Union vs CSA Guerrilla

[leftyhunter]

Uniforms taken from Federals no longer requiring uniforms was really a part of the Partisan supply chain withthe added benefit of giving them a bit of camoflouge if you will. Supplying themselves off the enemy with clothing, boots, saddles and other tack, weapons and ammunition was about their only source of supply as Richmond was in no hurry to make sure that got their 3 B's.
While you don't consider Shelby, Marmaduke, Poindexter and Porter Guerillas, the Union commanders sure did even though they held commissions. Which may have been part of the problem foisted upon later Department Commanders by both Fremont and Old Brains Halleck who pretty much marked the course of war in Missouri by his orders deeming the partisans "outlaws" . The Out State Union forces had come to believe Missouri was filled with slave holders and secesh (thanks Horace Greely,ya twit) and were none to gentle in their dealings with the common folk. Nor was the MSM who were often recruited locally and used their status as federals to settle old scores.

As to which one was worst thats a **** shoot. Partisan warfare does not lend itself to producing saints and angels, No one partisan North or South can be elevated to the status of the saintly warrior. Both Union and Confedrate were fighting because they were very often left little choice,

Good point in that Confederate guerrillas (Samuel Hildebrand arguably the most infamous example) used captured Union uniforms and supplies. Of course the flip side of the coin is that federal soldiers in Missouri some times disguised themselves
as Confederate guerrillas . Imagine being a farmer your house is surrounded by armed men and you have no idea who they really are and anything you do may very well be wrong move.
Apparently this COIN technique worked because the British, Portuguese and Rhodesians used this technique in their twentieth century COIN wars. The Taliban and ISIS use disguises to this day. You just can't go wrong with the classics.

I would argue light uniformed cavalry that makes raids behind enemy lines and is based in its own territory are not guerrillas.
I would argue that the basic definition of a guerrilla is a band of fighters that are not members of a recognized armed force and for the most part use hit and run techniques.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Uniforms taken from Federals no longer requiring uniforms was really a part of the Partisan supply chain withthe added benefit of giving them a bit of camoflouge if you will. Supplying themselves off the enemy with clothing, boots, saddles and other tack, weapons and ammunition was about their only source of supply as Richmond was in no hurry to make sure that got their 3 B's.
While you don't consider Shelby, Marmaduke, Poindexter and Porter Guerillas, the Union commanders sure did even though they held commissions. Which may have been part of the problem foisted upon later Department Commanders by both Fremont and Old Brains Halleck who pretty much marked the course of war in Missouri by his orders deeming the partisans "outlaws" . The Out State Union forces had come to believe Missouri was filled with slave holders and secesh (thanks Horace Greely,ya twit) and were none to gentle in their dealings with the common folk. Nor was the MSM who were often recruited locally and used their status as federals to settle old scores.

As to which one was worst thats a **** shoot. Partisan warfare does not lend itself to producing saints and angels, No one partisan North or South can be elevated to the status of the saintly warrior. Both Union and Confedrate were fighting because they were very often left little choice,

Good point in that folks who kill other folks don't always qualify as Saints. Some argue that Champ Ferguson and Quantrill et all on the Confederate side are Saints vs Newt Knight and Tinker Dave on the Union side are Saints. The old Irish saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter " is always true.
Leftyhunter

 

[CSA Today]

I am going to have to respectfully disagre with the notion that Unionist guerrilla warfare was all that similar to Scottish clan fighting. It appera to be far better organized on the whole and many of the guerrillas where not related by blood.
From the book "Junius and Alberts adventures in the Confederacya Civil War odyssey by Peter Carlson publicaffairs.com p.170-171
"Deserters now leave the army with arms and ammunition in hand"per a report by george W. Lay a conscription agent in western Nc."Arriving in their selected localities of refuge, they organize in bands variously estimated at from 50 up to hundred at various points.. In Wilkies County they are organized,drilling regularly and entrenched in a camp up to the number of 500". "These men are not only determined to kill in avoiding apprehension)having put to death yet another of our enrolling officers) but their esprit de corpse extends to revenge killing as well." That does not sound like a family dispute more like a group of determined guerrilla fighter.
Leftyhunter

Apart attrition from deaths, diseases, wounds, and losses to Union prisons, the prisoners of war, sources show that most of the Thomas Legion deserters had rejoined the legion for the last hurrah. They had previously deserted -- returned -- to Western North Carolina to perform Home Guard duties, meaning to protect their families from bushwhackers and Unionists. They had protected their homes and families during the area's bloody anarchy and had rejoined the legion for the remainder of the conflict. The legion was initially formed with the intent to remain near home and defend East Tennessee and Western North Carolina, but with exigencies of war, intentions and promises must be amended.

http://thomaslegion.net/2ndnorthcarolinamountedinfantryregiment.html

 

[Borderruffian]

Good point in that Confederate guerrillas (Samuel Hildebrand arguably the most infamous example) used captured Union uniforms and supplies. Of course the flip side of the coin is that federal soldiers in Missouri some times disguised themselves
as Confederate guerrillas . Imagine being a farmer your house is surrounded by armed men and you have no idea who they really are and anything you do may very well be wrong move.
Apparently this COIN technique worked because the British, Portuguese and Rhodesians used this technique in their twentieth century COIN wars. The Taliban and ISIS use disguises to this day. You just can't go wrong with the classics.

I would argue light uniformed cavalry that makes raids behind enemy lines and is based in its own territory are not guerrillas.
I would argue that the basic definition of a guerrilla is a band of fighters that are not members of a recognized armed force and for the most part use hit and run techniques.
Leftyhunter

Well the Yankees weren't the only ones to ferret out "secesh" like that the Partisans especially Bloody Bill used it against Unionist's they also wound meet a Federal column ride with them ,talk and at a signal open fire,

The Brass in the Dept. of Missouri didn't see it that way. If you were a CS Officer in Missouri recruiting or raiding you often dubbed Guerilla in their reports whether you were or weren't. I partially agree with your definition, however WCQ did hold a commission as a Capt. in the Partisan Ranger Service and only when it suited him did he fight with regular formations. The question then becomes was his company actually CS soldiers as there is some evidence that they were mustered in by Major Thompson and for a while WCQ did maintain a sort of Muster Roll and the various billets such as forage master, Quartermaster, orderly Sgt, Lt's and sgts.. By your theory he and they might actually been CS Soldiers assigned to Partisan/Light Cavalry Detail.

 

[Borderruffian]

Actually has I have shown and will provide more examples their was Unionist guerrilla activity in all 11 CSA states and Ky as well. I don't know if it just resembled Scottish clan fighting since many young men from Tn risked their lives to cross over into Ky to join Unionist regiments from Tn and out of state regiments. I am not aware of Unionist guerrilla massacring children has did CSA guerrillas in Lawrence,Kn and Shelton Laurel. If one shoots and unarmed boy under 18 I would think that is not a so called massacre. Did Unionist guerrillas torture women? CSA guerrillas most definitely did.
Leftyhunter

Okay,one more time (ref the bold).
Massacreing children did not take place in Lawrence. Yes Children (really teenaged boys) wer killed at the camp where they were playing soldier and the mayors son was shot prior to the main attack while hunting, he lived . WCQ-s instructions were to kill any "man"who coyuld fire a rifle, they did. But there was no wanton slaughter of women,children house cats or parakeets.

 

[Borderruffian]

Versus shooting boys in Lawrence Kn or shooting a teen age boy twice begging for his life. If you led a raid deep in hostile country and try to bring POWs with does it not make sense to have them in the rear rather then potentially block your troops from escaping?
Leftyhunter

I assume your refering to the "boys togged out as Union soldiers ?Granted they were not arned because the good citizens of Lawrence were afeared "they'd shot their eye out". But ytou dress like a soldier and don't tote a gun that close to the Border, in what was arguably the most wicked no quarter fighting of the war, like they used to say. "Ya plays your cards and takes yer chances." If you are a asserting that a Jayhawker or Redleg formation would have spanked their bottom and sent em home, well I've got a nice beach house out side of Nogales I'd be willin to part with for song.

 

[leftyhunter]

I assume your refering to the "boys togged out as Union soldiers ?Granted they were not arned because the good citizens of Lawrence were afeared "they'd shot their eye out". But ytou dress like a soldier and don't tote a gun that close to the Border, in what was arguably the most wicked no quarter fighting of the war, like they used to say. "Ya plays your cards and takes yer chances." If you are a asserting that a Jayhawker or Redleg formation would have spanked their bottom and sent em home, well I've got a nice beach house out side of Nogales I'd be willin to part with for song.

I was actually referring to a raid by Colonel Kirk who put POWs in the rear of his coloum to shield his men from Confederate small arms fire. I thought it was just a good common sense practice and M.Warren thought it was not morally correct.
I don't know if the Redlegs did or did not fight with Quantrill or Bloody Bill Anderson. Therefore I can't speculate who would win a hypothetical firefight . I know in general their are a thousand and one factors that determine who wins or loses a firefight. I do know that many of the Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson boy's plus both Quantrill and Bloody Bill lost their final firefight so they had to take their lumps like every one else.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Per

Okay,one more time (ref the bold).
Massacreing children did not take place in Lawrence. Yes Children (really teenaged boys) wer killed at the camp where they were playing soldier and the mayors son was shot prior to the main attack while hunting, he lived . WCQ-s instructions were to kill any "man"who coyuld fire a rifle, they did. But there was no wanton slaughter of women,children house cats or parakeets.

Per past sources that I have given I will have to respectfully disagree.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Well the Yankees weren't the only ones to ferret out "secesh" like that the Partisans especially Bloody Bill used it against Unionist's they also wound meet a Federal column ride with them ,talk and at a signal open fire,

The Brass in the Dept. of Missouri didn't see it that way. If you were a CS Officer in Missouri recruiting or raiding you often dubbed Guerilla in their reports whether you were or weren't. I partially agree with your definition, however WCQ did hold a commission as a Capt. in the Partisan Ranger Service and only when it suited him did he fight with regular formations. The question then becomes was his company actually CS soldiers as there is some evidence that they were mustered in by Major Thompson and for a while WCQ did maintain a sort of Muster Roll and the various billets such as forage master, Quartermaster, orderly Sgt, Lt's and sgts.. By your theory he and they might actually been CS Soldiers assigned to Partisan/Light Cavalry Detail.

Has long as they wote b

Well the Yankees weren't the only ones to ferret out "secesh" like that the Partisans especially Bloody Bill used it against Unionist's they also wound meet a Federal column ride with them ,talk and at a signal open fire,

The Brass in the Dept. of Missouri didn't see it that way. If you were a CS Officer in Missouri recruiting or raiding you often dubbed Guerilla in their reports whether you were or weren't. I partially agree with your definition, however WCQ did hold a commission as a Capt. in the Partisan Ranger Service and only when it suited him did he fight with regular formations. The question then becomes was his company actually CS soldiers as there is some evidence that they were mustered in by Major Thompson and for a while WCQ did maintain a sort of Muster Roll and the various billets such as forage master, Quartermaster, orderly Sgt, Lt's and sgts.. By your theory he and they might actually been CS Soldiers assigned to Partisan/Light Cavalry Detail.

Has long as they wear the standard Confederate uniform yes they are conventional troops and are entitled to not be shot if captured. If found wearing a Union uniform or civilian atire General Order 100 comes into play.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Well the Yankees weren't the only ones to ferret out "secesh" like that the Partisans especially Bloody Bill used it against Unionist's they also wound meet a Federal column ride with them ,talk and at a signal open fire,

The Brass in the Dept. of Missouri didn't see it that way. If you were a CS Officer in Missouri recruiting or raiding you often dubbed Guerilla in their reports whether you were or weren't. I partially agree with your definition, however WCQ did hold a commission as a Capt. in the Partisan Ranger Service and only when it suited him did he fight with regular formations. The question then becomes was his company actually CS soldiers as there is some evidence that they were mustered in by Major Thompson and for a while WCQ did maintain a sort of Muster Roll and the various billets such as forage master, Quartermaster, orderly Sgt, Lt's and sgts.. By your theory he and they might actually been CS Soldiers assigned to Partisan/Light Cavalry Detail.

Samuel Hildebrand would ride around in a Union uniform and ask slaves where were the bushwackers and if they told him he would hang them as an example to others.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Uniforms taken from Federals no longer requiring uniforms was really a part of the Partisan supply chain withthe added benefit of giving them a bit of camoflouge if you will. Supplying themselves off the enemy with clothing, boots, saddles and other tack, weapons and ammunition was about their only source of supply as Richmond was in no hurry to make sure that got their 3 B's.
While you don't consider Shelby, Marmaduke, Poindexter and Porter Guerillas, the Union commanders sure did even though they held commissions. Which may have been part of the problem foisted upon later Department Commanders by both Fremont and Old Brains Halleck who pretty much marked the course of war in Missouri by his orders deeming the partisans "outlaws" . The Out State Union forces had come to believe Missouri was filled with slave holders and secesh (thanks Horace Greely,ya twit) and were none to gentle in their dealings with the common folk. Nor was the MSM who were often recruited locally and used their status as federals to settle old scores.

As to which one was worst thats a **** shoot. Partisan warfare does not lend itself to producing saints and angels, No one partisan North or South can be elevated to the status of the saintly warrior. Both Union and Confedrate were fighting because they were very often left little choice,

No doubt locally recruited Counterinsurgency forces play rough and often throw away the rule book. That was true on both sides of the Civil War and in foreign guerrilla/ insurgency conflicts. No guerrilla/insurgency conflict exists in a vacuum.
Leftyhunter

 

[Jackson Hornets]

Has we know both sides actively used guerrilla warfare during the CW. There are differences how ever.
For the purpose of discussion a guerrilla does not wear a uniform or has was often the case in Mo wore captured enemy uniforms. Therefore cavalry raiders such has Morgan, Marmaduke and Shelpy do not count has guerrillas has long has they are in uniform.
Arguably the CSA had the most guerrillas vs the Union mostly in but by no means limited to Mo. I have not read any figure that gives a round number estimate of X amount of CSA guerrillas vs Y amount of Union troops and militia. Has a general rule it has been argued that it takes ten conventional troops to counter one guerrilla.
Based on the number of Union cavalry and a few Infantry regiments that where assigned to Mo (although often rotated out of Mo) plus the 10k men of the Mo State Militia (the only Union militia that was full time and paid for by the federal govt and fought mostly but not always in Mo) there where quite a few CSA guerrillas or has often referred to has"bushwackers".

Both sides used guerrillas to cooperate with conventional troops. For example Quantril provided an escort for recruiting commands in Mo and in AL Unionist guerrillas from time to time would fight alongside convention Union troops.
The Union could supply at least some guerrillas on a regular basis for example Gen. Dodge in Al could supply Unionist guerrillas and the US Navy supplied Unionist guerrillas in Fl and Ga and even sent an officer to form and lead the 2nd Fl cavalry USV.
Unionist guerrillas where arguably more successful in that by the late summer of 1864 they could sieze and hold areas of the CSA vs CSA guerrillas who could not.
Many guerrillas on both sides became guerrillas due to resentment of being drafted or conscripted by the other side.
Questions.
1. What side really had the most?
2. Which side more effectively supported their guerrillas?
2. Which sides guerrillas ultimately achieved the most good for their side?
Leftyhunter

I would say the Confederacy had more guerrillas but since they couldn't really be controlled by field armies or the government they didn't effectively get the support they could have had they conformed a bit. They also didn't really accomplish a lot in the grand scale of things due to their size and lack of organization compared to their Union counterparts in my eyes.

1. Confederacy
2. Union
3. Union

A lot of Union guerrillas were technically "legitimate" organizations wearing uniforms. I still consider some of them guerrillas regardless, because Federal units like the 1st Alabama & Tennessee Independent Vidette Cavalry Regiment were composed of Confederate deserters who burned down houses, harassed local citizens, and only briefly skirmished with Confederate "guerrillas". They rarely operated outside of their local regions and not many were attached to field armies on campaign. They used guerrilla tactics and were in every sense of the word bushwackers but avoided the label in the end because they wore blue.

So to some since they had legitimate organizations with proper uniforms they might not be guerrillas but I think the term is fitting seeing their behavioral patterns, backgrounds, and tactics.

 

[leftyhunter]

I would say the Confederacy had more guerrillas but since they couldn't really be controlled by field armies or the government they didn't effectively get the support they could have had they conformed a bit. They also didn't really accomplish a lot in the grand scale of things due to their size and lack of organization compared to their Union counterparts in my eyes.

1. Confederacy
2. Union
3. Union

A lot of Union guerrillas were technically "legitimate" organizations wearing uniforms. I still consider some of them guerrillas regardless, because Federal units like the 1st Alabama & Tennessee Independent Vidette Cavalry Regiment were composed of Confederate deserters who burned down houses, harassed local citizens, and only briefly skirmished with Confederate "guerrillas". They rarely operated outside of their local regions and not many were attached to field armies on campaign. They used guerrilla tactics and were in every sense of the word bushwackers but avoided the label in the end because they wore blue.

So to some since they had legitimate organizations with proper uniforms they might not be guerrillas but I think the term is fitting seeing their behavioral patterns, backgrounds, and tactics.

That's an interesting point about the Vidette Calvery . I really haven't read much about them. I just know the Al Vidette was only established for a year or so and unlike the 1st Al Cav USV' they did not engage in heavy combat. The Videettes though had a few advantage over guerrillas.
!. They were paid vs not getting paid plus a pension in their old age ( if qualified) unlike say Newt Knight who did not get either.
2, If captured they where not supposed to be executed. Of course their is a huge caveat to that since Unionist soldiers in uniform were at times executed i.e. Gen. Picket executing North Carolina troops who had deserted and Ft. Pillow. I don't know if the Unionist troops got some payback certainly the USCT troops did.
3. In theory Unionist troops in common with all Union troops can be court martialed for any offence against civilians. In practice that may or may not happan. Some Union troops where court martialed and even executed for rape vs guerrillas pretty much could do what ever they want unless they are killed by someone else.
4.The Videttes could go to a Union Army base after their missions and get supplies and food vs guerrillas for the most part had to just make do the best they can in getting supplies and food.
Good point I will have to try to look into this more.
Leftyhunter

 

[huskerblitz]

Late to the party here, but has anyone heard of Capt. Nathaniel Marks or Captain Sid Cook of Cook's Guerrillas, a group of rebels who were led by Sid and Dave Cook? They terrorized eastern Kentucky during the war. I came across these names in my research for Union Kentucky soldiers. Bailey Low was reported to have deserted his unit and joined up with them and was eventually killed in some sort of altercation (still trying to find more info). Just not overly familiar with them.

 

[leftyhunter]

That's an interesting point about the Vidette Calvery . I really haven't read much about them. I just know the Al Vidette was only established for a year or so and unlike the 1st Al Cav USV' they did not engage in heavy combat. The Videettes though had a few advantage over guerrillas.
!. They were paid vs not getting paid plus a pension in their old age ( if qualified) unlike say Newt Knight who did not get either.
2, If captured they where not supposed to be executed. Of course their is a huge caveat to that since Unionist soldiers in uniform were at times executed i.e. Gen. Picket executing North Carolina troops who had deserted and Ft. Pillow. I don't know if the Unionist troops got some payback certainly the USCT troops did.
3. In theory Unionist troops in common with all Union troops can be court martialed for any offence against civilians. In practice that may or may not happan. Some Union troops where court martialed and even executed for rape vs guerrillas pretty much could do what ever they want unless they are killed by someone else.
4.The Videttes could go to a Union Army base after their missions and get supplies and food vs guerrillas for the most part had to just make do the best they can in getting supplies and food.
Good point I will have to try to look into this more.
Leftyhunter

I would say the Confederacy had more guerrillas but since they couldn't really be controlled by field armies or the government they didn't effectively get the support they could have had they conformed a bit. They also didn't really accomplish a lot in the grand scale of things due to their size and lack of organization compared to their Union counterparts in my eyes.

1. Confederacy
2. Union
3. Union

A lot of Union guerrillas were technically "legitimate" organizations wearing uniforms. I still consider some of them guerrillas regardless, because Federal units like the 1st Alabama & Tennessee Independent Vidette Cavalry Regiment were composed of Confederate deserters who burned down houses, harassed local citizens, and only briefly skirmished with Confederate "guerrillas". They rarely operated outside of their local regions and not many were attached to field armies on campaign. They used guerrilla tactics and were in every sense of the word bushwackers but avoided the label in the end because they wore blue.

So to some since they had legitimate organizations with proper uniforms they might not be guerrillas but I think the term is fitting seeing their behavioral patterns, backgrounds, and tactics.

From what I gather on the internet the 1st AL and Tn Videttes where not all that effective. They where supposed to enlisted for 12 months but served only 9. They did capture some Confederate Homeguards per oocities,org/cheader001/videttecalvry.
angelfire.com/a12 1sttnalvidcav has some documents and pictures of the men from the Videttes plus pay records. From what I gather Col. Kirk
"s 2nd and 3rd North Carolina Mounted Infantry Union did a lot more damage to the Confederates.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Late to the party here, but has anyone heard of Capt. Nathaniel Marks or Captain Sid Cook of Cook's Guerrillas, a group of rebels who were led by Sid and Dave Cook? They terrorized eastern Kentucky during the war. I came across these names in my research for Union Kentucky soldiers. Bailey Low was reported to have deserted his unit and joined up with them and was eventually killed in some sort of altercation (still trying to find more info). Just not overly familiar with them.

Better late then never. I can't say I know much about Ky other then parts of Ky where pretty wild. Ky was unique in that although a Union state it had both Confederate and Unionist guerrillas . On one of our earlier pages Unionist guerrillas from Ky attacked retreating Confederate troops into Tn. T. J. Stiles in his book "Jesse James last rebel of the Civil War" states that by late 1864 the Union had pretty much wiped out CSA guerrillas. The governor of Ky hired guerrilla hunters such has Edwin Terril a real mean shifty SOB who did to his credit send Quantrill heaven bound. If you can fill us in on Ky . The COIN war in Ky is not has well known has Mo and now Southern Ms.
Leftyhunter

 

[huskerblitz]

If you can fill us in on Ky . The COIN war in Ky is not has well known has Mo and now Southern Ms.

Best I can do is link passages that I have read. Through searching for more info I found this link but nothing about the guy I was looking for (Bailey Low) and the hows and whys he was killed or why he left the Union side for the Confederate side. In researching the unit, there were many in the regiment not happy about emancipation. My suspicion given the date of desertion and changing sides may relate to that, but only my speculation.

 

[huskerblitz]

Same site but this is everything his blog has tagged under "guerrilla".
http://eakycivilwar.blogspot.com/search/label/guerrillas

 

[leftyhunter]

Best I can do is link passages that I have read. Through searching for more info I found this link but nothing about the guy I was looking for (Bailey Low) and the hows and whys he was killed or why he left the Union side for the Confederate side. In researching the unit, there were many in the regiment not happy about emancipation. My suspicion given the date of desertion and changing sides may relate to that, but only my speculation.

Overall more men deserted from the CSA then the other way around. I know Mosby and Quantril both had one Union deserter in their commands. If we can bring Baily Low into the thread the more the merrier.
Leftyhunter

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Late also. So what in blazes happened in Missouri and Kansas? 18th Virginia's been going through first hand accounts from civilians. It sounds like a whole, different war was occurring out there, both sides and really evenly- while military battles raged east, civilians were victims sure, but sounds like some were not shy about joining groups? Sorry if it's too broad a question. When I try to look up answers all you get are the well known guerillas, and those would be Confederate. What you read is a really bloody, out of control war over territory- one as savage as the other. Having no background other than all the legend, it was shocking reading.