Without some death, you are correct but most will survive. As bad as it was most Cherokee survived the "Trail of Tears". Besides Southerners can easily avoid it by not rebelling which is the point.
If The Confederate Armies Dissolve Into Guerrilla Bands, Could the Union Have Still Won?
- Thread starter frustrated progressive
- Start date
Without some death, you are correct but most will survive. As bad as it was most Cherokee survived the "Trail of Tears". Besides Southerners can easily avoid it by not rebelling which is the point.
It would fail for a simple reason - it was too early for guerrilla tactics to be effective in the long term.
They work very well today because guerrillas have access to arms and resources from around the globe. There is a reason why so many successful guerrilla movements only took off after the invention of the AK-47. It's damned hard to fight a guerrilla war without any weapons.
Which brings us to the idea of Confederate guerrillas. Where are they getting weapons and ammo? Food and clothing? One of the big reasons the South lost the Civil War is that the Union made 90% of the countries guns, supplies, and resources needed to not only fight a war, but to feed and clothe the civilian populace. And if the Confederate government couldn't find foreign support, why the hell would a bunch of backwoods rebels?
It ain't gonna be the civilian population. Contrary to what the Lost Causers will tell you, the general population of the South wasn't exactly chafing under Reconstruction. Hell, the civilians may turn on the guerrillas because they'll attract the stick instead of the carrot.
The one silver lining is that Reconstruction may be more forceful with active guerrillas. We may crack down much harder on groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and stomp down the early push for Jim Crow. If nothing else, we may hang Nathan Bedford Forest and his ilk.
They work very well today because guerrillas have access to arms and resources from around the globe. There is a reason why so many successful guerrilla movements only took off after the invention of the AK-47. It's damned hard to fight a guerrilla war without any weapons.
Which brings us to the idea of Confederate guerrillas. Where are they getting weapons and ammo? Food and clothing? One of the big reasons the South lost the Civil War is that the Union made 90% of the countries guns, supplies, and resources needed to not only fight a war, but to feed and clothe the civilian populace. And if the Confederate government couldn't find foreign support, why the hell would a bunch of backwoods rebels?
It ain't gonna be the civilian population. Contrary to what the Lost Causers will tell you, the general population of the South wasn't exactly chafing under Reconstruction. Hell, the civilians may turn on the guerrillas because they'll attract the stick instead of the carrot.
The one silver lining is that Reconstruction may be more forceful with active guerrillas. We may crack down much harder on groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and stomp down the early push for Jim Crow. If nothing else, we may hang Nathan Bedford Forest and his ilk.
No. There were many ex Confederates who took brave stands against the clan and some who came to oppose it; most notably Nathan Bedford Forrest.
In a true guerilla situations, they would be fighting and supporting what they believed to be the legitimate government. They would be sucked into the cycle of violence and things would be A LOT worse. Think Northern Ireland as a best case scenario.
Lee's choice to surrender, followed by officers defying Davis's call for guerilla warfare was one of the wisest choices in American history and a rebuke to those who equate all Confederates as proto fascists.
Nathan founded the Klan in the stage of "angry people who drink and whine about blacks" but when they started committing crimes, he disowned it.
Guerilleros plagued the French army during the Peninsular War, and only a few years later, French Franc-Tireurs harassed the German troops in the aftermath of the Franco-German war.
There is a major difference, in this case the morale of the would be guerillas, the Army of Northern Virginia, would be broken and one more setback or even a week's worth of starvation before turning from resistance fighter to desperate bandit/burglar.
Last edited:
RousseauX
Donor
Or alternatively it should be recognized that independence was never the real goal of the confederacy: it was always about preservation of a certain racial social order and once you give them that there isn't all that much reason to resist
OTL the southern states got it during the reconstruction: states were free to reduce freed blacks to serfdom and implement jim crow laws to formalize it: there isn't much a reason for armed resistance after that
RousseauX
Donor
@Alex Zetsu
Guerrilla warfare and domestic insurgencies are essentially political issues with military wings attached to it
one of the biggest mistakes Americans, especially the american public choose to see guerrilla wars is that they are wars which needs to be won by the military killing the guerrillas and the main issue being how brutal you need to be to kill guerrilla soldiers. In reality guerrillas are basically a really disgruntled political constituency which chooses armed violence rather than other means of political engagement with the state.
in reality the solution to them are almost always political and the ultimate end for such wars is to have a settlement in which the guerrillas and their constituencies are brought into the political process and some sort of legislative solution be found to satisfy their demands enough so they stop fighting. Guerrilla wars seldom end with one side giving up completely like the US withdraw from Vietnam, they tend to be settled on some sort of compromise which reduces violence down to a level that it can be ignored.
A lot of the post itt reminds me that Americans are trained to think of war in form of civil war, WWII in which there's a few years of fighting then one side wins and make the other side surrender. In reality most wars in history take place over the course of decades or even centuries and consists of persistent low level conflicts and doesn't end with a clear win for either side.
Basically what I'm saying is that OP's scenario looks a lot more like FARC in Columbia than anything else and a political settlement would look a lot like OTL 1876: state governments getting to defend the antebellum southern order while the federal government more or less hands off the south in exchange for end of the fighting.
Guerrilla warfare and domestic insurgencies are essentially political issues with military wings attached to it
one of the biggest mistakes Americans, especially the american public choose to see guerrilla wars is that they are wars which needs to be won by the military killing the guerrillas and the main issue being how brutal you need to be to kill guerrilla soldiers. In reality guerrillas are basically a really disgruntled political constituency which chooses armed violence rather than other means of political engagement with the state.
in reality the solution to them are almost always political and the ultimate end for such wars is to have a settlement in which the guerrillas and their constituencies are brought into the political process and some sort of legislative solution be found to satisfy their demands enough so they stop fighting. Guerrilla wars seldom end with one side giving up completely like the US withdraw from Vietnam, they tend to be settled on some sort of compromise which reduces violence down to a level that it can be ignored.
A lot of the post itt reminds me that Americans are trained to think of war in form of civil war, WWII in which there's a few years of fighting then one side wins and make the other side surrender. In reality most wars in history take place over the course of decades or even centuries and consists of persistent low level conflicts and doesn't end with a clear win for either side.
Basically what I'm saying is that OP's scenario looks a lot more like FARC in Columbia than anything else and a political settlement would look a lot like OTL 1876: state governments getting to defend the antebellum southern order while the federal government more or less hands off the south in exchange for end of the fighting.
The first were in support of regular British and Spanish armies in order to be effective. Ditto the latter with the French army. Without those to lean on, they would have simply gotten crushed. I mean, the Francs-tireurs did fail OTL.
The Franc-Thireus refused to cooperate with the normal chain of command, what are you talking about?
One thing to remember the Union took over 300,000 deaths in the Civil War and the number of deaths would go way down during an insurgency. The idea that the Union would suddenly give up if it took 10,000 fatalities a year during an insurgency is something I find silly. The South would take far more, probably on the order of 10:1 or so. The Union simply keeps the troop levels up and show the rebellious regions the iron fist. Those areas that aren't rebelling are treated much better.
The "no tolerance" option could probably get the job done with fewer than 3,000 Northern combat casualties (with probably ten times this just because 1865 is a bad time to put 1.5 million men camping)
General Johnston was correct in this
. The worst time to start an insurgency is when people are already tired of war and think they are already beaten.Joe Johnston said:
This quote perfectly sums up why it wouldn't work. The nation and people were exhausted. Best case scenario is that it ties down a large number of troops and makes Reconstruction less effective, however it most like makes Reconstruction more effective and the South less accepting of militancy if they're ground down over time.
Vietnam: US withdrew; North Vietnam then conquered South Vietnam with a conventional invasion
Algeria: France withdrew, granting complete independence
Philippines (1898-1903): US defeated the nationalist insurrection
Philippines (1950-1958): Philippine government wiped out the Hukbalahat
Cuba: Castro overthrew Batista
Malaya: British wiped out the Communists
Nicaragua (1920s): Somoza wiped out Sandino's forces
Nicaragua (1979): Sandinistas overthrew Somoza jr
Ukraine (1945-1950): Soviets wiped out nationalist "Banderovtsy"
South Africa (1900-1902): British defeated all Boer holdouts
Libya (1912-1927): Italy defeated all Senussi rebels
In all of these cases, one side was completely defeated and violence stopped.
Last edited:
Guerrilla fighting relies on your enemy having less will to fight than you do, the south's will to fight would have crumbled over time.
BaronVonDouchebag
Banned
I'd give a guerrilla movement in 1865 C.S.A. about a year before dissipating. They would have to depend on civilian support, and by April 1865 I just don't see too many war-weary civilians wanting to support such a movement.
However, as an alternative, is it plausible for such a movement to gain traction around 1870 or so during Reconstruction? Perhaps led by something akin to the Ku Klux Klan and supported by a southern population disenchanted by post-war Yankee rule?
However, as an alternative, is it plausible for such a movement to gain traction around 1870 or so during Reconstruction? Perhaps led by something akin to the Ku Klux Klan and supported by a southern population disenchanted by post-war Yankee rule?
I can't say the guerrilla movement would do very well. As before the CSA was broken, and beaten by 1865, with a war weary Army, and a far more war weary population.
This is South by 1865.
Columbia.
Charleston.
Richmond.
And let us not forget Sherman's March to the Sea which touch and burn just about everything in the state of Georgia.
The fact of the matter there was little fight left in the Confederates. Sure, some fought after Lee gave in, but not for very long. At worst, you have gave more firepower to the Radical Republicans to have a field day with the South if the guerrillas really become a pain somehow, or killed a few famous people.
Another issue is where do they run, regroup, and get support and aid?? The VC had Laos and Cambodia. The Mujahideen had Pakistan, as did the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. There would have non of that.
This is South by 1865.
Columbia.
Charleston.
Richmond.
And let us not forget Sherman's March to the Sea which touch and burn just about everything in the state of Georgia.
The fact of the matter there was little fight left in the Confederates. Sure, some fought after Lee gave in, but not for very long. At worst, you have gave more firepower to the Radical Republicans to have a field day with the South if the guerrillas really become a pain somehow, or killed a few famous people.
Another issue is where do they run, regroup, and get support and aid?? The VC had Laos and Cambodia. The Mujahideen had Pakistan, as did the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. There would have non of that.