The American Civil War ended in 1877 not 1865

[Farnan]

One of the common myths is the American Civil War ended in 1865. However, it wasn't till 1877 that it really ended. How could that be, you may ask.

Well major combat operations ended in 1865 (the phrase "major combat operations" should sound familiar), however till 1877 the Federal government fought a counterinsurgency operation in the former Confederacy. Shortly after disbanding the Confederate Army, many ex-Confederate (though not all or the majority) formed insurgent forces most notably the Ku Klux Klan, but also included the White League, Knights of the White Camela and the Red Shirts along with numerous less organized forces. These groups continued to fight Federal and State forces for over a decade. It wasn't till the compromise of 1877 and the election of Rutherford B. Hayes that the Civil War ended.

The more you know.

[Celsius]

Interesting. Im going to have to read more on this.

[Farnan]

Its hard to find good sources on it. Mostly because many of the sources easily found on Reconstruction (the insurgency era) are Lost Causers.

But here is an article:

http://www.xomba.com/us_policy_and_c...ruction_period

Oh and the Federal government lost the counterinsurgency part.

[motiv-8]

Indeed, 1865 to '77 was a shameful period in which all hands completely failed to make something useful out of the horrific bloodshed of the Civil War, resigning the southern portion of the country to decades of societal backwardness while swaths of the north wallowed in their own corruption.

Oh and the Federal government lost the counterinsurgency part.

Lost the counter-insurgency, lost in diplomacy... failed in every way really.

[Bleda]

Oh and the Federal government lost the counterinsurgency part.

Did they? Are roving bands of insurgents still waging war today? Or did the Federal government fail to restore its authority over the former Confederate States? Sounds to me like they didn't fail.

Indeed, 1865 to '77 was a shameful period in which all hands completely failed to make something useful out of the horrific bloodshed of the Civil War, resigning the southern portion of the country to decades of societal backwardness while swaths of the north wallowed in their own corruption.

Reconstruction was a bad time for the South. However, one of Reconstructions great failures was failing to shed that societal backwardsness that was prevalent in the South since before the country's founding. Reconstruction did not cause the backwardness, it just failed to rectify it.

Lost the counter-insurgency, lost in diplomacy... failed in every way really.

I beg to differ. They won the war, confederate insurgents became a thing of the past.

As for diplomacy, how did they fail? How many countries recognized CSA independence?---- NONE. I could see how a reasonable person could say that the Union failed in some ways, but to say "they failed in everyway really" is just ignoring the outcome of the war.

[Farnan]

Did they? Are roving bands of insurgents still waging war today? Or did the Federal government fail to restore its authority over the former Confederate States? Sounds to me like they didn't fail.

No, because the insurgents were given what they wanted. The goal of Reconstruction was to protect the rights of the Black population, and gave them rights they lost in 1877 and wouldn't have again till 1968.

The reason I brought this up was a few days ago I was talking with someone who taught history at West Point.

[conon394]

Lost the counter-insurgency, lost in diplomacy... failed in every way really.

Indeed it difficult to really understand the utter failure of the reconstruction period after the Union spent so much effort to win the war. Having secured the boarder states and the territories the Union should have simply let the core CSA go and amended it own constitution to eliminate succession (and maybe picked a fight with the UK or France if it wanted more of NA)

[Azog 150]

Interesting stuff. Are we talking about Guerilla warfare here, or just general unrest?

[Farnan]

Both. Though the guerrilla warfare was more directed to the Federal backed state governments than to Federal troops who were more well armed and equipped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place

Two examples.

And Conon: Reconstruction would have worked if it wasn't done half heartedly and would have allowed more re-enfranchisement of former Confederates.

[conon394]

And Conon: Reconstruction would have worked if it wasn't done half halfheartedly and would have allowed more re-enfranchisement of former Confederates.

I don't disagree - that the thing after so much effort to with the military war is just perplexing the complete failure to mange reconstruction half so effectively. Ultimately I think it telling about how nebulous the Union war aims really were since there was no real political consensus to win the peace if you once the organized shooting stopped.

In passing it also interesting that the North did formally amend the Constitution to formally address succession (or annulment) rather than just the de facto situation of the military defeat of the CSA.

[Farnan]

Same thing as in Iraq. They thought once major combat ended things would just fall into place.

[conon394]

They thought once major combat ended things would just fall into place.

If I recall correctly Demosthenes once said the easiest person to fool is yourself. You gotta wonder how anyone could come to that conclusion considering just how bitterly and complete the CSA fought the war - not to mention that whole free the slaves thing was more or less going to insure the hostility of virtually the entire political/ruling/elite class.

[DaVinci]

Same thing as in Iraq. They thought once major combat ended things would just fall into place.

Only that is is ridiculous to compare the Iraq war conflict with the US civil war conflict.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Wow this is getting off topic...

Only that is is ridiculous to compare the Iraq war conflict with the US civil war conflict.

He's just comparing the general situations.

I think it stands in a way.

A region/country is conquered militarily, surrenders, then an insurgency pops up that many didn't expect.

It's very true, the early KKK=Confederate insurgents. As well as some lesser known groups with similar aims.

[Hanny]

Wow this is getting off topic...



He's just comparing the general situations.

I think it stands in a way.

A region/country is conquered militarily, surrenders, then an insurgency pops up that many didn't expect.

It's very true, the early KKK=Confederate insurgents. As well as some lesser known groups with similar aims.

Edit.Noble Savage.The KKK and related groups were all about racial superiority and a return to that condition, in Iraq race plays no part in the issue.

People use anology because them are unfamiliar withe the subject at hand, who would have thought that makeing the southern states unrepresented in politics, killing 25% of adult males during the war, disenfranchising 90% of the surviving southern voters, reducing white income by 65%, placing there sttses under mil law, reducing the number of banks in the south to 120 from over 2500 at wars start, taking 7 out 10 richest states as being southern and by wars end no southern state in the top 15, having Chase hand picked half white half negro jury to try Dvid for treason would have resulted in anyone in the south wanting a return of the good old days?.

[Farnan]

The KKK and related groups were all about racial superiority and a return to that condition, in Iraq race plays no part in the issue.

People use anology because them are unfamiliar withe the subject at hand, who would have thought that makeing the southern states unrepresented in politics, killing 25% of adult males during the war, disenfranchising 90% of the surviving southern voters, reducing white income by 65%, placing there sttses under mil law, reducing the number of banks in the south to 120 from over 2500 at wars start, taking 7 out 10 richest states as being southern and by wars end no southern state in the top 15, having Chase hand picked half white half negro jury to try Dvid for treason would have resulted in anyone in the south wanting a return of the good old days?.

Just confirmed what I expected. Thank you.

And the motivations behind an insurgency has little to do with the fact its an insurgency.

[Norman Bum]

then an insurgency pops up that many didn't expect

If anyone in the world with any ounce of intelligence didn't expect an Insurgency in Iraq (Or any war for that matter) than I

[motiv-8]

Only that is is ridiculous to compare the Iraq war conflict with the US civil war conflict.

How is it ridiculous, in regards to the specific context around which the comparison was made? You sould, you know, back that up. I think Farnan deserves it.

[Major.Stupidity]

One of the common myths is the American Civil War ended in 1865. However, it wasn't till 1877 that it really ended. How could that be, you may ask.

Well major combat operations ended in 1865 (the phrase "major combat operations" should sound familiar), however till 1877 the Federal government fought a counterinsurgency operation in the former Confederacy. Shortly after disbanding the Confederate Army, many ex-Confederate (though not all or the majority) formed insurgent forces most notably the Ku Klux Klan, but also included the White League, Knights of the White Camela and the Red Shirts along with numerous less organized forces. These groups continued to fight Federal and State forces for over a decade. It wasn't till the compromise of 1877 and the election of Rutherford B. Hayes that the Civil War ended.

The more you know.

I think you just went full COIN here ya Farnan.

[Farnan]

Well its true. It was the first time the US faced an insurgency, and COIN type operations were tried and successful on a local scale. Sadly they were not applied to the whole South.