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

[ole]

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.

Doggone, CW. We seem to be crossing swords more often than usual today. Next week, we'll play nice.

Guerilla campaigns are more or less successful according to the situation in place. Generally, the native has the advantage of partisan supply and support, and "my home." But that advantage does go away, eventually. It tends to morph into, "Jeez. Just go away so I can feed my family." At that point, the advantage shifts.

And, of course, it is always more complicated than that. A 15-year-old getting brutalized will change everything. A dirtbag abuses a girl or hangs a boy....A very delicate and hardly predictable management of the situation. Sneeze out of the wrong nostil and you have a full-blown rebellion. Sneeze out of the correct nostril and you may get through. A most delicate balance. I'll suspect that no one, now or then, can call the roll of the dice.

ole

[Ozark Iron John]

At least you all are talking about it. That's a good thing.

johan_steele's lenses aren't tinted blue, they're black and blue and he can't / won't see the nose on his own face less'n honest Abe tells him too.

180,000 USCT! Right. NOT! Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaw!

The country was pretty much evenly divided on the slavery issue in 1861 and it would not have taken too many wagon bombs placed in front of Abolitionist Churhes and Yankee banks or bomb barges floated into Yankee bridges or steamers and the less radical black Republicans and Peace Democrats amongst US would've said "to hell with this, why can't we all just get along!"

I suggest to you that a couple dozen public murders and few hundred lynchings would've settled this issue in a matter of months rather than years and at the cost of a whole lot less American lives.

And black African slavery would've died on the vine within a generation or two anyway.

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John

180,000 USCT! Right. NOT! Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaw! So how many were there? How many USCT men were in the field by 64? You don't believe Pro Slavery factions resorting to terrorism on a wider scale than they did in Kansas would provoke a nationwide smackdown on the instigators and a growing realization of what the CS was really out for? You see, most of those westerners were more than willing to shoot back and so were those city slickers in NYC, even if they did prefer their fists. I know you don't believe the USCT had any effect upon the war but for god sake admit black men were willing to fight for their own lives and freedom.
The country was pretty much evenly divided on the slavery issue in 1861 and it would not have taken too many wagon bombs placed in front of Abolitionist Churhes and Yankee banks or bomb barges floated into Yankee bridges or steamers Terrorism... sorry the average CS soldier had standards, morals and class. They were MEN, I don't believe they would have been willing to sink to such cowardism. and the less radical black Republicans and Peace Democrats amongst US would've said "to hell with this, why can't we all just get along!"

I suggest to you that a couple dozen public murders and few hundred lynchings would've settled this issue in a matter of months rather than years and at the cost of a whole lot less American lives. The CS did partake in a couple dozen public murders. And their supporters in the KKK & White League after the War were quite adept at using the rope; is that what you are basing your premise upon. Even at their worst, their brand of terrorism was not what you propose might have worked. How do you think the US would have reacted to a 9/11 style terrorist attack in 1860? THe Civil War was brutal, the kind of war you are talking about would have resulted in a far more brutal reaction than the actual war.
And black African slavery would've died on the vine within a generation or two anyway. You mean like it did after the invention of the Cotton Gin... where it actually increased and became more profitable. What would have caused slavery to die off? I don't buy it; simply because of the way so many try to put a good face on a despicable institution still today.

You aren't advocating a guerilla war, you are advocating terrorism. Do you really believe the average Southerner would have tolerated Hezbellah/PLO/Al Queda type activites... or are you claiming there were no southern values of honor and integrity? Please don't lump the real men of the CS Army w/ such cowardly nutters.

You had the gall to call me UnAmerican?

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by ole

Guerilla campaigns are more or less successful according to the situation in place. Generally, the native has the advantage of partisan supply and support, and "my home." But that advantage does go away, eventually. It tends to morph into, "Jeez. Just go away so I can feed my family." At that point, the advantage shifts.

And, of course, it is always more complicated than that. A 15-year-old getting brutalized will change everything. A dirtbag abuses a girl or hangs a boy....A very delicate and hardly predictable management of the situation. Sneeze out of the wrong nostil and you have a full-blown rebellion. Sneeze out of the correct nostril and you may get through. A most delicate balance. I'll suspect that no one, now or then, can call the roll of the dice.

ole

I would put my $ w/ the inherent decency of the American people and the effectiveness of the US Army in putting down OIJ's "what if" of a Pro Slavery Terrorist campaign.

[TheWolf]

Many of the same problems would have been experienced the same, such as lack of communication, uniforms, munitions and rations. May have prolonged the war but I'm sure the outcome would have been the same.

[cw1865]

Originally Posted by ole

Doggone, CW. We seem to be crossing swords more often than usual today. Next week, we'll play nice.

Its just speculation on top of speculation.

[samgrant]

Shane, OIJ's? What's that?

[Borderruffian]

I'm still failing to see where all these guerillias are going to come from. What your talking about is a popular uprising in the south.

IMO the landed gentry for who's benefit the war was fought and who lead the average CS grunt down the primrose path by planting the States Rights bug in their ear, are not going to be able to foster the kind of support needed for an extended guerillia campaign.

The Southern political leadership sure isn't going to attempt to run the CS from some cave in the Smokies or the Blue Ridge. Can you imagine Varina Davis wearin homespun and fixing Jeff Corn-pone over a camp fire.

The Southern gentry lacked the fortitude for this kind of fight.

[ole]

The Southern gentry lacked the fortitude for this kind of fight.

I'd say they didn't lack the fortitude so long as someone else was doing the fighting.

ole

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by Borderruffian

I'm still failing to see where all these guerillias are going to come from. What your talking about is a popular uprising in the south.

IMO the landed gentry for who's benefit the war was fought and who lead the average CS grunt down the primrose path by planting the States Rights bug in their ear, are not going to be able to foster the kind of support needed for an extended guerillia campaign.

The Southern political leadership sure isn't going to attempt to run the CS from some cave in the Smokies or the Blue Ridge. Can you imagine Varina Davis wearin homespun and fixing Jeff Corn-pone over a camp fire.

The Southern gentry lacked the fortitude for this kind of fight.

There's the rub. The rebellion was initiated by the landed slave holding oligarchy and it swept most of the remainder of the South with it. They fancied themselves a "government" and sat back and watched, as their trusting youth and their sacred states were devastated.

This was no popular uprising in any respect.