What if the CSA had aggressivley pursued a Guerrilla Campaign against the Union?

[johan_steele]

I don't think an irregular war would have flown for most of the soldiers of the CS... they had had enough as can be shown by the disastarous disertion rates in the last mos of the war. Add to that the distaste evident throughout the officer ranks of the CS for the bushwackers, guerrillas et al and you don't have as much support as one might think. Too many of the CS officer corps viewed bushwackers & guerillas as bandits and cowards at best.... and while CS actions against Unionist guerillas had been ineffectual at best when they had suceeded it had been brutaly sucessful and an abject lesson.

While Geronimo and Cochise did quite well fighting a guerrilla campaign (arguably the finest in history) the average CS soldier lacked either the motivation or, I think, the discipline of the Apache. BTW that is not a put down of the CS soldier, the Apache warrior was likely the finest geurrilla fighter in the world (possibly in history) of his day, bar none.

A guerilla movement needs general support from the populace, I don't believe a CS shadow war would have had that support. IMHO the average CS soldier had had enough. After all what was he really fighting for? A govt that had failed them miserably?

[Borderruffian]

Wide spread Guerilla warfare would have extended the war and harried Union rear areas and columns etc.But you need a conventional force to hold and occupy ground.

Not to mention the fact that irregular warfare tends to attract individuals of questionable motive (Quantrill et al) and loyalty to the cause. A wide spread guerilla campaign may have hurt the CS more than helped it.

Anderson, Quantrill, Todd, Hildebrand, Clements and the like and the type of warfare they conducted in Missouri only firmed the resolve of the Union forces and brought undue hardship on the populace, and they were only partially recognized by Richmond.And grudingly at that. John Hunt Morgan and John Mosby on the other did provide good service in the east and were actually more inclined to strike at military targets

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by Borderruffian

Wide spread Guerilla warfare would have extended the war and harried Union rear areas and columns etc.But you need a conventional force to hold and occupy ground.

Not to mention the fact that irregular warfare tends to attract individuals of questionable motive (Quantrill et al) and loyalty to the cause. A wide spread guerilla campaign may have hurt the CS more than helped it.

First of all, let's make sure that you all understand the premise of my "What If". I am suggesting that the CS should NOT have fought a conventional war at all. On the contrary, I propose that if the CS had aggressivly pursued a Guerrilla Campaign against the Union, the Union would NOT have been able to cope with it. Tens of thousands of armed bands roaming the countryside shooting up, looting and destroying anything and everything unionblue and then vanishing into the dusk. Come on now, you've got to admit, Peace Democrats and luke warm Republicans alike wouldn't have put up with that for very long. They'd a sued for peace at any cost rather than submit to another winter of discontent. How much longer is the American public going to put up with fighting an insurgent battle in a foreign land, let alone right here on American soil?

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John

t. Tens of thousands of armed bands roaming the countryside shooting up, looting and destroying anything and everything unionblue and then vanishing into the dusk.

That ^^ could also have the effect of galvanizing Union resistance and offensive operations. Missouri had several bands of guerillias and the total effect on the didn't amount to much except causing hardships to the population who were punished for the irregulars actions.

Most successful guerillia campaigns, Vietnam and Cuba come to mind end up with a consolidation of forces into conventional forces for the final push and these are generally augmented with conventional forces.

Bunches of guerillias can't finish it, unless as was mentioned your willing to consume time like Ireland.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by Borderruffian

Bunches of guerillias can't finish it, unless as was mentioned your willing to consume time like Ireland.

Whack-a-Reb!!!

[OpnDownfall]

IMO such a war would tend to bring into relief, the difference between the motivations for secession by the leaders of the rebellion and the populace.
Such a war would destroy slavery, the very cause for secession in the first place (to the leadership at least).
The southern leadership did not want independence without 'Their' slaves they would not favor a type of war that guaranteed the elimination of slavery Even 'If' they won the war.

[chadutes]

I believe that the continued guerilla warefare would put alot of innocent civilians lives at danger. I read in past threads about innocent folks getting shot as posssible bushwackers. I also read where either Davis or Lee encourage all guerilla warefare to end. basically saying we fought a good fight, now it's time to go home......
It seems to me that thru out the worlds history that there has been some form of guerilla warfare and it appears that the innocent is always the one to take the worst beating.


Chadutes................

[Borderruffian]

I'm skeptical that "tens of thousands" of irregulars could be raised in the CS given the attitude towards this type of warfare in that era.

Young men enlisting with romantic notions of "proper-manly" combat to the beat of drums, nice uniforms, fluttering banners and the adoration of the fairer sex is much easier to sell.

But given the what if okay.......................................

A.) Is this guerilla war fought in the South? If so where is your seat of goverment and how do you keep Union forces out? And who exactly are you "burnin and lootin"? Southeners?

B.) Is this war to be fought in the North? If so then the forces lose popular support and what ever supply lines they might have and then they get "Hided and heeled to the barn door"


Eithier way I see a version of the Boer War playing out. The Boers were great irregular fighters. They gave the British fits. Right up until their farms and corps were burned and the women and children rounded up in Camps by Kitchner to starve and die of disease. Took the fight out of them.

IMO the Union would end up doing the same thing and nothing would be accomplished by this type of warfare.

[johan_steele]

Solution to such a war simple. Round up every slaveowner, confiscate his land and place it on public auction. Deport said slaveowner & family to Cuba, Mexico or England.

If the US Army could deal w/ the Lakota & Apache... some gutless guerillas would not have been an issue.

It takes far less courage to hide behind a tree and shoot a soldier in the back than to stand in line and face him.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Solution to such a war simple. Round up every slaveowner, confiscate his land and place it on public auction. Deport said slaveowner & family to Cuba, Mexico or England.

...ah yes...the Thaddeus Stevens Pogrom...

...how will they get all those folks to Cuba, Mexico and England?