Was it ever assumed there'd have to be some southern insurgency to deal with following the ACW?

After World War 2 there was concerns (proven unfounded) about there being significant Nazis holdouts and of course you have the experience with the entirety of the Vietnam war.

However was it ever feared or even planned for insurgency fighters in the south to continue to fight on even after the official end of hostilities?
 

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
From what I recall some in the Confederate government supported the idea (including Davis after the fall of Richmond) of an insurgency but generals like Robert E. Lee were opposed to the idea.

Edit: Here's a speech where Davis gives a speech on the topic. Bolded parts are my own.
Danville, Va., April 4, 1865.

The General in Chief of our Army has found it necessary to make such movements of the troops as to uncover the capital and thus involve the withdrawal of the Government from the city of Richmond.

It would be unwise, even were it possible, to conceal the great moral as well as material injury to our cause that must result from the occupation of Richmond by the enemy. It is equally unwise and unworthy of us, as patriots engaged in a most sacred cause, to allow our energies to falter, our spirits to grow faint, or our efforts to become relaxed under reverses, however calamitous. While it has been to us a source of national pride that for four years of unequaled warfare we have been able, in close proximity to the center of the enemy's power, to maintain the seat of our chosen Government free from the pollution of his presence; while the memories of the heroic dead who have freely given their lives to its defense must ever remain enshrined in our hearts; while the preservation of the capital, which is usually regarded as the evidency to mankind of separate national existence, was an object very dear to us, it is also true, and should not be forgotten, that the loss which we have suffered is not without compensation. For many months the largest and finest army of the Confederacy, under the command of a leader whose presence inspires equal confidence in the troops and the people, has been greatly trammeled by the necessity of keeping constant watch over the approaches to the capital, and has thus been forced to forego more than one opportunity for promising enterprise. The hopes and confidence of the enemy have been constantly excited by the belief that their possession of Richmond would be the signal for our submission to their rule, and relieve them from the burden of war, as their failing resources admonish them it must be abandoned if not speedily brought to a successful close. It is for us, my countrymen, to show by our bearing under reverses how wretched has been the self-deception of those who have believed us less able to endure misfortune with fortitude than to encounter danger with courage. We have now entered upon a new phase of a struggle the memory of which is to endure for all ages and to shed an increasing luster upon our country.

Relieved from the necessity of guarding cities and particular points, important but not vital to our defense, with an army free to move from point to point and strike in detail the detachments and garrisons of the enemy, operating on the interior of our own country, where supplies are more accessible, and where the foe will be far removed from his own base and cut off from all succor in case of reverse, nothing is now needed to render our triumph certain but the exhibition of our own unquenchable resolve. Let us but will it, and we are free; and who, in the light of the past, dare doubt your purpose in the future?

Animated by the confidence in your spirit and fortitude, which never yet has failed me, I announce to you, fellow-countrymen, that it is my purpose to maintain your cause with my whole heart and soul; that I will never consent to abandon to the enemy one foot of the soil of any one of the States of the Confederacy; that Virginia, noble State, whose ancient renown has been eclipsed by her still more glorious recent history, whose bosom has been bared to receive the main shock of this war, whose sons and daughters have exhibited heroism so sublime as to render her illustrious in all times to come - that Virginia, with the help of her people, and by the blessing of Providence, shall be held and defended, and no peace ever be made with the infamous invaders of her homes by the sacrifice of any of her rights or territory. If by stress of numbers we should ever be compelled to a temporary withdrawal from her limits, or those of any other border State, again and again will we return, until the baffled and exhausted enemy shall abandon in despair his endless and impossible task of making slaves of a people resolved to be free.

Let us not, then, despond, my countrymen; but, relying on the never-failing mercies and protecting care of our God, let us meet the foe with fresh defiance, with unconquered and unconquerable hearts.
Source: https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/people-confederate-states-america
 
Last edited:
Iirc at least one Union general expressed the fear that "the war will in some sense never be ended" because may ex-Rebs would just take to the hills. I thought I read this in Bruce Catton's Centennial History, but so far have had no luck finding it.
 
This is basically the premise of Jay Winik's book. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55229.April_1865

He argues that Grant's very generous terms at Appomattox ensured that the insurgency did not deeply take root. In my opinion understates the reality of the insurgency that actually did occur (e.g. the Klan). However, to answer you question, yes there was a real concern about a much worse insurgency than actually occurred.
 
He argues that Grant's very generous terms at Appomattox ensured that the insurgency did not deeply take root. In my opinion understates the reality of the insurgency that actually did occur (e.g. the Klan). However, to answer you question, yes there was a real concern about a much worse insurgency than actually occurred.

In addition the root instigators of the war, the landed classes, had little to no incentive to support an ongoing struggle. They weren't being deprived of their land or (most of) their wealth. At the end of the war they still had a ton more to lose by taking to the hills in a guerrilla war. After defeat, getting back to normality was in the economic and political interest of the Confederacy's former leadership.
 
In addition the root instigators of the war, the landed classes, had little to no incentive to support an ongoing struggle. They weren't being deprived of their land or (most of) their wealth. At the end of the war they still had a ton more to lose by taking to the hills in a guerrilla war. After defeat, getting back to normality was in the economic and political interest of the Confederacy's former leadership.
They may have had more incentive had radical reconstruction been implemented (e.g. break up the Plantations and give title to the former slaves). As someone who views OTL reconstruction as a missed opportunity, I find this reality troubling.
 
Last edited:
They may have had more incentive had radical reconstruction been implemented (e.g. break up the Plantations and give title to the former slaves). As some who view OTL reconstruction as a missed opportunity, I find this reality troubling.

Agreed. A radical Reconstruction and an attempt to break down the South's landed classes probably would have triggered a prolonged conflict since on the Confederate side there'd be no reason not to if you're going to lose everything anyway. Politics of Reconstruction and the long term impact on the country aside, Grant's "war's over, go home." was probably the very best surrender terms for preventing an insurgency.
 
Agreed. A radical Reconstruction and an attempt to break down the South's landed classes probably would have triggered a prolonged conflict since on the Confederate side there'd be no reason not to if you're going to lose everything anyway. Politics of Reconstruction and the long term impact on the country aside, Grant's "war's over, go home." was probably the very best surrender terms for preventing an insurgency.
I generally agree. I do think that a more vigorous reconstruction in 1865/1866 could have had fairly positive results. Presidential reconstruction provided a path for ex-confederates to continue in power. Moderate punishment combined with assistance to ex slaves (or punishment funding such assistance) may have had success.
 
They may have had more incentive had radical reconstruction been implemented (e.g. break up the Plantations and give title to the former slaves). As someone who views OTL reconstruction as a missed opportunity, I find this reality troubling.

But pretty much inevitable. Putting the country back together by reconciling the South to reunion, and forcibly supporting the rights of the Freedmen, were simply incompatible - and rebuilding the Union was by far the higher priority.

"Reconstruction" meant primarily reconstruction of the Union. Reconstruction of the South might have been a means to that end, had the South been more obdurate, but wasn't really an end in itself.
 
But pretty much inevitable. Putting the country back together by reconciling the South to reunion, and forcibly supporting the rights of the Freedmen, were simply incompatible - and rebuilding the Union was by far the higher priority.

"Reconstruction" meant primarily reconstruction of the Union. Reconstruction of the South might have been a means to that end, had the South been more obdurate, but wasn't really an end in itself.
...Which is why roughly 2000 African Americans held political office during Reconstruction? The myth that the Union had to accede to the Southern elite is just that- a myth. The reality is that African American rights were abrogated because of a lack of interest by the federal government, not because they had their hand forced.
 
Last edited:
...Which is why roughly 2000 African Americans held political office during Reconstruction? The myth that the Union had to accede to the Southern elite is just that- a myth. The reality is that African American rights were abrogated because of a lack of interest by the federal government, not because they had their hand forced.


They had their hand forced by the Northern voters.

In 1876 the Republicans came within 1% of losing Ohio (which had more electoral votes than the three famously disputed Southern States combined) and 2% of losing Wisconsin as well. True there were other factors beside Reconstruction, but a very important one was Northern weariness at "the annual autumnal outbreaks in the South". This was also why Pres Grant refused to send Federal troops to Mississippi that year - doing so probably wouldn't have saved Gov Ames, but could have cost the GOP crucial votes in the North.
 
...
However was it ever feared or even planned for insurgency fighters in the south to continue to fight on even after the official end of hostilities?

There had been a insurgent or irregular sort of warfare in the west previous to the ACW. The term "Bleeding Kansas" existed for a reason. Then there were the events in eastern Tennessee, which were seen by some as a guerrilla war during the ACW.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
...Which is why roughly 2000 African Americans held political office during Reconstruction? The myth that the Union had to accede to the Southern elite is just that- a myth. The reality is that African American rights were abrogated because of a lack of interest by the federal government, not because they had their hand forced.

No, the Union got tired of paying for the occupation troops. IOTL, the north wins the war, the south wins the insurgency without having to fight battles. The Klan and the associated movements won.
 
Top