WI: Prolonged Confederate Guerilla War
- Thread starter ThatOneGuy
- Start date
Keep in mind in such a war some would take to the hills, many of the others would be hiding in plain sight getting food and weapons to them.
Guerilla wars don't need many people or alot of resources as a conventional war does to drag on and on and on. Winning for insurgents is not losing. But, back then such wars tended to fail more often then modern times as states were really tough on populations supporting insurgents and its hard to maintain an insurgency when the insurgents support base doesn't have food either. We saw that play out with the US Army's war with native tribes.
Last edited:
The problem with that line of reasoning is that the folks in the hills tended to support the union. Also many of the soldiers were in poor shape. I read an officer stating that wounds which wouldn't have considered serious were becoming deadly in some cases. As I pointed out there were only 8'000 armed soldiers in Lee's army and maybe 15'000 to 20'000 Johnson army in North Carolina and 10'000 east of the Mississippi. And all of them had union forces in considerable numbers nearby as well.
Sure, but if you are committed to start an insurgency the immediate numbers don't matter. You don't have to attack right way. You can spend a year or two or even longer organizing it while the Union Army demobilized into a token force.
An insurgency has one huge advantage over a conventional army. They can choose their place and time to make trouble. Democracies have one huge weakness fighting insurgencies too and that is the public in a democratic society wants their troops home ASAP. The only way to keep an insurgency down once it starts is to have enough local boys in areas far away willing to fight the insurgents as they pop up.
The real dividing line in terms of followers of the Confederacy vs Union in hill country was those who ascribed to an honor based conception of the world like General Jackson who was born and raised in Western Virginia and those who did not. However, once Appomattox happened it would be unthinkable for those motivated by honor to plan a long term partisan campaign.
Last edited:
The union has a lot of good well armed cavalry, a large number of sympathizers in freed slaves, etc. Politically, the north wasn't asking for much from the defeated south, utterly defeated south really, after a long war. If you didn't have slaves what's the point of waring on at that point.
But if they did, the union cavalry would break up into squads of 100 to pursue the partisans. Maybe a artillery piece each, use the infantry to occupy the cities.
But if they did, the union cavalry would break up into squads of 100 to pursue the partisans. Maybe a artillery piece each, use the infantry to occupy the cities.
An insurgency needs popular support, and there was almost none in the defeated South. The post war Union Army were volunteers, so no one is demanding they return home. There is strong sentiment in the North to punish the ex Confederates. Just what are these rebel, rebels fighting for? The Confederacy is dead, slavery is dead, and about half the young White Men in the South are dead, or injured. The population had, had enough.
No an insurgency would not have happened in 1865 under the political situation that existed at the time. I was talking if it could be done if there was the conditions. The situation could be warped to create the conditions, but it probably needs a pod back a year or two.