Compare and contrast Counter guerrilla operations Union vs Confederate

Was the above not true in regards to Confederate homeguards and milita? Did the Confederates conduct COIN in a more humane manner?
Leftyhunter

Patrick H was speaking about the various union militias and home guards units in Missouri. To the best of my knowledge, there never was any confederate militias or home guards in Missouri. (I certainly don't consider guerrillas as home guards or militias).

And I don't feel qualified to answere how the confederacy conducted any type of military operations outside of Missouri
 
Okay, this is a bit long winded but I want to make a point about using local forces as an anti-terrorist organisation, so bear with me.
The UDR wasn't the smartest move the Brits ever made but it was better than leaving the defence of the state to the RUC which had to be overseen by regular British infantry units, the RUC were simply unable to effectively manage terrorist activities. It was initially thought that an organised and well trained territorial infantry regiment (UDR) would be effective and could even be a way forward for uniting both Catholics and Protestants against the IRA but as it turned out the vast majority of recruits to the UDR were Protestant. What Britain effectively managed to do was create an organised Protestant infantry regiment, they were trained in basic counter terrorist techniques but in my personal opinion they were ineffective and never really stood a chance.

The UDR primarily manned checkpoints and provided security at key locations but the real problem was that a lot of classified information on things like the UDR strength, training, position of check points, equipment etc was continuously fed back to both the IRA and the Protestant volunteer forces. There were also a few occasions when UDR weapons and ammunition miraculously disappeared only to find its way into the hands of either the IRA or mostly into the hands of the Protestant UVF paramilitary forces, the result was that more UDR men were killed off duty than in regular service, which in turn escalated the situation.

The ultimate role of the UDR was to help free up regular British regiments from regular tours of N.Ireland but it didn't really work out. Brit regular forces were still required to support/oversee the role of the UDR.

In short, the answer is that N. Ireland was a drain on British regular forces at a time when those forces could have been better deployed elsewhere, it was a real problem considering that this was happening during the period of the Cold War. I think its also fair to say that had Britain been able to focus solely on the Irish problem then we would have had more than enough troops but given that regular forces were required elsewhere there was never going to be enough regular troops to fight insurgents.
In my humble opinion, one of the key problems in raising a territorial or militia force from the local population is that there are no cast iron guarantees that the very men being armed and trained are not insurgents themselves, it happened in Vietnam, Ireland, Iraq and Spain, in fact any country that looks to employ civilians from a divided nation runs the risk of arming and training those that they wish to defeat. In all honesty, the only time that I have ever read about an effective militia or auxiliary force was way back with the Roman occupying forces. they understood that local men could not be relied upon to fight against their own people, the result was overseas posting and foreign auxiliary forces being used to police or defend captured territories, those foreign regiments/legions had no emotional or patriotic ties to the occupied country in which they served so they were successful.

So I'll end with a question.
Isn't a militia nothing more than a State/government approved guerrilla force, and why does everyone react negatively when these forces break the rules, if you arm,train and then let lose a militia with an axe to grind then be prepared for the consequences. For me personally a militia or territorial force can cause more headaches than anything else. I know there's that old saying of 'fight fire with fire' but I can't think of any home grown unit that has been successful in counter insurgency. Just about every unit that I have read about from the Civil War had issues aka Moccasin Rangers, Mosby, Quantrill etc, in fact we still see similar problems with local forces in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm here to learn so I won't be offended if you don't agree with me, fire away.:thumbsup:
I would strongly argue that by definition militas are not guerrillas because they support a particular government. They are of course paramilitaries because they as a general rule are not well trained or well led. The Missouri State Militia is a misnomer in that has previously pointed out were full time soldiers and eligible for Union pensions.
MEM did often conduct joint-operations with various Union regiments per Bruce Nickols series of books on guerrilla warfare in Missouri. Sometimes with very good results.
No doubt a milita man can be a dangerous animal and why should he not be? Yes he often has an axe to grind because the guerrillas rob , rape, and steal from him. COIN can very easily devolve into a dog eat dog contest.
Two events that I argue are fairly similar early in their respective conflicts are the pro Union German immigrant milita that
broke up the MSG at Camp Jackson led by then Capt Lyon and the use of the RUC B-Specials at the Battle of the Bogside , Londonderry 1969. In both case the militas were the only forces on hand which may arguably did not lead to a good result.
Leftyhunter
 
Patrick H was speaking about the various union militias and home guards units in Missouri. To the best of my knowledge, there never was any confederate militias or home guards in Missouri. (I certainly don't consider guerrillas as home guards or militias).

And I don't feel qualified to answere how the confederacy conducted any type of military operations outside of Missouri
I was referring to Confederate militas and homeguards in Confederate states plus Kentucky. Can we fairly criticise Union milita and not compare them to Confederate milita? This thread is by no means confined to Missouri.
A question I have posed but no one as yet answered is , are Confederate counterinsurgency efforts more effective and humane then Union counterinsurgency efforts? @Borderruffian on another similar thread argued they were not. I argue overall Union counterinsurgency good and bad is about roughly average compared with other historical counterinsurgency. Others may of course disagree hopefully with sources.
Leftyhunter
 
Lefty,
I hope you will take the time to read the letters of Nancy Chapman Jones, who wrote to her daughter about the troops that Lyon brought to Boonville. You will find this link interesting and very informative as it pertains to the cultural clash here:
http://www.mogenweb.org/cooper/Military/Jones_Letters.pdf

Then, I hope you will read this memoir of a member of the 1st Iowa, who came to Missouri, met Lyon at Boonville, and campaigned with him all the way to Wilson's Creek. The part about Boonville and Lyon starts about page 128: http://cdm.sos.mo.gov/cdm/compoundobject/collection/shscivilwar/id/6658/rec/15

These are eyewitness sources.

Patrick
I skipped through the " Dear ada and family news. Yes the letter is historically valuable in showing the mindset of a minority of Missourians. He speaks of the"Lincoln rable" well the Lincoln rable is the majority of American voters. He speaks of the " dictaitor Harney" Harney was in power for a very short time nefore Govenor Gamble assumed office. He speaks of defending Missouri but by better then three to one and I have given a source Missourians fought for the Union not the Confederacy so the gentlemen is wrong.I really only read p.8 of 43 if possible can you direct me to pages just dealing with his perceptions of the Union.

Leftyhunter
 
Was the above not true in regards to Confederate homeguards and milita? Did the Confederates conduct COIN in a more humane manner?
Leftyhunter
Hi, Lefty. I am taking about Missouri militias here. I am unaware of Confederate Home Guards in Missouri, although I expect they existed in other states. Regarding humane conduct of the war, I think some of the MSM units were just outstanding, as I mentioned above.
 
But there were about 50,000 of them and they count on the Union side. We can't forget that fact when discussing their valuable contribution to keeping the peace in Missouri. All joking aside, those poor souls who tried to stay neutral and didn't join could expect to be imprisoned, they and their family might lose their farm, home or business, and they would certainly lose whatever civil rights remained in the State. Solid post Patrick H. Here is an example of the level of loyalty the MEM might expect in Missouri:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/d0507cee-814a-5922-912b-85b45618020a.html

I suspect more than a few of the relatives of my ancestors were involved.

A contemporary news story from the NY Times (Sincere apologies regarding the nineteenth century language used by the reporter.):

http://www.nytimes.com/1864/07/27/n...onfederacy-disloyal-order.html?pagewanted=all
Those Paw Paw boys could be a disappointment, an embarrassment, and a pain in the neck all at the same time, couldn't they?!
 
Hi, Lefty. I am taking about Missouri militias here. I am unaware of Confederate Home Guards in Missouri, although I expect they existed in other states. Regarding humane conduct of the war, I think some of the MSM units were just outstanding, as I mentioned above.
I was just trying to compare an apple to an apple. Mo Union militias vs militias in CSA states. From what I posted on my thread with sources"Union vs CSA Guerrilla " at least some CSA militia shot and tortured women. My point is that we should not just look at Mo militia since this thread is not exsclusively a Mo thread.
Leftyhunter
 
I skipped through the " Dear ada and family news. Yes the letter is historically valuable in showing the mindset of a minority of Missourians. He speaks of the"Lincoln rable" well the Lincoln rable is the majority of American voters. He speaks of the " dictaitor Harney" Harney was in power for a very short time nefore Govenor Gamble assumed office. He speaks of defending Missouri but by better then three to one and I have given a source Missourians fought for the Union not the Confederacy so the gentlemen is wrong.I really only read p.8 of 43 if possible can you direct me to pages just dealing with his perceptions of the Union.

Leftyhunter
Hi, Lefty. I offered that link primarily to show how a local family reacted to the presence of Lyon and his German immigrant unit. We were discussing perceptions of immigrants as foreigners when I posted that.

This next part is way off topic, but quite interesting: She also discusses the arming of runaway slaves by Col. Eppstein in the Home Guard fort just in time for the second battle of Boonville. Too complicated to get into here, but fascinating, because it was probably the first use of black combattants in a Federally sanctioned unit. We should do a thread on that sometime. Don't want to hijack your thread, but I DO want to encourage you and everyone to read through the letters and see all of that and then we can discuss it elsewhere.
 
I was just trying to compare an apple to an apple. Mo Union militias vs militias in CSA states. From what I posted on my thread with sources"Union vs CSA Guerrilla " at least some CSA militia shot and tortured women. My point is that we should not just look at Mo militia since this thread is not exsclusively a Mo thread.
Leftyhunter
I know and I agree, but I only know about Missouri, so I don't have anything useful to contribute when it comes to the other states.
 
Hi, Lefty. I offered that link primarily to show how a local family reacted to the presence of Lyon and his German immigrant unit. We were discussing perceptions of immigrants as foreigners when I posted that.

This next part is way off topic, but quite interesting: She also discusses the arming of runaway slaves by Col. Eppstein in the Home Guard fort just in time for the second battle of Boonville. Too complicated to get into here, but fascinating, because it was probably the first use of black combattants in a Federally sanctioned unit. We should do a thread on that sometime. Don't want to hijack your thread, but I DO want to encourage you and everyone to read through the letters and see all of that and then we can discuss it elsewhere.
That would indeed be an interesting thread. I will bet some cold beers that @ForeverFree would dig it Bigly!
Leftyhunter
 
But there were about 50,000 of them and they count on the Union side. We can't forget that fact when discussing their valuable contribution to keeping the peace in Missouri. All joking aside, those poor souls who tricould expect to be imprisoneded to stay neutral and didn't join , they and their family might lose their farm, home or business, and they would certainly lose whatever civil rights remained in the State. Solid post Patrick H. Here is an example of the level of loyalty the MEM might expect in Missouri:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/d0507cee-814a-5922-912b-85b45618020a.html

I suspect more than a few of the relatives of my ancestors were involved.

A contemporary news story from the NY Times (Sincere apologies regarding the nineteenth century language used by the reporter.):

http://www.nytimes.com/1864/07/27/n...onfederacy-disloyal-order.html?pagewanted=all

Which gave rise to the Paw-Paw Militia they were Enrolled, but often expened more effort in staying out of an enemy's line of march than they did in fighting an enemy.
 
Which gave rise to the Paw-Paw Militia they were Enrolled, but often expened more effort in staying out of an enemy's line of march than they did in fighting an enemy.
Thank you. Exactly the point several of us have been trying to make. At least those of us familiar with the history here. Those people joining quasi-military units, such as the MEM were quite aware they would only be deployed locally in limited activity unlikely to get them killed. It is also certainly true that large numbers of Missourians chose to enlist with volunteer federal units, knowing they would be employed in a fight against the Confederacy. However, it is not true that the general demeanor of the populace was in support of the Union's war against the South. Bear in mind that Lincoln won only 10% of Missouri's 1860 vote for President. There is no logical way that an argument can be made the majority of the people of the State supported him or his policies during the war.
 
Thank you. Exactly the point several of us have been trying to make. At least those of us familiar with the history here. Those people joining quasi-military units, such as the MEM were quite aware they would only be deployed locally in limited activity unlikely to get them killed. It is also certainly true that large numbers of Missourians chose to enlist with volunteer federal units, knowing they would be employed in a fight against the Confederacy. However, it is not true that the general demeanor of the populace was in support of the Union's war against the South. Bear in mind that Lincoln won only 10% of Missouri's 1860 vote for President. There is no logical way that an argument can be made the majority of the people of the State supported him or his policies during the war.
Then why didn't Missouri rise up as one and throw off the yoke of Yankee tyranny when Price invaded?Why did Missourians enlist at a ratio of three to one in favor of the Union? Why was their not vigorous Confederate guerrila activity in all of Missouri s counties?
Just because Lincoln only won ten percent of the vote does mot mean the majority of Missourians supported the Confederates.
Leftyhunter
 
Thank you. Exactly the point several of us have been trying to make. At least those of us familiar with the history here. Those people joining quasi-military units, such as the MEM were quite aware they would only be deployed locally in limited activity unlikely to get them killed. It is also certainly true that large numbers of Missourians chose to enlist with volunteer federal units, knowing they would be employed in a fight against the Confederacy. However, it is not true that the general demeanor of the populace was in support of the Union's war against the South. Bear in mind that Lincoln won only 10% of Missouri's 1860 vote for President. There is no logical way that an argument can be made the majority of the people of the State supported him or his policies during the war.
Actually Union milita in Missouri fought guerrillas on a daily basis. Bruce Nickols book notes almost every firefight of milita vs guerrillas.
Leftyhunter
 
Hi @Waterloo50 and @Martini-Henry ,@Cavalry Charger
What the Union did in Missouri was essentially what the British did roughly one hundred and ten years later in Northern Ireland. The Union tried has much as possible to shift the responsibility of fighting Confederate insurgents in Missouri to Missourians roughly in the same manner has the British did with their policy of "police primacy".
The basic goal is to use local full time (MSM) and local part part time (Missouri Enrolled Militia) to fight insurgents since they know the lay out of the land and who is who vs non local forces.
In one sense it was a somewhat successful strategy in that after 1862 their were lees out of state troops tied down in Missouri.
It was never completely successful.
The British experience in Northern Ireland was similar ( not identical) in that their was a full time RUC some full time UDR plus reserve RUC and UDR.
The inherent problem of such a strategy is the locals will by definition not be impartial. On the other hand someone needs to do the job so it might as well be the locals after all it's their community.
The Confederates also used local milita as much has possible.
Leftyhunter
 
Hi @Waterloo50 and @Martini-Henry ,@Cavalry Charger
What the Union did in Missouri was essentially what the British did roughly one hundred and ten years later in Northern Ireland. The Union tried has much as possible to shift the responsibility of fighting Confederate insurgents in Missouri to Missourians roughly in the same manner has the British did with their policy of "police primacy".
The basic goal is to use local full time (MSM) and local part part time (Missouri Enrolled Militia) to fight insurgents since they know the lay out of the land and who is who vs non local forces.
In one sense it was a somewhat successful strategy in that after 1862 their were lees out of state troops tied down in Missouri.
It was never completely successful.
The British experience in Northern Ireland was similar ( not identical) in that their was a full time RUC some full time UDR plus reserve RUC and UDR.
The inherent problem of such a strategy is the locals will by definition not be impartial. On the other hand someone needs to do the job so it might as well be the locals after all it's their community.
The Confederates also used local milita as much has possible.
Leftyhunter
Interesting post and good call on the "Irish" situation. There was an attempt made to hand the Troubles back in many respects to the 'locals', the problem being, as you've already mentioned, that a lot of the local forces (UDR/RUC) were 'Unionists'/Protestants who had more interest in maintaining the status quo, as well as not so tenuous links to Protestant paramilitary groups. They had very few Catholics (perceived as Irish Nationalists) in their ranks and this skewed the issue further. Eventually, a recruitment drive was begun, but the levels of suspicion on both sides made that very difficult. As a Catholic, you'd probably be seen as a 'traitor' by your own people, and not necessarily 100% trustworthy by those seeking to employ you. I don't think many of them would have lived in 'hard core' Republican areas, they certainly wouldn't have been welcome there. Interesting how no matter how much things change they often seem to stay the same. What was true in the CW, can also be said for many recent and current conflict situations today. You have further peaked my interest about Missouri btw @leftyhunter !
 
Interesting post and good call on the "Irish" situation. There was an attempt made to hand the Troubles back in many respects to the 'locals', the problem being, as you've already mentioned, that a lot of the local forces (UDR/RUC) were 'Unionists'/Protestants who had more interest in maintaining the status quo, as well as not so tenuous links to Protestant paramilitary groups. They had very few Catholics (perceived as Irish Nationalists) in their ranks and this skewed the issue further. Eventually, a recruitment drive was begun, but the levels of suspicion on both sides made that very difficult. As a Catholic, you'd probably be seen as a 'traitor' by your own people, and not necessarily 100% trustworthy by those seeking to employ you. I don't think many of them would have lived in 'hard core' Republican areas, they certainly wouldn't have been welcome there. Interesting how no matter how much things change they often seem to stay the same. What was true in the CW, can also be said for many recent and current conflict situations today. You have further peaked my interest about Missouri btw @leftyhunter !
Hi @Waterloo50 and @Martini-Henry ,@Cavalry Charger
What the Union did in Missouri was essentially what the British did roughly one hundred and ten years later in Northern Ireland. The Union tried has much as possible to shift the responsibility of fighting Confederate insurgents in Missouri to Missourians roughly in the same manner has the British did with their policy of "police primacy".
The basic goal is to use local full time (MSM) and local part part time (Missouri Enrolled Militia) to fight insurgents since they know the lay out of the land and who is who vs non local forces.
In one sense it was a somewhat successful strategy in that after 1862 their were lees out of state troops tied down in Missouri.
It was never completely successful.
The British experience in Northern Ireland was similar ( not identical) in that their was a full time RUC some full time UDR plus reserve RUC and UDR.
The inherent problem of such a strategy is the locals will by definition not be impartial. On the other hand someone needs to do the job so it might as well be the locals after all it's their community.
The Confederates also used local milita as much has possible.
Leftyhunter
I think its also worth mentioning that the introduction of the UDR did nothing to unify the local communities. The British government obviously wanted to take out the IRA and so they introduced 'interment without trial', the result was that 400 suspected paramilitary men were imprisoned without trial. The effect of the interment without trial caused massive problems for the newly formed UDR. When they were first formed at least 22 UDR men were killed within the first 3 days and there was also a massive increase in bomb attacks, 122 explosions in 7 months, there was also an increase in attacks on British military bases. These attacks obviously had an impact on the catholic community and vastly reduced the number of catholic men that were willing to risk their lives by enlisting with the UDR.
It seems to me that there are quite a few parallels to be found between the Civil war and the war in Ireland. The British introduction of interment without trial is similar to those tactics which were employed in Federal counter-guerrilla operations, the main difference being that the British didn't use the death penalty for those captured or suspected of paramilitary activities.
 
I think its also worth mentioning that the introduction of the UDR did nothing to unify the local communities. The British government obviously wanted to take out the IRA and so they introduced 'interment without trial', the result was that 400 suspected paramilitary men were imprisoned without trial. The effect of the interment without trial caused massive problems for the newly formed UDR. When they were first formed at least 22 UDR men were killed within the first 3 days and there was also a massive increase in bomb attacks, 122 explosions in 7 months, there was also an increase in attacks on British military bases. These attacks obviously had an impact on the catholic community and vastly reduced the number of catholic men that were willing to risk their lives by enlisting with the UDR.
It seems to me that there are quite a few parallels to be found between the Civil war and the war in Ireland. The British introduction of interment without trial is similar to those tactics which were employed in Federal counter-guerrilla operations, the main difference being that the British didn't use the death penalty for those captured or suspected of paramilitary activities.
I agree, there are many parallels, and interment without trial was like a red rag to a bull to a community that already felt it was under the heel of the British. The problem was the lack of will to tackle the basic social justice issues that existed prior to the conflict, and which had ignited it again. That lack, plus the harsh measures being put into place to tackle the revamped IRA, was never going to encourage Catholics to join up, and certainly within Republican areas such a move could have been tantamount to signing your own death warrant. I'm not sure who would join an organization that was considered to be enforcing the current status quo. There was nothing in it for Catholics, and even less if the IRA had their say...
 
Back
Top