Union vs CSA Guerrilla

[Specster]

Without Lee calling it "quits". This could have gone on for at least another 50 years via bushwacking - which would have been devastating to both sides but I think much more so to the South. In April 1865, I think Lee was a much more commanding presence than Davis, Lee surrendered with Honor, Davis fled in a less than noble fashion

 

[Patrick H]

Without Lee calling it "quits". This could have gone on for at least another 50 years via bushwacking - which would have been devastating to both sides but I think much more so to the South. In April 1865, I think Lee was a much more commanding presence than Davis, Lee surrendered with Honor, Davis fled in a less than noble fashion

I think this assessment is not far off the mark--if it's off at all! I know that I will not get a consensus of agreement, but I think this is probably pretty accurate. Ongoing bushwhacking would have most certainly been devastating to everyone on both sides or anywhere in the vicinity.
I also agree that Lee was more commanding presence than Davis.

 

[Specster]

I think this assessment is not far off the mark--if it's off at all! I know that I will not get a consensus of agreement, but I think this is probably pretty accurate. Ongoing bushwhacking would have most certainly been devastating to everyone on both sides or anywhere in the vicinity.
I also agree that Lee was more commanding presence than Davis.

Historically, civil wars have been among the hardest to end and many have gone on for decade after the "official" end.

 

[leftyhunter]

Just a few is all I can count. Unless you have numbers proving otherwise. With sources, of course.

I have provided numerous sources you have only provided unsourced opinions. This thread is loaded with sources.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Without Lee calling it "quits". This could have gone on for at least another 50 years via bushwacking - which would have been devastating to both sides but I think much more so to the South. In April 1865, I think Lee was a much more commanding presence than Davis, Lee surrendered with Honor, Davis fled in a less than noble fashion

Daniel Sutherland in his book " Savage Conflict the decisive role of guerrilla warfare in the American Civil War"
That Lee was not in favor of guerrilla warfare precisely for the reason of it getting out of hand and becoming anarchy. Lee only favored partisan warriors such has Mosby and O'Neill.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Hi @19thGeorgia ,
Guerrilla War did indeed have a huge effect on the Civil War.
" Even so, it is clear that throughout the war Unionists succeeded in retaining control of two-thirds to three fourths of East Tennessee's thirty one counties. In April 1862 Kirby Smith admitted that even after increased efforts under his command to arrest Unionist leaders and enforce conscription, Unionists still controlled twenty five counties and kept secessionists there intimidated and subdued. In October 1862 Major General Sam Jones conceded that partisan fighting continued in every part of East Tennessee and admitted that the Confederacy was no closer to controlling the region then it was a year ago.And by 1863 several Confederate officers had concluded that controlling East Tennessee politically was no longer a realistic aim and it would be better to treat the region as enemy territory,exploit its resources as fully as possible , and draft or exile all military age males.
"Guerrillas, Unionists and Violence on the Confederate Home Front" edited by Daniel Sutherland The University of Arkansas press p. 100
Leftyhunter

Hi @19thGeorgia ,
Once again here is my thread chock full of sources from myself and many other posters. Many good book's mentioned . This post lists two very good one's especially Sutherland's book which go' s into great detail about the Confederacy loosing territory to internal insurgency and banditry.
Leftyhunter

 

[19thGeorgia]

Hi @19thGeorgia ,
Once again here is my thread chock full of sources from myself and many other posters. Many good book's mentioned . This post lists two very good one's especially Sutherland's book which go' s into great detail about the Confederacy loosing territory to internal insurgency and banditry.
Leftyhunter

Your statement- "[The CSA] suffered loss of territotial control from an internal insurgency."

I don't know of any territory the CSA lost to "insurgent" forces. Typically, these were gangs of deserters (some may call them "Unionists") that rose up in the absence of the armies (no man's land) and preyed on the civilian population - or were emboldened by the presence of a Union army in their region. When confronted by military force they scattered back to their hideouts in the swamps or mountains.

A nuisance? Yes. A significant element in the war? No.

 

[jgoodguy]

Your statement- "[The CSA] suffered loss of territotial control from an internal insurgency."

I don't know of any territory the CSA lost to "insurgent" forces. Typically, these were gangs of deserters (some may call them "Unionists") that rose up in the absence of the armies (no man's land) and preyed on the civilian population - or were emboldened by the presence of a Union army in their region. When confronted by military force they scattered back to their hideouts in the swamps or mountains.

A nuisance? Yes. A significant element in the war? No.

I assume this is a personal opinion?

 

[19thGeorgia]

I assume this is a personal opinion?

...based on what I have read over the years.

 

[Borderruffian]

...based on what I have read over the years.

Well West Virginia kinda sorta. East Tn,North Al,West Ga,and parts of La and Ms were pretty well lost to Union Guerrillas as well as Western NC .whether the Territory was lost or untenable is the question. But Unionists did control swathes of territory that required deployment of home guards and other units to combat them.

 

[19thGeorgia]

Well West Virginia kinda sorta. East Tn,North Al,West Ga,and parts of La and Ms were pretty well lost to Union Guerrillas as well as Western NC .whether the Territory was lost or untenable is the question. But Unionists did control swathes of territory that required deployment of home guards and other units to combat them.

I don't know of any significant action by these guerillas alone that resulted in the overthrow of Confederate control. It is always preceded by some success of the Union army or they rise up in a backwater area where there is little if any control (a vacuum). When Confederates move in - they run to the swamp. I would defer to call them Unionists as many had no allegiance except to their own existence. Newt Knight's band is a good example. There were several Union raids that went through or near Jones County. Did Knight and his gang ever lift a finger to help them? Not once.

 

[jgoodguy]

I don't know of any significant action by these guerillas alone that resulted in the overthrow of Confederate control. It is always preceded by some success of the Union army or they rise up in a backwater area where there is little if any control (a vacuum). When Confederates move in - they run to the swamp. I would defer to call them Unionists as many had no allegiance except to their own existence. Newt Knight's band is a good example. There were several Union raids that went through or near Jones County. Did Knight and his gang ever lift a finger to help them? Not once.

It appears to me that you may be using an unusual definition or view of guerrilla warfare.

Guerrilla warfare

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants, such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians,Gorillas or irregulars, use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military
​

Guerrilla warfare in the American Civil War

Types of guerrilla warfare
The concept of a 'People's war,' first described by von Clausewitz in his classic treatise On War, was the closest example of a mass guerrilla movement in the era. In general during the Civil War, this type of irregular warfare was conducted in the hinterland of the Border States (Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and northwestern Virginia / West Virginia). It was marked by a vicious neighbor-against-neighbor quality as other grudges got settled. It was frequent for residents of one part of a single county to take up arms against their counterparts in the rest of the vicinity. Bushwhacking, murder, assault, and terrorism were characteristics of this kind of fighting. Few participants wore uniforms or were formally mustered into the actual armies. In many cases, it was civilian against civilian, or civilian against opposing enemy troops.
​

 

[19thGeorgia]

It appears to me that you may be using an unusual definition or view of guerrilla warfare.

Looks like it fits your "Guerrilla warfare in the American Civil War" definition.

 

[Borderruffian]

I don't know of any significant action by these guerillas alone that resulted in the overthrow of Confederate control. It is always preceded by some success of the Union army or they rise up in a backwater area where there is little if any control (a vacuum). When Confederates move in - they run to the swamp. I would defer to call them Unionists as many had no allegiance except to their own existence. Newt Knight's band is a good example. There were several Union raids that went through or near Jones County. Did Knight and his gang ever lift a finger to help them? Not once.

The total overthrow of a power in a specific area and gaining total control does not have to be the end game.Making an area untenable for people and local government sympathetic to the controlling government is often the end game. Siphon off troops form use else where make the area ungovernable and anarchic in nature can serve the same purpose in the long game.
Oh. ...and the CS did lose West Va.

 

[jgoodguy]

I don't know of any significant action by these guerillas alone that resulted in the overthrow of Confederate control.

It appears to me that you may be using an unusual definition or view of guerrilla warfare.

Guerrilla warfare

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants, such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians,Gorillas or irregulars, use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military
​

Guerrilla warfare in the American Civil War

Types of guerrilla warfare
The concept of a 'People's war,' first described by von Clausewitz in his classic treatise On War, was the closest example of a mass guerrilla movement in the era. In general during the Civil War, this type of irregular warfare was conducted in the hinterland of the Border States (Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and northwestern Virginia / West Virginia). It was marked by a vicious neighbor-against-neighbor quality as other grudges got settled. It was frequent for residents of one part of a single county to take up arms against their counterparts in the rest of the vicinity. Bushwhacking, murder, assault, and terrorism were characteristics of this kind of fighting. Few participants wore uniforms or were formally mustered into the actual armies. In many cases, it was civilian against civilian, or civilian against opposing enemy troops.​

Looks like it fits your "Guerrilla warfare in the American Civil War" definition.

I respectively disagree, nowhere in my post did I suggest a purpose of "overthrow of Confederate control.". Guerrillas purpose is to harass their enemy not to conquer.

 

[leftyhunter]

Well West Virginia kinda sorta. East Tn,North Al,West Ga,and parts of La and Ms were pretty well lost to Union Guerrillas as well as Western NC .whether the Territory was lost or untenable is the question. But Unionists did control swathes of territory that required deployment of home guards and other units to combat them.

Quite true plus South East Florida and the wire grass region of Southern Alabama. Also conventional Confederate units definitely got tied down in Eastern Tennessee and Southern Mississippi.
Has far as what side used guerrillas more effectively would be a very good but tough question. We have to define what effective means and what metric to use.
Leftyhunter

 

[jgoodguy]

Quite true plus South East Florida and the wire grass region of Southern Alabama. Also conventional Confederate units definitely got tied down in Eastern Tennessee and Southern Mississippi.
Has far as what side used guerrillas more effectively would be a very good but tough question. We have to define what effective means and what metric to use.
Leftyhunter

Always the devil in the details.

For example effectively from whose perspective. The enemy, friendly conventional forces or the guerrillas.

 

[leftyhunter]

Always the devil in the details.

For example effectively from whose perspective. The enemy, friendly conventional forces or the guerrillas.

I would use the basic meteric of which side controled or made untenable the most square miles.
Leftyhunter

 

[jgoodguy]

I would use the basic meteric of which side controled or made untenable the most square miles.
Leftyhunter

Number of times the enemy claimed to have destroyed the group.

 

[jgoodguy]

Without Lee calling it "quits". This could have gone on for at least another 50 years via bushwacking - which would have been devastating to both sides but I think much more so to the South. In April 1865, I think Lee was a much more commanding presence than Davis, Lee surrendered with Honor, Davis fled in a less than noble fashion

A couple of problems for this idea is that the areas best suited for guerrilla warfare was where the CSA was weakest away from cotton plantations and large scale slavery. The second what would the the motivating factor for such a war and who would support it. Protection of slavery was the motivation for the CSA, nationalism never quite replaced it and once slavery was gone so was the motivation.