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

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by Borderruffian

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.

Colonel. May I call you Colonel? I've known some Colonels in my day and I reckon you'd make one.

As you so correctly point out, farms and crops burned, women and children rounded up and made to starve and die of disease. It would most definetly take the fight out of 'em. I have no doubt.

It strikes me ironic that johan-steele could say "Round up every slaveowner, confiscate his land and place it on public auction. Deport said slaveowner & family to Cuba, Mexico or England." This is America, isn't it? or Was in 1861!

How can anyone advocate such atrocities against citizens, civilians and non-combatants and call themselves Americans? How can anyone advocate such oppression by the federal government and question the honor and courage of men who would resist such tyranny?

It was their duty to resist, it was their duty to rebel, it was their duty to raise hell. It is my honor to say so.

[OpnDownfall]

Just 'some' of the practical results, of the south attempting to win it's independence by Guerrilla action.. The history of guerrilla campaigns is fairly complete and should be instructive to those who would want to learn from that history.

[Ozark Iron John]

"I've killed so many federals that I've grown sick of killing them."



His picture reminds me of that famous Photo of Che Guevara taken by Alberto Korda, in 1960.



What say ya'll? Sure you don't want Ride with the Devil a little bit?

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John

It strikes me ironic that johan-steele could say "Round up every slaveowner, confiscate his land and place it on public auction. Deport said slaveowner & family to Cuba, Mexico or England." This is America, isn't it? or Was in 1861! Guerrillas had no place in the rules of warfare, civilians figting outside the ranks were viewed as no better than bandits and by tradition should have expected nothing less than summary execution when captured. Mass deportation of trouble makers is considerably more humane than a tall tree & short rope. Perhaps yopu should look at CS treatment of pro union guerillas... might open your eyes some.

How can anyone advocate such atrocities against citizens, civilians and non-combatants and call themselves Americans? How can anyone advocate such oppression by the federal government and question the honor and courage of men who would resist such tyranny? Deportation of those who break the laws of the land and forment treason and rebellion is less hum,ane than summary execution. Unamerican? Treat them the same as the Native American...
It was their duty to resist, it was their duty to rebel, it was their duty to raise hell. It is my honor to say so.

And they failed, weren't executed by the thousands most found themselves once again in the fold of the voting citizen... yes this is America. Not your Amerika.

I'm sorry I forgot that you asked how to get them to Cuba, Mexico or England. Via ship...

How did the CS deal w/ those who opposed Secession? Seized land and deported... unless they were in a hanging mood. Ask the Texas Germans...

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John

History has proven time and time again that guerrilla insurgencies may be successful. Especially if waged against large scale conventional forces trying to hold vast amounts of terrain.

I am not suggesting that Jeff Davis could've led the remnants of the Army of Northern Virginia into the mountains and holed up plotting revenge. On the contrary, I reckon that's how it ought Tove been fought from the get go.

Column formations and frontal assaults were out dated and obsolete but they fought 'em anyway. Can you imagine McDowell trying to march 50,000 men to Richmond in the spring of 1861 with Beauregard and 18,000 bushwhackers Nippon' at his heels?

I reckon it would've been like the Redcoats retreating after Concord all the way to the Potomac. It was almost like that anyway.

OZ is correct, witness present day Iraq.

I have not read this entire post yet, but stopped here as a previous poster seemed to be under the impression that this concerned an "after official surrrender, take to the hills" sort of activity.

I think OZ may be correct that a large scale Francis Marion or the like, guerrilla type strategy from the start might have been more sucessful in the long run.

(Lee's agressive strategy held off the Union for 4 years.
While the US defeated the convention forces, the Iraqi army, in about, what, 6 weeks? Iraqi insurgents have held off US forces for 5+ years and you all know what is projected).

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by 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.

Border R raises a good question, how to organize a conventional army vs. how to organize a guerrilla army, but then wasn't it done somewhat during the Revolutionary War where Washington had his "regulars" in the North and in the South we had "Swamp Foxes, etc."?

[larry_cockerham]

Same wrote: " have not read this entire post yet, but stopped here as a previous poster seemed to be under the impression that this concerned an "after official surrrender, take to the hills" sort of activity.

I think OZ may be correct that a large scale Francis Marion or the like, guerrilla type strategy from the start might have been more sucessful in the long run."

There was a guy in Tennessee named Forrest who tried to demonstrate this concept for years. Nobody was watching. At least he rarely lined up, wrote a letter to his wife, kissed his butt goodby and marched forward.

[ole]

Border R raises a good question, how to organize a conventional army vs. how to organize a guerrilla army, but then wasn't it done somewhat during the Revolutionary War where Washington had his "regulars" in the North and in the South we had "Swamp Foxes, etc."?

In there is the seed of its own destruction.

Guerilla armies are seldom successful without the support of an outside entity because, by their very nature, the fighters are the supporters and it's extremely difficult to fill both roles.

With respect to Larry, Forrest was not a guerilla. He was irregular, but not a skulking shoot-and-run guerilla. In Missouri and the Appalachians, guerillas were particularly vicious, but you'll notice that they were running their enemies and friends out of the business of supporting them.
Eventually crops weren't being planted and meat wasn't being salted away.

Although I agree that a Confederate army of organized raiders, like Forrest or Francis Marion, would have been a tougher nut for the Union to crack, guerillas simply use up their base of supply and must eventually rely on a central supply and a supply line.

ole

[johan_steele]

It's important to understand Iraq would have been nothing like a CS guerilla campaign. Carbombs and suicide attacks were not in the mind of any CS soldier, soldier wannabe bushwacker etc. CS officers would not have tolerated terrorism of the kind seen in Iraq. It is also important to understand that much of the problems in Iraq stem from Iranian and Syrians.

I doubt CSer's would have tolerated Mexiacan & English... instigators in their midst.

The US Army drove every Native American tribe they ever faced. The CS lacked the motivation or the will to face such a war.

Secession was over slavery... a guerrilla war would have lost the CS her slaves. Thus nulling the whole point of Secession and War. Frankly... 180,000 USCT would have been able to smack any CS guerilla movement.

[cw1865]

Overall, we also have to remember that the 19th century is clearly a different era. When comparing something with modern day insurgencies we have to remember that modern sensitivities preclude the use of tactics necessary to win a guerrilla war.

Its really only after WWII that you start seeing successful guerilla campaigns as the Western states, horrified by WWII, simply restrain themselves from using Naziesque tactics to prevail.