I've read some bits an pieces saying some in the South were considering resorting to guerilla war after it became clear they weren't going to be able to face the North head on, so how come that never happened?
But the South did resort to irregular tactics. Some were quite good at it. There was even a popular TV series about this in the 1950s. Have you never heard of Mosbey's Raiders? There were other examples: may I suggest you read Shelby Foote ACW trilogy?
The South decided that it was easier, and less of a hassle to commit to a political guerilla campaign, instead of becoming desperados addicted to battle like Jesse James and others like him. They used Jesse James until his way became too politically damaging.
Jrj, would you consider the Knights of the Golden Circle a partisan or irregular band? How about the Copperheads -- were they guerillas? How about the KKK?
Interesting that you mention the KKK since they are a good example of the point that I am making, they hid themselves in cloaks and masks and when the good ole boys regained political power the Klan was disbanded only later to be reinstituted when the good ole boys felt a threat to their power.
The Klan resurged in the 1920s primarily to one Indiana salesman. For him it was a way to make fast money.
Indeed, the Klan was sort of a postbellum resistance movement in the South. It was also an early example of homegrown terrorism in this country. A good documentary that provides an overview of the different periods of the clan is the History Channel's The Ku Klux Klan - A Secret History:
There is also a school of thought which believes the spiritual descendants of the South continue to conduct low-level guerilla warfare in such places as Fergusson, MO, and NYC. This is the legacy of the brutalization and incarsuration of Black individuals. I am not sure if one might really consider this as guerilla warfare or even as irregular warfare in a strict definition of the terms as defined by international law. But while there does not seem to be any organization of resistance among the victims, the Blacks and the Poor, I can see that one versed in Juris Prudence might make the case for a sence of organization among the Police and 'Private Security' elements.
Thank you for all the great responses. I suppose the loses they would have had to support were too high. IIRC guerilla forces typically lost 10 people for every 1 enemy they manage to kill, and with the South's already low population compared to the North they would have had a hard time sustaining that for any period of time.
In my term in the military I read some of the classics in the literature of Insurgency: On War by Che, On War by Kwame Nkruma, On War by Mao (sence a pattern?). They agreed in the premise that the key is to manipulate the enemy (goverment forces) to do what you wish, while avoiding direct confrontation where your own forces are at risk. Key is to preserve your own few troops. In Vietnam Charlie tried this policy, and it worked for them. I don't see why it could not have worked for the South. They had a few smart and able cavalry commanders who proved several times they could conduct guerilla warfare, but with only small groups (under 500 men). As I recall they only encountered trouble when they tried bringing horse guns along.
I believe that the southern aristocracy was tired of war and wanted to get back to business as usual, they socially castigated the blacks and gave lip service to the the reforms of the north, yet they regained control and just didn't use slavery terminology, while their economic practices accomplished the same goal of exploiting the black labour that was at their disposal.
