won with mass deportation; the whole premise of the war was that Southerners were still U.S. citizens, with the relevant rights and duties, and will be won by reincorporating them into the country. That has to happen through negotiation; if the people-in-arms feel their existence is threatened, they'll fight to the last man. People do not get tired of living. From there, the solution is to propose peace on less threatening terms. You can't tell someone 'kill yourself, or I'll kill you'; you have to give them a reason to not pursue uncertain survival rather than certain destruction.
Well, the five Military Districts did survive until 1870 but of course, the number of troops was downscaled from wartime.
Didn't President Grant bring federal troops back in to enforce the law after the Second Enforcement Act of 1871?
1) The Western Deserts wouldn't be death. I am not talking about putting them away from any water. I am talking about putting them a few miles from a river. People do live in the desert you know.
2) The violence was almost solely confined to Black Freedmen not Union Soldiers. Most people in the North didn't care that much about them either.
There was no way to perform a mass deportation in the 19th century without death, the infrastructure just wasn't there.