The plan should have never been to win militarily: the traitors might have had a chance of independence if the Union forces had sustained publicly unacceptable losses and political pressure forced them into a ceasefire.
If the traitors wanted to win they should have fought it like a guerilla insurrection.
I think they were in fact hoping for political pressure - of the international kind. As I recall, the rebels had envoys in England and France who were trying to get those countries to pressure the US to let the south secede. But that task would be much harder if the rebels were conducting a guerilla insurrection, as opposed to trying to set up a government and army. Appealing to foreign powers not that crazy of an idea; a large part of how the US gained independence was that the French were persuaded to intervene on our behalf.
If the traitors wanted to win they should have fought it like a guerilla insurrection.
Considering the patron saint of this community and the overwhelming war fervor in the Union that manifested over the course of the war, I’m not sure that would have worked out better for them.
Fair point, nothing is certain in war but considering the overwhelming economic and military size the traitors were up against it’s still the most viable option if they did it quick enough, in my armchair general opinion.
I mean how does one expect to win a war when your primary industry of cotton exports get completely blockaded. And you’re dumb enough to exclude your slaves from fighting when you’re short on man-power.
The rebellion was a dumb idea from the start and they only had a moon-shot way of essentially calling a draw.
But by making it into a guerilla war, all the military force the Union has can suddenly be concentrated even more disproportionately, as guerilla forces cannot concentrate in one area safely. All the ports of the South would be immediately lost, effectively, giving the Union a near-100% effective blockade. Appalachia, the best land for guerilla warfare in the Confederacy, was overwhelmingly pro-Union. Failing to defend their territory would mean the Union would have full access to all of the traitors’ slaves, which is the exact thing they were trying to avoid. And guerilla warfare is significantly more difficult without widespread fast-firing small arms.
Even nomadic Native American nations of the period who were quite experienced in that form of warfare struggled to inflict serious casualties on even small punitive forces of the US Army, and against genocidal settler militias, because guerilla warfare is really a last-resort sort of thing for organized states. It isn’t a ‘best option’ in 99.99% of cases so much as a ‘Hail Mary’ when everything else has failed. Effectively surrendering the vast majority of your industrial, demographic, financial, and organizational strength to buy time is just not a good trade in most cases unless you think someone is coming to bail you out, WW2 style.
The plan should have never been to win militarily: the traitors might have had a chance of independence if the Union forces had sustained publicly unacceptable losses and political pressure forced them into a ceasefire.
If the traitors wanted to win they should have fought it like a guerilla insurrection.
That WAS the plan, and they actually did ok at it.
That plus trying to convince Europe to come to their aid.
I think they were in fact hoping for political pressure - of the international kind. As I recall, the rebels had envoys in England and France who were trying to get those countries to pressure the US to let the south secede. But that task would be much harder if the rebels were conducting a guerilla insurrection, as opposed to trying to set up a government and army. Appealing to foreign powers not that crazy of an idea; a large part of how the US gained independence was that the French were persuaded to intervene on our behalf.
Considering the patron saint of this community and the overwhelming war fervor in the Union that manifested over the course of the war, I’m not sure that would have worked out better for them.
Fair point, nothing is certain in war but considering the overwhelming economic and military size the traitors were up against it’s still the most viable option if they did it quick enough, in my armchair general opinion.
I mean how does one expect to win a war when your primary industry of cotton exports get completely blockaded. And you’re dumb enough to exclude your slaves from fighting when you’re short on man-power.
The rebellion was a dumb idea from the start and they only had a moon-shot way of essentially calling a draw.
But by making it into a guerilla war, all the military force the Union has can suddenly be concentrated even more disproportionately, as guerilla forces cannot concentrate in one area safely. All the ports of the South would be immediately lost, effectively, giving the Union a near-100% effective blockade. Appalachia, the best land for guerilla warfare in the Confederacy, was overwhelmingly pro-Union. Failing to defend their territory would mean the Union would have full access to all of the traitors’ slaves, which is the exact thing they were trying to avoid. And guerilla warfare is significantly more difficult without widespread fast-firing small arms.
Even nomadic Native American nations of the period who were quite experienced in that form of warfare struggled to inflict serious casualties on even small punitive forces of the US Army, and against genocidal settler militias, because guerilla warfare is really a last-resort sort of thing for organized states. It isn’t a ‘best option’ in 99.99% of cases so much as a ‘Hail Mary’ when everything else has failed. Effectively surrendering the vast majority of your industrial, demographic, financial, and organizational strength to buy time is just not a good trade in most cases unless you think someone is coming to bail you out, WW2 style.
Interesting write up!