|
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,857
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,857 |
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 gorilla 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 in the 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. It seems that 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.
Last edited by copperking81; 09/18/21.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,543 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,543 Likes: 3 |
Why didn’t the South fight more of a defensive gorilla warfare strategy similar to Afghanistan? . Ever see a bunch of gorillas try to organize a banana eating contest, yet alone an effective defense?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13 |
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 gorilla 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 in the 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. It seems that 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. 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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13 |
Why didn’t the South fight more of a defensive gorilla warfare strategy similar to Afghanistan? . Ever see a bunch of gorillas try to organize a banana eating contest, yet alone an effective defense? Glad to see you kicked Covids azz but not following
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,543 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,543 Likes: 3 |
Why didn’t the South fight more of a defensive gorilla warfare strategy similar to Afghanistan? . Ever see a bunch of gorillas try to organize a banana eating contest, yet alone an effective defense? Glad to see you kicked Covids azz but not following Just ragging onya for spelling guerrilla differently. Please carry on.
Last edited by RufusG; 09/18/21.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13 |
Why didn’t the South fight more of a defensive gorilla warfare strategy similar to Afghanistan? . Ever see a bunch of gorillas try to organize a banana eating contest, yet alone an effective defense? Glad to see you kicked Covids azz but not following Just ragging onya for spelling guerrilla differently. Please carry on. My mistake edit to guerrilla
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,857
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,857 |
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 gorilla 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 in the 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. It seems that 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. 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. American women wouldn't tolerate 20 years of war today and I doubt they would have back then.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,613 Likes: 25
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,613 Likes: 25 |
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,101 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,101 Likes: 4 |
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 gorilla 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 in the 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. It seems that 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. 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. American women wouldn't tolerate 20 years of war today and I doubt they would have back then. 1861-1865. but ok
Dave
�The man who complains about the way the ball bounces is likely to be the one who dropped it.� Lou Holtz
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,072 Likes: 65
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 132,072 Likes: 65 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 13,290 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 13,290 Likes: 5 |
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 gorilla 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 in the 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. It seems that 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. 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. American women wouldn't tolerate 20 years of war today and I doubt they would have back then. 1861-1865. but ok !861-1865 isn't the protracted guerilla tactics being discussed. Those tactics could have easily drug out the fighting much longer.
Let's Go Brandon! FJB
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,273 Likes: 15
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,273 Likes: 15 |
Didn't the Yankees have a lot to do with it?
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Jesus: "Take heed that no man deceive you." Hebrew Roots Judaizer
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,857
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,857 |
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 gorilla 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 in the 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. It seems that 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. 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. American women wouldn't tolerate 20 years of war today and I doubt they would have back then. 1861-1865. but ok OP explicitly asked why the south didn't fight an Afghan insurgency like war. Afghan insurgency: 2001 - 2021. Try to keep up.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,266 Likes: 13 |
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 gorilla 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 in the 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. It seems that 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. 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. American women wouldn't tolerate 20 years of war today and I doubt they would have back then. 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)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,613 Likes: 25
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,613 Likes: 25 |
Didn't the Yankees have a lot to do with it? lmao
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506 |
Nah,....The North were just better shots than the South.
Still are.
😂
🦫
Curiosity Killed the Cat & The Prairie Dog “Molon Labe”
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1 |
Nah,....The North were just better shots than the South.
Still are.
😂
🦫
Hallelujah
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,125
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,125 |
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?
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
612 members (160user, 1badf350, 10gaugemag, 10Glocks, 01Foreman400, 06hunter59, 58 invisible),
18,769
guests, and
1,296
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,970
Posts18,539,886
Members74,052
|
Most Online20,796 04:44 PM
|
|
|
|