A Savage Conflict: The Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil War

Civil War America

by Daniel E. Sutherland

The American Civil War is famous for epic battles involving massive armies outfitted in blue and gray uniforms, details that characterize conventional warfare. A Savage Conflict is the first work to treat guerrilla warfare as critical to understanding the course and outcome of the Civil War. Daniel Sutherland argues that irregular warfare took a large toll on the Confederate war effort by weakening support for state and national governments and diminishing the trust citizens had in their officials to protect them. Sutherland points out that early in the war Confederate military and political leaders embraced guerrilla tactics. They knew that "partizan" fighters had helped to win the American Revolution. As the war dragged on and defense of the remote spaces of the Confederate territory became more tenuous, guerrilla activity spiraled out of state control. It was adopted by parties who had interests other than Confederate victory, including southern Unionists, violent bands of

Genres: History, Civil War, American History, American Civil War, Nonfiction, Military Fiction, War

435 pages, Hardcover

First published July 1, 2009

Reviews

[Sleepy Boy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This isn't the most entertaining book on the US Civil War I've read about blending first-hand accounts, but it is fascinating in what it sets out to do.

I've never been exposed to the idea the civil war had this huge underlying front basically in terms of guerrilla warfare. It's hard not to draw comparisons to today but the author does an excellent job of keeping this book focused on how this type of warfare was viewed by participants and civilians back then.

I was shocked to learn just how divided each state was. I was under the impression that even if it was a southern or northern state, most of the population went along with how their state chose to proceed. This book proves this was not the case.

A great read from the information imparted but, on the whole, somewhat dry.

[James Durney · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Mosby, William Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson encompass most of our knowledge about guerrillas. The sack of Lawrence and understanding Missouri had a very active guerrilla war completes the picture. If you read a lot of Civil War history, you can discuss the problems caused by deserters and the battles between Unionists and Confederates in the CSA. Pushed, you might talk about guerrillas firing on shipping in the Mississippi River. Really pushed, you might mention North Carolina and/or East Tennessee as “hot spots” of guerrilla activity. After that, we have gone through our knowledge on the subject. After reading this book, you will be able to talk intelligently about this subject across the nation for the entire war.
For one book to pack so much information, be readable and have good historic sources is an accomplishment. This book manages to exceed all expectations by providing a summary with the right level of detail, in an intelligent readable format. The history hangs on a frame covering six to twelve month periods of the war in chronological order. Each part follows the development of the guerrilla war with a section of the nation during this period. The major sections are Kansas/Missouri/Arkansas, Kentucky/Tennessee, West Virginia/Virginia, Mississippi/Alabama and the Carolinas. Texas, Florida and Louisiana appear when they have something to contribute. The author adds sections, as they become part of the story. In Spring-Summer 1861, Kansas/Missouri/Arkansas, Kentucky/Tennessee, West Virginia/Virginia are the major story. This includes problems of guerrillas spilling into Iowa & Illinois from Missouri and into Ohio from Kentucky. As the war progresses, areas are added. By 1864, the entire South is aflame; the problems have escalated into endless theft and murder that has destroyed law in much of the Confederacy.
This is not just a history of military operations. The author details the Confederacy’s early view of “partisan rangers” and the appeal of this service to individuals. From this foundation, we get a solid history of the CSA military and legal actions to establish and control these units. At the same time, the USA struggles to establish polices to deal with guerrillas, maintain the goodwill of the people and protect supply lines. Throw into this mix advancing armies, ill will, avarice and revenge for a witches brew creating endless problems. While logical and almost inevitable this is not a pretty story. As the CSA changes positions and loses territory the guerrilla bands change. Less control creates more foraging, more deserters and internal warfare. This changes the local people’s attitudes. Union frustration and a hardening of reprisal policies add to their misery.
This is a comprehensive survey, well written and very readable. A full set of real footnotes, with a good mix of original and contemporary sources, appear as endnotes. These endnotes have page references, at the bottom of the page, making it easy to find the footnote you are looking for. An index, Bibliography, good regional maps and illustrations from Harpers complete this excellent book. This is a valuable addition to your library. While not covering the major armies or battles, this is a needed view of the war that is seldom seen.

[Todd · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was surprised - and disappointed - by Sutherland's book. Just before reading this, I had finished Richard Pipes' book _The Russian Revolution_. Pipes struggled with the fact that the Soviets and now the Russian Federation still have not declassified materials from the 1919 revolution. Still, hampered by this, Pipes was able to deliver a gripping account of military action and political maneuvering that was both informative and gripping. Sutherland's book is neither gripping nor terribly informative. He skips out on guerrilla tactics, perhaps reflecting a lack of understanding of small-unit combat. By this, I mean that fundamental tactical questions are not addressed:
- preferences related to daytime vs. nighttime raids;
- small arms only vs. indirect fire or other complex attacks;
- priority targets; and
- intelligence and scouting needs, etc.

Sutherland creates questions by using an ambiguous writing style. Here's an example: Sutherland wrote of one guerrilla leader, "He had been an articulate leader of the secession movement, but when his handsome residence was burned in June 1861—whether by Unionists or the U.S. Army is unclear—he became a bushwhacker who lived only for 'revenge.'" Daniel E. Sutherland, A Savage Conflict: The Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil War (Civil War America) (p. 87). Sutherland never explains why revenge is in quotations. Does that mean that the successionist take revenge too far? Does that mean the successionist just wanted violence and didn't care if it fit within the rubric of actual revenge?

As journalism professors often say, "show don't tell." Sutherland doesn't do so. He never shows what it means for someone to be an articulate leader, say, or how someone lives for revenge. He never shows what it means that a guerrilla leader is a brilliant tactician. It's a book about warfare that doesn't really depict warfare.

[Goob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although this is my first time reading a seriously researched book on the matter of guerrilla forces in the American Civil War, Sutherland has convinced me of their importance to the war effort on both sides. It encompasses the whole war without losing focus from the depth it gets into at each stage. This might be the textbook on the matter.

[Chris]

In A Savage Conflict author Daniel E. Sutherland brings his expertise to bear on the subject of guerrilla fighting in the Civil War era. The author uses an extensive array of material on guerrilla fighting to make several arguments regarding not only the style of fighting but also its? effect on both the Confederacy and the United States. Sutherland places all considerations second to his main objective: to examine how Confederate guerilla warfare affected the outcome of the Civil War. The author, like a modern-day Victor Frankenstein collecting parts for his re-animation experiment, gathers scattered studies of guerilla fighting into a single body. Like Frankenstein, this Modern Prometheus project crafts a greater whole from the sum of the parts. It is an important contribution to the subject of Civil War era guerilla warfare. Sutherland?s greatest challenge is to take the many and varied kinds of combatants, Confederate and Union, and explain how they were guerillas. Regardless of what label the fighters adopted or were given - Partisan Ranger, Guerilla, bushwhacker, Buffalo, Jayhawker to name but a few - Sutherland contends that ?at least two things defined nearly all ?guerillas.?? Foremost was the manner of combat employed by the fighter. The ??irregular? way they attacked, harassed, and worried their foes? was very much ?unlike the methods used by regular soldiers in conventional armies.? In addition, the primary concern when forming such companies was local defense to protect their families and or communities from internal and external foes. The author concedes that this is somewhat ?elusive, ungainly and untidy? but contends this only reflects the ?nature of the guerilla war.? It is a very functional definition and allows the author to bring to the table many varied elements in support of his overall argument. Sutherland wisely institutes order on the topic by delineating it chronologically. He does not seek to craft an exhaustive study of guerilla fighting in every neighborhood (impractical at best) but rather to carefully examine regional variations and mine those variations to show how they charted policy for both opposing forces and governments. Dividing the war period into four sections - beginnings, rules of the games, democracy run amok, day of the outlaw - Sutherland sets down an arc showing how guerilla forces evolved over time and in place. This is no small accomplishment given that, as the author details, guerilla warfare is by its? nature locale specific and is usually best served as a local history study. Sutherland?s Frankenstein-esque approach to pulling cogent parts from each local history study serves to build a clearer picture of the overarching effect of the fighting during the war. He demonstrates that a guerilla war deployed by local fighters gained state and then national recognition within the Confederacy; sometimes placed those two political bodies at odds with one another; caused opposing forces (armies, governments, and counter-guerilla fighters) to direct energy and manpower against those efforts; disintegrated into contests for control of the forces; devolved into personal vendettas; and eventually lost the backing of both the government and the local people whom the guerrillas initially set out to protect. The last of these, the failure to sustain public confidence in their cause, was a major blow to the independence objective of the Confederate government. Guerrilla outrages and the insular nature of its? command structure undermined civilian confidence in their own government?s ability to protect them. Like all projects there are some minor errors, even Frankenstein?s creation retained bolts and a few exposed sutures. Perhaps the most problematic is the inclusion of General Edward A. Wild?s December 1863 expedition without context of prior events. In no other region examined by Sutherland does he fail to mention local exigencies that lead to guerrilla events or Federal retaliation. Sutherland notes that locals, in response to the expedition, called for removal of the guerrilla fighters because ?their further presence here will bring upon us speedy and inevitable ruin.? While Wild?s expedition was indeed the tipping point, continuous guerrilla activity and counter-measures from February 1862 through the expedition produced this certainty in the local people. Just as Sutherland tracked in other regions of the south, northeastern North Carolina learned first hand the shock of continuous warfare. Fitting the larger argument made by Sutherland, northeastern North Carolina locals despaired of the continued tactics thus guerrilla activity undermined the effort to establish a national government. The author lost a chance to make his larger point by failing to include that context. Sutherland?s overall point is, nonetheless, made. Union commanders (and Confederate ones as well) were forced to take notice and find ways to counter the guerrilla fighting. The harshness of the fighting itself contributed to the wearing away of home-front morale and unity. These sutured parts come together from the bone yards of local history studies and produce a whole creature - one that should be studied by anyone with a serious interest in the Civil War era.

[Maddie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read for comps. Important work on how guerrilla warfare played a decisive role in the conflict.

[Edgar Raines · Rating 5 out of 5]

Daniel E. Sutherland has conducted exhaustive research in a wide range of repositories. His analysis is compelling and the writing is nothing less than brilliant. Sutherland argues that "the guerrilla war in all its phases...made the war far bloodier" than conventional campaigns alone would have done. (p. 277) At the very least the guerrillas "prolonged the war by a few months." Confederate guerrillas influenced policy on both sides both through the Confederacy's adoption of the "The Partisan Ranger Act" and the Union's adoption of the Lieber Code, War Department General Orders No. 100, 1863. The Confederate irregulars helped their nation lose the war. First, they caused Union commanders and ultimately the Lincoln administration to shift from a policy of conciliating Southerners to a "hard hand of war" approach. Second, by initiating a cycle of revenge and retaliation which often was little more than settling prewar disputes between neighbors that had nothing to do with the wider war, they contributed to an unwinding of the social fabric of their communities while at the same time exposing the inability of the Confederate government to maintain law and order. The resulting anarchy convinced many Secessionists that Union occupation and control was the lesser of two evils.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the American Civil War or the history of guerrilla warfare.

[Chuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good survey of Guerrilla Warfare in the Civil War and how it evolved. From the pre-Civil War American military experience, through ant-Union and anti-Confederate activities, to it's final collapse into armed groups of men roaming parts of the countryside, some attached, in varying degrees, to one side or the other, and some just randomly sowing mayhem.

It is well written and covers its topics well, including areas outside the border states, like Louisiana. It gives the reader an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of guerrilla warfare and how it affected the communities involved.

[Melanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting book that focused on the impact of guerilla fighting in the Civil War. I thought the argument itself was interesting and this is often a topic that is only mentioned in passing in many other books on the Civil War. However, I did find it slow reading sometimes because Sutherland provides so much evidence to support his argument. While this is important as he is arguing something new, that guerrillas did have an important impact on the war, I feel like I lost his argument sometimes in all of the facts.

Other than that, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the Civil War.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 4 out of 5]

Panoramic view of the Civil War's guerrilla fronts. Sutherland covers well-known partisans and bushwhackers like Will Quantrill, Jim Lane and John Hunt Morgan, but also lesser-known groups like Unionists rampaging through the Carolinas and North Texas. Those seeking detailed accounts of their exploits will be disappointed. Sutherland focuses more on scope, placing the guerrillas in the war's greater context: their often dubious motives, official hostility (even in the South, where partisans often operated in lieu of regular forces), the cruel countermeasures and their impact on the broader war, tying down supplies and manpower. Highly recommended.

[Ron Nurmi · Rating 5 out of 5]

a good look at the other conflict during the Civil War