Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Why did the confederates lose

From what I’ve read most historians believe that the South lacked the industrial centers to win the war despite having better leadership and overall the more committed and talented men. If winning the war was a war of attrition that the South couldn’t win outright. Why didn’t the South fight more of a defensive guerrilla warfare strategy similar to Afghanistan?

It seems if the South had fought more of a resistance war using men such as General Forrest as hardline resistance to run spec ops against the North while also running raids setting fire to towns and fields in the North from Virginia that they could have made life miserable enough on the North to drag it out and break there will at some point. It worked in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and over most of the the British Empire. I think it would have worked for the South. The one thing working against the South would have been the rebel leadership being easy targets due to being obvious fixed target plantation owners but the masses it seems could have blended in as average every day folks just trying to survive while running upsurp wars.

Why? Same reason a protracted insurgency probably wouldn't work today. Soccer moms... or whatever their equivalent was back then.

Soccer moms wouldn't like navigating roadside bombs on the way to yoga and Starbucks.

DESPITE what white American women would have us all believe, they've long since held plenty of power in this country.

Ever see a bunch of gorillas try to organize a banana eating contest, yet alone an effective defense?

Minorities have plenty of power. Playing the victim card is one of there most effective weapons. Around 1861 I doubt that the South was full of soccer mom/Karen’s but maybe I’m wrong.

Glad to see you kicked Covids azz but not following

Just ragging onya for spelling guerrilla differently. Please carry on.

I’m not a Civil War historian by any means but as someone with a layman’s interest it seems the South made a mistake in choosing to fight the North even up when a protracted guerrilla warfare strategy would have been more effective.

My mistake edit to guerrilla

American women wouldn't tolerate 20 years of war today and I doubt they would have back then.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/the-confederacys-disastrous-guerrilla-war-40690

1861-1865.

but ok

I read somewhere that early in the war, Jefferson Davis was issuing general's rank and command of troops to people in return for favors, rather than giving such rank and command to experienced tacticians. The South should have won the war in a few months. They could easily have taken DC and captured Lincoln at Bull Run, had they had proper folks in command on the ground.

!861-1865 isn't the protracted guerilla tactics being discussed. Those tactics could have easily drug out the fighting much longer.

Didn't the Yankees have a lot to do with it?

OP explicitly asked why the south didn't fight an Afghan insurgency like war. Afghan insurgency: 2001 - 2021.

Try to keep up.

I get what you’re saying but wouldn’t that go equally for the Northern woman and they would have less to gain other than not being able to mind their own business (see other thread)

lmao

Nah,....The North were just better shots than the South.

Still are.

😂

🦫

Hallelujah

North with an army of 2.1 million, south with 800k? Nearly twice as many north lost their life than the south. Is that wrong?