Will To Win

[johnnydef47]

over the last few months I have been thinking more and more about the surrender of the south. what I have been wondering and what you guys may be able to help with is did the south have the will to win. I wonder if after all the call to arms and states leaving etc died down was the will still there. in our revolution we did what we had to to win. using Indian tactics and small bands, spies etc to win. toward the end of the civil war why didn't the south just take to small bands and hit the mountains. I think their pride stopped them from doing this but if they wanted victory so badly would that not be at all costs?

 

[Northern Light]

After Lee surrendered, some of his troops wanted to do just that, but Lee cautioned them not to. |His take was that they had tried and failed, and that now in order to salvage anything, the Confederates needed to accept that failure and move on. He felt that continuing it as a guerilla war would only cause more troubles for the civilians and hamper the process of recovery.
The army was tired and hungry and many just wanted to go home to see if there was anything left of their lives. if they left after Lee surrendered there was a chance they could get home and get a crop or two in the ground before too long.
Did they lack the will to win? I don't think so, they just had run out of time and luck.

 

[OpnCoronet]

I think a good case can be made, that the South, as opposed to the csa, did Not really have the will to suffer the insufferable or endure the unendurable to win the war.
The whole country including the South, was split over the war itself and, I believe, that ultimately, the divisions within the smaller southern population, adversely affected the confederate war effort more, than they did that of the North.

 

[Northern Light]

I think a good case can be made, that the South, as opposed to the csa, did Not really have the will to suffer the insufferable or endure the unendurable to win the war.
The whole country including the South, was split over the war itself and, I believe, that ultimately, the divisions within the smaller southern population, adversely affected the confederate war effort more, than they did that of the North.

Good point. I try to be careful to differentiate between those two entities.

 

[johnnydef47]

that is mostly what I meant the 'south' itself I feel lacked the will very quickly. I understand Lee being the gentleman and surrendering but I am sort of surprised the more I read how the general populous didn't want it as much. and I am not sure but did the colonists suffer as much during the revolution as the southern citizens did during the war?

 

[AndyHall]

that is mostly what I meant the 'south' itself I feel lacked the will very quickly. I understand Lee being the gentleman and surrendering but I am sort of surprised the more I read how the general populous didn't want it as much. and I am not sure but did the colonists suffer as much during the revolution as the southern citizens did during the war?

I don't think the Confederacy lacked the will to win, at all. If anything, they kept on for a solid six months after any realistic hope of a negotiated settlement was gone. The war ended in the spring of 1865 because the Confederacy lacked the capacity to continue in any organized way.

As for a guerrilla war, there's a strong case to be made that that's exactly what happened in the years following, although that's probably a topic for another thread.

They were very different conflicts, the American Revolution and the Civil War. The British were trying to fight a war across the Atlantic Ocean, as opposed to across the Ohio River. The Revolution was much more limited in scope. I would say no, the Colonists did not (on the whole) suffer as much as the South did in the latter part of the war.

 

[brass napoleon]

over the last few months I have been thinking more and more about the surrender of the south. what I have been wondering and what you guys may be able to help with is did the south have the will to win. I wonder if after all the call to arms and states leaving etc died down was the will still there. in our revolution we did what we had to to win. using Indian tactics and small bands, spies etc to win. toward the end of the civil war why didn't the south just take to small bands and hit the mountains. I think their pride stopped them from doing this but if they wanted victory so badly would that not be at all costs?

Welcome to the forum, Johnny, and great questions. I agree with all the excellent answers above, and will add one more factor. The people of the South had reason to believe that Lincoln and Grant, and the people of the North in general, would be magnanimous in their defeat. If they had believed they would have all hanged for treason, I think it's likely they would have continued to fight (and might even be fighting to this day).

You may want to check out Jay Winik's book, April, 1865: The Month that Saved America, which deals directly with this question. He makes specific note of the fact that it was unusual, as civil wars go, for the South to surrender without "hitting the mountains", and the reasons why.

 

[johnnydef47]

Thanks! I saw the show on history channel but never read the book

 

[Northern Light]

that is mostly what I meant the 'south' itself I feel lacked the will very quickly. I understand Lee being the gentleman and surrendering but I am sort of surprised the more I read how the general populous didn't want it as much. and I am not sure but did the colonists suffer as much during the revolution as the southern citizens did during the war?

Some of them, yes. The loyalists suffered severely from the patriots, and the patriots from the British soldiers.

 

[NedBaldwin]

over the last few months I have been thinking more and more about the surrender of the south. what I have been wondering and what you guys may be able to help with is did the south have the will to win. I wonder if after all the call to arms and states leaving etc died down was the will still there. in our revolution we did what we had to to win. using Indian tactics and small bands, spies etc to win. toward the end of the civil war why didn't the south just take to small bands and hit the mountains. I think their pride stopped them from doing this but if they wanted victory so badly would that not be at all costs?

I dont see how taking to small bands and hitting the mountains was going to achieve independence from the USA, especially independence as slave-based-agriculture States. Guerrilla bands in the mountains cant maintain a plantation system in the tidewater.

On the other hand, it is argued that the White League, Red Shirts, KKK, etc were a way of using small bands to carry on the fight.

 

[johnnydef47]

I would for sure think the csa would not survive as a slave holding society. I feel Alavert died when the discussion of freeing slaves started years before the war. I do think maybe drawing the war out with guerrilla tactics could have ruined the northern resolve to fight. But who knows..,,,

 

[leftyhunter]

I would for sure think the csa would not survive as a slave holding society. I feel Alavert died when the discussion of freeing slaves started years before the war. I do think maybe drawing the war out with guerrilla tactics could have ruined the northern resolve to fight. But who knows..,,,

The CSA tried guerrilla warfare against the Union all during the CW and it did not work out very well in the long term. Lee knew that if a guerrilla war continued the Southern white people could be expelled from their homes which did occur to a small degree in Northern Ark and Mo during the CW. Col. Harrison of the 1st Ark cav USV expelled did loyal people and replaced them with loyal Union people who lived in armed communes. This severely curtailed the CSA guerrillas in Northern Ark. Also with the destruction of much of Southern agriculture and loss of game what would the guerrillas eat?Who would protect their families? In addition there where many Unionist guerrillas in the South they would of been very effective in assisting federal forces against CSA guerrillas.
Leftyhunter

 

[major bill]

There is a vast difference between the American Revolution and the Civil War. Guerrilla wars can be waged successful, but most guerrilla style wars, that have been successful, have had a couple of things going for them that helped the guerrillas to win. Usually the guerrillas receive outside aid and arms or had allies and often the guerrillas have a save haven across a broader where they can train, store supplies or escape across when pressed. The Confederacy lack both.

For example during the American Revolution the British had a lot more to defend than just the American colonies. Once France joined the war the British were fighting the French around the world. France was capturing valuable British outposts in in the Caribbean and in India. Spain also capture British forts across the south and attacked British overseas territories to include South America. The Spanish also help finance the siege of Yorktown. The Dutch were also at war with the British but mainly supplied materiel to the French Navy so they could fight the British. In India the British were having a rough time in the fighting Indians in the First Anglo-Maratha War. Don't forget the French and Spanish were conducting a siege of Gibraltar. In other words the British probably could have defeated the American, but their military forces were stretched thin around the world and the loss of India or Gibraltar would have been more devastating to the British than the loss of the American colonies. Who or what was going to divert most of the Union's navy and army away from defeating the Confederate guerrillas? Answer nothing. Who was going to finance the Confederate guerrillas and supply them with arms or provide them a safe haven?

 

[DR_Hanna]

that is mostly what I meant the 'south' itself I feel lacked the will very quickly. I understand Lee being the gentleman and surrendering but I am sort of surprised the more I read how the general populous didn't want it as much. and I am not sure but did the colonists suffer as much during the revolution as the southern citizens did during the war?

When the action in the American Revolution moved South in 1780 the South was bitterly divided between Loyalist and Rebel, and in a state of virtual Civil War. Washington appointed Nathanael Greene to head the southern army. They worked out a plan (documented in letters) of "Engage and Retreat" whereby Greene would attack the British, then withdraw. The British would follow them deeper into the South, but were unable to effectively distinguish between friend and foe, treating both with equal cruelty. It didn't take long before the South was solidly behind the Revolution.

 

[Benjamin Davis]

over the last few months I have been thinking more and more about the surrender of the south. what I have been wondering and what you guys may be able to help with is did the south have the will to win. I wonder if after all the call to arms and states leaving etc died down was the will still there. in our revolution we did what we had to to win. using Indian tactics and small bands, spies etc to win. toward the end of the civil war why didn't the south just take to small bands and hit the mountains. I think their pride stopped them from doing this but if they wanted victory so badly would that not be at all costs?

In our Revolution one must keep in mind that the British did not have a large army and they had to spread it out over many fronts to fend off other world powers like Spain and France. They could only ever hope to re-occupy a few key towns whereas the U.S. army of 1865 was much larger and more than capable of holding down the south. A guerrilla force also had no real hope of recognition from foreign powers (as it is the CSA couldn't manage anything better than "belligerent") which means they're not getting the same foreign support that the U.S. got in the 1780s. Also consider the terrain of the south and ask how much of it would be suited for guerrilla warfare, can't exactly hit the mountains as those areas full of unionist supporters already.
And of course say they do simply keep their guns and dissolve into guerrilla bands...it's not going to change anything (look at Missouri, look at how single mildly dedicated Lincoln was to holding the union together, look at Sherman's march to the sea) and I think most of the military leadership (Lee for example) was well aware of the fact.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Also consider the terrain of the south and ask how much of it would be suited for guerrilla warfare, can't exactly hit the mountains as those areas full of unionist supporters already.
And of course say they do simply keep their guns and dissolve into guerrilla bands...it's not going to change anything (look at Missouri, look at how single mildly dedicated Lincoln was to holding the union together, look at Sherman's march to the sea) and I think most of the military leadership (Lee for example) was well aware of the fact.

Lee and probably most secessionists just did not see the war in Revolutionary terms. They were ultimately fighting a revolutionary war, but they(the secessionist leadership) were not really revolutionaries. They were not really fighting for future gain, but to preserve what they already had.
Guerilla war might continue the war, but it would only destroy, what little of southern culture that remained i.e., they might drive the hated Yankee's out of the south, but it could never restore the South of the pre-war ante-bellum period and without that, what would really be the point in continuing a war that was already, truly, lost.