Insurgency-Civil War

[NousDefionsDoc]

What is the difference between an insurgency and a civil war?

[aricbcool]

Without reading up on it...

I would say the difference is...

For one, a civil war denotes a conflict, an insurgency denotes a group of fighters.

Usually, a civil war involves local people overthrowing government run by local people for control of their own country. It will often involve military units who identify themselves as such and fight in the open.

For example: our own Civil War, (correct me if I'm wrong) the "revolucion" that Castro led against his own Cuba. Another example being our liberation of Afghanistan, which was the US (and others) helping one side of the civil war there.

Like a civil war, an insurgency involves local people overthrowing local government, but usually the government in question is local government run or "installed" by a foreign power. While the government will have military units who identify themselves as such, the insurgents are made of local civilians or foriegn fighters who use org. structures and tactics designed to avoid pitched battles, or controlling territory to focus on attrition and wearing the enemy down.

To add to this, an insurgency can cooperate with a friendly conventional military force to achieve strategic goals. Insurgents can fight as part of a Civil War in this role.

Examples of insurgency or insurgents: The American Revolution (while not necessarily as unconventional as most insurgencies, I think it counts), The French Resistance, The VC in Vietnam, and of course our current situation in Iraq.

--Aric

[tyrsnbdr]

Ok, I'll bite,

I think that the difference is the level of the conflict. An insurgency is the ground roots of the conflict (i.e. “gorillas in the mountains”) I civil war is when a nation has become divide and has decided that war is the answer to the conflict. In this stage, war is in the open.

[lksteve]

Civil War-war between geographic sections or political factions of the same nation

Insurgency-a rising in revolt; uprising; insurrection...

since they brought up insurrection,

Insurrection-a rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt...

yeah, i know...looking it up is cheating... :p

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yeah, but what is the difference?

It is a matter of symmetry and scale?

[lksteve]

i would argue that a civil war entails a pulling apart of dissimilar groups within national boundaries, whereas an insurgency could be charaterized as an erosion of a national grouping from within...

one could assume (with all the dangers that entails) that you pose a leading question regarding symmetry; that a civil war may tend toward symmetry (or perhaps better defined factions), toward conventional warfare, both on the battlefield and within the diplomatic arena, whereas an insurgency may lend itself toward unconventional warfare (or asymmetrical warfare, to use the current expression) both as a means of prosecuting the military and the political aspects of the conflict...

as to scale, one could be led by your question, that civil wars may be fought on a scale, once again both militarily and politically, much larger than an insurgency...as i state above, civil wars seek to create separate political entities from within national boundaries, where an insurgency seeks to create a new order within those boundaries...

[aricbcool]

as i state above, civil wars seek to create separate political entities from within national boundaries, where an insurgency seeks to create a new order within those boundaries...

I would think that the cause of Civil War is the seperate political entities, while the effect, or goal, of it is the same as an insurgency: To unify the country under one rule.

Thoughts?
--Aric

[lksteve]

I would think that the cause of Civil War is the seperate political entities, while the effect, or goal, of it is the same as an insurgency: To unify the country under one rule.

Thoughts?
--Aricthe American Civil war fought to create two governments, as it was determined that the differences between North and South were too great to overcome (at least one could argue that point as the Southern motivation)...the civil wars in the Balkans were essentially to gain autonomy for one region or another...the Spanish Civil War, by contrast, was fought to establish a new form of government, replacing the old with the new...the English Civil War was fought for several reasons, among them was to dispel the notion of the divine rights of kings, and to protect Protestantism within England...the initial aim was not the replacement of the monarchy, but a moderation of the perceived abuses of the Crown...

[aricbcool]

the American Civil war fought to create two governments, as it was determined that the differences between North and South were too great to overcome (at least one could argue that point as the Southern motivation)...the civil wars in the Balkans were essentially to gain autonomy for one region or another...the Spanish Civil War, by contrast, was fought to establish a new form of government, replacing the old with the new...the English Civil War was fought for several reasons, among them was to dispel the notion of the divine rights of kings, and to protect Protestantism within England...the initial aim was not the replacement of the monarchy, but a moderation of the perceived abuses of the Crown...

I forgot about the Civil War from the South's Point of view (unfortunately all too easy these days)...

But your examples of the Spanish Civil War and the English Civil War both seek to create a single government don't they? (Whether moderate monarchy or brand new...)

I still stand by my definition of an insurgency as a group of fighters and a Civil War as a type of conflict, Webster's be damned. :p

--Aric

[lksteve]

What is the difference between an insurgency and a civil war?is there a difference...is an insurgency a subset of civil war, perhaps a phase leading toward civil war...?

do conflicts have to share common attributes to be considered insurgencies, civil wars, insurretions...?

are all civil wars the same...? do they vary, based on a point in time, a unique dynamic, population diversity...? :p

[lksteve]

But your examples of the Spanish Civil War and the English Civil War both seek to create a single government don't they? do you expect a straight-forward, clear-cut answer? i don't...

[aricbcool]

do you expect a straight-forward, clear-cut answer? i don't...

Not at all...

I just got the impression from your previous posts that the end result of a (successful) Civil War had to be two seperate political entities. :)

--Aric

[pulque]

What is the difference between an insurgency and a civil war?

Insurgencies are protracted by insurgent strategy. Modern civil wars are protracted by treaties.

What do they have in common? Both may be fought with support from outside powers/factions.

[jon448]

I'm going to disagree with aric that the main point of a civil war is to create 2 seperate political entities because if you look some of the more recent examples of civil war in particular the war/ethinic cleansing in Somalia there is no attempt to seperate the state into several political spheres.
My belief is that an insurgency is a movement that because of either the opinion of the people or the power of the actual state must stay underground where as in a civil war the opposition group is powerful and influential enough to be open about who is in control and to fight a convential.
So I'll say that an insurgency can lead to a civil war but it does not fall under a category of civil war.

[Airbornelawyer]

The differences are a function of how you choose to define the terms, which can have somewhat elastic meanings. But fundamentally they differ because they have to do with two separate things.

An "insurgency" refers to the nature or form of the conflict. Though some doctrinal publications muddy the waters by defining insurgency by an end - the overthrow of a government - fundamentally, the end does not matter. Whether a group seeks to overthrow an established government, break away from the central government, force the government to make accomodations, make a profit, or just kill people isn't really relevant. An insurgency is defined by the means employed - primarily guerrilla but also perhaps involving political agitation, terrorism and/or some conventional military operations - and its scale - somewhere on the middle of the spectrum between full-blown conventional warfare and gang or terrorist violence.

A "civil war" refers to the purpose of the conflict. A "civil war" is contrasted with a war between or among separate states. It is simply a war within a state. The tactics/methods are not the issue - as Axl Rose once asked, "what's so civil about war anyway?"

Civil wars fall into various categories, but each is defined by the end sought, not the methods chosen to achieve them (though, of course, the essence of strategy is adapting the means employed to the ends sought). The most recognizable category is the revolutionary, the attempt to overthrow and replace the existing government - the Spanish Civil War is a classic example. The other major category is a separatist war, an attempt by a region to break away from the central government, of which the U.S. Civil War is the classic example. A third category might be sectarian, a war within a state among ethnic or religious factions, but this category is somewhat ephemeral, as the goals are often unclear and sometimes these do have revolutionary or separatist overtones. The English Civil War is generally classified as of the sectarian variety.

There is of course overlap among these categories. Was the American Revolution a civil war among British loyalists and those who would establish their own form of government, or a separatist war between breakaway colonies and their mother country?

The scale is also a factor in defining civil wars versus domestic violence. A war gets called a civil war when it reaches a level of violence that makes the overthrow of the regime or the breakaway of a region conceivable. This is a bit of a logical fallacy - begging the question - since it boils down to "we call it a civil war when it is big enough to be called a civil war." This is where means and ends get muddied and questions are asked such as whether an insurgency is now a full-scale civil war. And some authors trying to define "civil war" do fall into this, basically seeing a civil war as categorized by full-scale conventional warfare, as opposed to "just" insurgent violence or an even lower level of violence.

This is where the "is the situation in Iraq becoming a civil war" question muddies the categories and begs the question. The insurgency doesn't become a civil war merely by becoming more violent or deadly. It does by reaching a point where there are clear sides with definable and achievable ends (I admit "achievable" does involve question-begging, but I think we recognize that it is a factor - anarchists may have definable ends, but are never likely to be seen as a side in a civil war because they are too small and radical to ever conceive of actually accomplishing those ends or getting a sufficient number of their countrymen to join the cause).

In Iraq, for example, it is hard to conceive of the predominantly Sunni insurgents ever leading a successful revolutionary civil war. They are simply outnumbered by Shi'ite Arabs, Kurds and non-insurgent Sunnis to ever achieve that end. The Ba'athists may be nostalgic for the power they once had, and that nostalgia may fuel their ardor, but the relative power positions have changed too radically - the Ba'athist Sunni-dominated Iraqi security forces have been destroyed and the Shi'ites and Kurds have enough power that they won't go back to the status quo ante 2003.

And though the Sunnis are a relatively distinct subgroup in Iraq. there appears to be no viable separatist sentiment. The Sunni insurgents are not seeking to break the so-called Sunni Triangle away from the central government.

The non-Ba'athist insurgents, the Islamist terrorists of Al-Qa'ida in Iraq and similar groups, might arguably have a revolutionary goal, the establishment of an Islamic regime, but like the anarchists this is not an especially achievable goal, since not only would it require cowing the more secular elements in Iraqi society, but also the entire Shi'ite majority, since AQ's brand of Islamism is extremely hostile to Shi'ism.

Rather, their goals seem to be like those of anarchists, simply to foment violence for violence's sake in the hope that outsiders like the US will just give up and abandon the country to anarchy. The Ba'athists still hold out some hope that the Iraqi people will look for a Ba'athist Napoleon to save them from this anarchy, while it is hard to see the Islamists as having any real objective other than perpetuating the anarchy - they are a death cult that kills for the sake of killing. But while they certainly can perpetuate the violence, the ends do not seem achievable. The Shi'ites and their allies are far more likely to exterminate the Ba'athists (and as many innocent Sunni Arabs as get caught in the line of fire) than simply give the Ba'athists the keys to Saddam's mansions and prisons back.

[lksteve]

...if you look some of the more recent examples of civil war in particular the war/ethinic cleansing in Somalia there is no attempt to seperate the state into several political spheres. Somalia was not about ethinc cleansing...wrong conflict, wrong continent...Somalia was a fight to see which tribe/clan would exert control over a non-existent government...there were regional economic and resource issues involved, as well...Somalis make up about 98% of the population, by ethnic group, so ethinc cleansing could not have been an issue...

Siad Barre had used a divide and conquer strategy among and between the clans during his period as "President"...when he was deposed, this threw the country into turmoil, as the mistrust he had encouraged kept the five principal tribles from coming together to form a government...Barre had manipulated food supplies and government services and when the drought and civil war hit, (not quite simulataneously) clans and tribes from the exterior regions moved on Mogoville to make sure they were going to get their fair share of relief supplies...the presence of folks from out of town only exacerbated the struggle for control of Mogadishu...tribal tensions flared over both the control of the city (and its resources) and control of the levers of power for the non-existant government...control of the countryside was never an issue and it seemed that whoever might control Mogadishu would only control the relief supplies and what international commerce that was and not much else...

Somalia was a civil war, although i would be hard-pressed to state that the intended goal of that war was to change the regime or even to impose a government...in the areas outside the famine-struck South of the country (around Hargeeza, for example), there was little tension, no political violence and folks seemed unaffected by the shenanigans in Mogadishu, Kismayo or Bardera...

[jon448]

Sorry about my confusion on that I mistook the massive starvation for cleansing. I should have stopped to think about for a minute since almost everyone there is muslim and a somali. That plus my real lack of knowledge to prior events should have made me stop, shut up and think about it for a minute.
Thats what I get for trying to rush my response before I went to the gym.

[pulque]

The differences are a function of how you choose to define the terms, which can have somewhat elastic meanings. But fundamentally they differ because they have to do with two separate things.

An "insurgency" refers to the nature or form of the conflict.
A "civil war" refers to the purpose of the conflict.

Thats it. Totally 4 sure.

The insurgency doesn't become a civil war merely by becoming more violent or deadly. It does by reaching a point where there are clear sides with definable and achievable ends

I would put forward that another indicator might also be clearly defined ideals which dont change with tactics (eg. coersion of population). To me, the "achievable" criteria is not strict enough. It is disguised as a subjective parameter. Or do historians (in retrospect) determine which conflicts are civil wars and which are merely violence and domestic uprising?

You can have clear sides with definable and achievable ends at any point in a conflict, if you are an insurgent and you are putting up an illusion to win popular support. In practice, um, how about peasant revolts around a pretender. Or, the Chinese communists (first they were marxists, then nationalists, then they were socalists, then they were "unified" in the face of Japanese agression, dropped land reform, then they performed land reform by violent means thereby committing the rural population to violence, allowing the dropping of land reform in favor of collectivization)

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Yeah, but what is the difference?

It is a matter of symmetry and scale?

I think if can be a matter of both. On the scale of the effort, civil war normally falls within the realm of high-intensity conflict where both sides are going at it with everything available, anarchy is a real possibility, and the rule of law may/or may not completely breakdown. Insurgency usually falls within the low intensity conflict arena but can also be a tool/tactic in support of civil war and is asymetric in nature. For the combatant it makes little difference what you call it because when someone has a pistol jammed up your nostril and is about to blow your brains out it all becomes a matter of symantics used by politicos to get military folk to do what they want done but are unwilling to do for themselves.

[aricbcool]

I'm going to disagree with aric that the main point of a civil war is to create 2 seperate political entities...

The point I was trying to get across was that a Civil War is caused by two seperate, local political entities coming to blows.

The end result (or main point, as you put it) is really up to the participants...

Regards,
Aric

[NousDefionsDoc]

I disagree with AL and agree with Colonel Sir.

AL where does a classic Maoist insurgency fall within your "ends do not matter" scenario? The goal is to develop the insurgency to the point where conventional military operations can bbe undertaken, is it not?

It would seem to me the difference between the two is nothing more than scale and symmetry - semantics if the two sides are even close to symmetrical or the lesser side understands the center of gravity and it is easily attacked. I would also argue that Iraq is in a civil war and the US is the only thing holding it down at all.

The goal of any conflict is always to win 100% of what your side wants. And no one ever starts a fight with the intention of sharing power as the end result.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Bard O'Neill calls the U.S. civil war an insurgency. :munchin

[The Reaper]

Bard O'Neill calls the U.S. civil war an insurgency. :munchin

The North considered it an armed rebellion.

The South considered it a legitimate military response to invasion by the Union, as they felt their secession, like the original confederation, was permitted by the Constitution.

Probably be fought for an even longer period by lawyers in $1000 suits today.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

The North considered it an armed rebellion.

What is the difference between an insurgency and an "armed rebellion"? The latter is a subset of the first, isn't it?

[The Reaper]

What is the difference between an insurgency and an "armed rebellion"? The latter is a subset of the first, isn't it?

Not relevant to me in this case, since I disagree with the premise. :D

On a theoretical discussion, since JCS Pub 1-02 defines insurgency as :

"insurgency — (*) An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict."

The Confederacy attempted a seccession, initially peacefully. The Union denied that. Prior to the War, it could be argued that states freely joining the Union, could decide to freely leave the Union. There was no effort to overthrow the Federal government. Thus, I would submit that there was no effort to overthrow the government, just to declare independence and secede from it.

TR

[Peregrino]

The American Civil War (War of Northern Aggression, War of Southern Secession, whatever) was not an insurgency, nor was it technically "armed rebellion" as the Constitution was then written. Yankee propaganda, used to whip up the fervor of a reluctant population has been incorporated into the popular misconceptions of the War and its background. Unfortunately (at least in this case) history is written by the winners. And - given the ancillary issues - there is little chance for a dispassionate, objective examination of the facts. Attempts to do so are usually met with the same calibre of vitriol as attempts to look fairly at both sides of the Mid-East disaster. In order to qualify for relook the cause must be popular with liberal academicians. The Confederacy will never meet that standard. My .02 - Peregrino

[Roguish Lawyer]

You southern boys crack me up. ;)

[The Reaper]

You southern boys crack me up. ;)

Where, in the Constitution, was it written that the union could be maintained by force of arms, then the states who attempted to secede could be then treated as occupied territory and their Constitutional (and inalienable) rights suspended?

I thought the states formed together of their own volition, declared independence with state representation in a Continental Congress, and approved the Constitution with ratification by the respective state houses.

My belief is that the founding fathers would have rolled in their graves at the thought of the federal government invading states and abusing their citizens to preserve the union.

What does your history book say, counsel?

TR

[Peregrino]

What does your history book say, counsel?

TR

That's the majority of the problem right there. Peregrino

[Roguish Lawyer]

TR, I believe you are correct on the constitutional issues.

Abusing those poor ladies and gentlemen. And destroying their constitutionally recognized right to own slaves. Damn Yankees! LMAO

[The Reaper]

TR, I believe you are correct on the constitutional issues.

Abusing those poor ladies and gentlemen. And destroying their constitutionally recognized right to own slaves. Damn Yankees! LMAO

I would say that loss of your lands and property, as well as suspension of your rights is pretty significant mistreatment by the government that wanted to keep you.

Slaves were also held in the states NOT in rebellion and only the slaves living in the Confederacy were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, in case you didn't know that. The majority of Southerners were NOT slaveowners.

TR

[Peregrino]

Let's see how this works -------- Defend the Confederacy and you're a racist. Suggest the Palestinian people got screwed by everybody (and dare to suggest that the bombing of the King David Hotel was an act of terrorism) and you're anti-Semitic. I love the power of association invoked with words. Just because the causes are unpopular or the victims aren't admirable, doesn't mean their grievances aren't legitimate. Peregrino

[The Reaper]

Hell, I just found out that the Confederate Air Force changed its name to be more PC.

Now I AM pissed! :mad:

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Yes, I knew. But I believe in identifying and striking the most sensitive and vulnerable targets. LMAO

The South got its ass kicked, IIRC. :D

[The Reaper]

Yes, I knew. But I believe in identifying and striking the most sensitive and vulnerable targets. LMAO

The South got its ass kicked, IIRC. :D

I don't recall that from my history lessons.

Would you care to cite examples where with comparably sized elements, the Confederate forces lost?

I can provide numerous cases of more numerous and better equipped Federal foces failing miserably.

The Yankees probably had more lawyers in their ranks. There were several particularly incompetent ones in command at various levels. I'll have to see if any share your last name. :munchin

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

I did not realize that Bragg was located in the good ol C S of A.

[Airbornelawyer]

I don't recall that from my history lessons.

Would you care to cite examples where with comparably sized elements, the Confederate forces lost?

I can provide numerous cases of more numerous and better equipped Federal foces failing miserably.

The Yankees probably had more lawyers in their ranks. There were several particularly incompetent ones in command at various levels. I'll have to see if any share your last name. :munchin

TRYou are aware of what John Singleton Mosby did before the war, right? :munchin

[The Reaper]

You are aware of what John Singleton Mosby did before the war, right? :munchin

Yeah, but he was a Confederate and never rose above the rank of Colonel. I dedicated a chapter to one of his operations in my thesis, but out of respect, avoided his unsavory pre-war activies.

Are you familiar with Daniel Sickles?

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

You are aware of what John Singleton Mosby did before the war, right? :munchin

Body blow! You da man, AL! LOL

AL is adopting the AM targeting strategy -- first shot through the temple! :D

[The Reaper]

I did not realize that Bragg was located in the good ol C S of A.

Braxton Bragg was a Confederate general, though arguably one of the worst.

Fort Bragg did not exist during the War. It was founded as an artillery training base in 1918.

North Carolina is in the South, and was among the last to secede, after holding out for a compromise. It contributed the most troops to that War, and suffered over 25% of all casualties, despite having one of the lowest slave populations. I would not ascribe to the theory that the War was all about slavery, or impugn ill-motives to those who served or have studied it.

RL, do you believe that the Federal government should have usurped the states rights' that it has in the past 140 years?

TR

[CoLawman]

Are you familiar with Daniel Sickles?

TR
I do believe that General Sickles required several shots to fall Senor Key and finished him off with a shot through the temple :D The more interesting story IMHO being the crafty attorney who successfully established the first Temporary Insanity defense.

I love these forums.....I have become an expert at Google Research!

[The Reaper]

I do believe that General Sickles required several shots to fall Senor Key and finished him off with a shot through the temple :D The more interesting story IMHO being the crafty attorney who successfully established the first Temporary Insanity defense.

I love these forums.....I have become an expert at Google Research!

General Sickles also disobeyed orders at Gettysburg on 2 July and overextended his lines, exposing the Federal flank and setting the scene for Joshua Chamberlain's heroic defense of Little Round Top.

The Union collapse at the Peach Orchard was his fault.

TR

[Airbornelawyer]

Yeah, but he was a Confederate and never rose above the rank of Colonel.Jubal Early rose above the rank of colonel. Can you refresh my memory about what he did before and after the war? :cool:

[The Reaper]

Ah yes, Old Jube. Lee's "Bad Old Man".

Jubal Anderson Early was born November 3, 1816, in Franklin County, Virginia, into a well-connected old Virginia family. His father operated an extensive tobacco plantation of more than 4,000 acres at the foot of the Blue Ridge. Early attended local schools as well as private academies in Lynchburg and Danville before entering West Point in 1833. After graduation in 1837 he served briefly in the Seminole War and then returned to Franklin County to study law. He began his practice in 1840 and served as prosecuting attorney for Franklin and Floyd Counties. His law career was temporarily interrupted by the Mexican War.

His character and personality provoked controversy. He was consistently described by his peers as eccentric, outspoken, caustic, opinionated, and a great swearer with imaginatively profane speech - so much so that General Lee referred to his as his "bad old man." As a delegate to the Secession Convention of 1861 he fought to keep Virginia in the Union, but when outvoted he threw his lot with his native state.

During the War, he served honorably in nearly every major engagement of the ANV, but bungled command of a division in Ewell's Corps on the first day at Gettysburg, reacting slowly and lethargically to Lee's orders to take Culp's Hill. Given his own command in the Shenandoah Valley, he advanced on Washington, D.C. in 1864, but suddered overwhelming defeats during his withdrawal back to the Valley. Early headed home, having been relieved of his command just ten days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

To his credit, Jubal Early never surrendered. Federal troops scoured Franklin County looking for him as he moved from place to place. Hiding at his old homplace, he was able to slip by a Union encampment nearby and escape south to voluntary exile in Mexico and Canada before being pardoned in 1868 by President Andrew Johnson. Early never took the oath and remained the unreconstructed Rebel. He returned to Lynchburg where he practiced law and became the major chronicler of the Southern Cause. Many others relied on Early for his uncanny memory of events during the war. As president of the influential Southern Historical Society, Early achieved with the pen what he could not with the sword. He became the primary spokesman for the Lost Cause and became the overwhelming authority on published Confederate history. In so doing he engineered the near deification of General Robert E. Lee. The old soldier Jubal Early died in Lynchburg in 1894 and was buried on his old battleground there; he had become a well-known Southern fold hero.

If he had not been so cantankerous in his disagreements with General Longstreet after the war, I could probably have forgiven his dabbling in the law.

Back to my premise, my initial research indicates approximately 1.5 Union generals who were lawyers to each Confederate general who was a lawyer. Yet they eventually won despite that. Shocking.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

You think this hijack should be moved to the medical area for diagnosis of TR's subcutaneous ailment? :munchin

[The Reaper]

You think this hijack should be moved to the medical area for diagnosis of TR's subcutaneous ailment? :munchin

You know, arguing with an SF soldier is like wrestling with a pig, you bith get dirty, but the pig loves it.

Kind of like lawyers, I suspect, though you are definitely better paid for it.

That is the beauty in my situation. I have history on both sides of the conflict, and can take credit for both.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Oink! LOL

[Airbornelawyer]

Back to my premise, my initial research indicates approximately 1.5 Union generals who were lawyers to each Confederate general who was a lawyer. Yet they eventually won despite that. Shocking.

TR
I don't know about your initial research, but mine, based on Generals in Gray and Generals in Blue, both by Ezra Warner, the Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War, The Civil War Dictionary, the Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States Army 1789-1903 and various online sources including the biographies of members of Congress and various state government officials, indicates:

Of 427 Confederate generals, 162 were lawyers before the war. This comes to 38% and represents the largest single profession among Confederate generals, more even than professional U.S. Army officers.

Of 582 Union generals (excluding brevet brigadier generals not further promoted or given responsibilities commensurate with being a general officer), 175 were lawyers before the war. This comes to 30%. I am not sure, but I think here too lawyers are the most overrepresented profession.

I find it unsurprising that lawyers were heavily represented among general officers, and especially so in the South. There are a number of reasons why this might be so:

1. Lawyers are professionals. Professionals were overrepresented in the Civil War militaries for two reasons. One is the officer corps bias toward education as a measure of leadership skill (something we still see today). The other is the fact that planters and businessmen, for example, might be underrepresented because they are more important to the civilian economy in wartime.

2. Lawyers were probably slightly overrepresented in the South to the extent that the merchant and banking classes were underrepresented, since the North had a larger middle class.

3. It has been often noted that in the antebellum South, second and younger sons of landed estate-holders went into the military because the laws of primogeniture meant that only the eldest son would inherit the estate. But besides the Army, many of these sons also went into the law. Many, of course, did both, graduating from West Point, serving on the frontier, then pursuing the law with perhaps an eye on politics.

4. Lawyers are always overrepresented among politicians, and politicians were overrepresented among generals, especially early in the war when every Senator Tom, Congressman Dick and Lt. Governor Harry decided to raise his own regiment. Many secessionist politicians were also willing to put their money and lives where their mouths were, and went to the front (where quite a few were killed or wounded). I suppose the same might have been true among abolitionists - Robert Gould Shaw would likely have made general had he lived.

That's just generals. There were also plenty of colonels, majors, captains and others who were members of the bar. And not limited to officers: Logan Edwin Bleckley was solicitor-general for the Coweta Circuit in Georgia when he enlisted as a private. He was soon discharged for health reasons and rose to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Henry Massey Rector, Governor of Arkansas at secession, enlisted as a private in the Arkansas State Militia after leaving the governor's mansion in 1862. Ebenezer Allen, who had served as Attorney-General of the Texas Republic and later of the State of Texas, enlisted at the age of 57 and died in Virginia in 1863.

[The Reaper]

I used the University of Tennessee's database and just going through a couple of groups, found a ratio of 9 Confederate generals who had been lawyers to 14 Union generals who had also been attorneys in my sample, thus my 1:1.5 ratio. I did a direct comparison, BTW not a percentage of the total numbers.

I could have counted them all, but did not see the relevance of a peripheral discussion when the primary point of my response about Insurrection vs. Civil War remained unanswered by RL, who asked the question.

I have no reason to doubt your numbers, but find it significantly different from my sample.

I understood the social reasons for service based on primogeniture, and also the numbers who attended USMA, did their initial tour, and got out to go into business.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Let's see how this works -------- Defend the Confederacy and you're a racist. Suggest the Palestinian people got screwed by everybody (and dare to suggest that the bombing of the King David Hotel was an act of terrorism) and you're anti-Semitic. I love the power of association invoked with words. Just because the causes are unpopular or the victims aren't admirable, doesn't mean their grievances aren't legitimate. Peregrino
1. There is no such thing as "Palestinian people" - they are Jordanian.
2. They didn't get screwed, they screwed themselves.
3. The bombing of the King David Hotel is a classic example of terrorism. However, the English put their military HQ in that hotel, so they should have expected it. I thought the warning was a nice touch.

[Airbornelawyer]

I could have counted them all, but did not see the relevance of a peripheral discussion when the primary point of my response about Insurrection vs. Civil War remained unanswered by RL, who asked the question.

I have no reason to doubt your numbers, but find it significantly different from my sample.I started anecdotally, looking at various sources such as Congressional bios which noted Confederate service. Then I went for a sample, but looking at various samples showed wide discrepancies, so I looked at all generals.

BTW, you invited the peripheral discussion since you reacted to RL's slight of Confederate military prowess by attacking lawyers. RL is a lawyer, but he is not a soldier. As far as I know, I am the only lawyer on the forum who is also a soldier, so I take somewhat more offense than he does. But not that much... :cool:

In any event, even if it were true that there were more lawyers in Union ranks than Confederate, you would not have proven anything. You can cite a Sickles and I can cite an Early, but what does that prove? To make the argument, you would not need to show that lawyers were overrepresented among generals, but rather that they were overrepresented among incompetent generals. Further, you would need some rational basis for arguing that it was their lawyerliness that was the reason for their incompetence. After all, anecdotally, we can easily point to a number of less-than-competent Union generals who were professional military officers.

By the way, Sickles was probably not even the worst Union lawyer/general. How about John Alexander McClernand or Nathaniel Prentiss Banks? And on the Confederate side, you have John Buchanan Floyd and Gideon Pillow, generals who deserted their men.

[Roguish Lawyer]

LOL -- I'm not offended by attacks on lawyers. I can't stand lawyers! But Reaper did NOT like it when I pointed out that the South got its ass kicked, which it did.

I've been traveling all day and surfing via Blackberry. So I just called in the heavy arty and AL leveled everything in sight. :D

[The Reaper]

AL:

I have just manually tabulated the numbers and while your count of GOs and Union lawyer generals is almost spot on, you appear to have overcounted Confederate generals who were lawyers significantly.

I am only getting 150 of 420, are you sure that you are not counting post-war lawyers as well?

Due to the engineering degrees awarded at that point from the USMA, I would have expected a disproportionate number of engineers by civilian profession.

In poring over the rolls, I was surprised at how many names were familiar to me for both wartime and post-war service.

To do this comparison properly, we would need to look at senior leadership at selected levels for a qualitative review. Unfortunately, the CSA fielded LTGs and GENs well before the Union did, so a relevant analysis would have to consider positional comparisons at the various grades as well. Performance at different battles as well as in administrative functions could be spotty too, so an overall rating system would have to be developed. All in all, an excellent topic for a thesis, but hardly likely to be resolved here.

TR

[The Reaper]

LOL -- I'm not offended by attacks on lawyers. I can't stand lawyers! But Reaper did NOT like it when I pointed out that the South got its ass kicked, which it did.

I've been traveling all day and surfing via Blackberry. So I just called in the heavy arty and AL leveled everything in sight. :D

I still disagree.

You need to pony up and fight your own battles, when you are the one making the allegation.

Unless you know you are wrong.

You still haven't replied to my argument against the claim that the civil war was an insurrection.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

The field size on my Blackberry is not large enough to allow me to engage in serious discussion. I doubt I will be on-line tonight after I get home since I have been gone for a week, but I will go back through the thread and reply over the weekend or Monday.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Oh, and one of the things I have learned from you gentlemen is that I do not need to fight my own battles. It is far better to win the battle without fighting, either through psyops or by convincing others to do it for me while I down a few cold ones. ;)

[lksteve]

It is far better to win the battle without fighting, either through psyops or by convincing others to do it for me while I down a few cold ones. uh...your PSYOP is weak...you seem to have no impact on key communicators... :munchin

[NousDefionsDoc]

Oh, and one of the things I have learned from you gentlemen is that I do not need to fight my own battles. It is far better to win the battle without fighting, either through psyops or by convincing others to do it for me while I down a few cold ones. ;)
And there is the difference between a QP and a "Not". A QP knows that if you start bragging about it, they will all turn on you and run you out of the Base Camp.

[Airbornelawyer]

AL:

I have just manually tabulated the numbers and while your count of GOs and Union lawyer generals is almost spot on, you appear to have overcounted Confederate generals who were lawyers significantly.

I am only getting 150 of 420, are you sure that you are not counting post-war lawyers as well?
I said 162, you said 150. That difference doesn't sound like "significantly". ;) In any event, I either miscounted initially or on review, because now I come up with 158. There are probably discrepancies between some lists, based for example on some field promotions not confirmed by Richmond or made posthumously. You might quibble over a couple, too - Wade Hampton, for instance, studied law but didn't go into practice before becoming a legislator.

Lieutenant General, CSA:

1. Early, Jubal Anderson

Major General, CSA; Lieutenant General, state forces:

1. Hampton, Wade

Major Generals, CSA:

1. Allen, William Wirt (temporary)
2. Anderson, James Patton
3. Bagby, Arthur Pendleton (temporary, not confirmed by Richmond)
4. Bate, William Brimage
5. Breckenridge, John Cabell
6. Brown, John Calvin
7. Butler, Matthew Calbraith
8. Clayton, Henry Delamar
9. Cleburne, Patrick Ronayne
10. Cobb, Howell
11. Gordon, John Brown
12. Hindman, Thomas Carmichael
13. Humes, William Young Conn
14. Kemper, James Lawson
15. Kershaw, Joseph Brevard
16. Loring, William Wing
17. Martin, William Thompson
18. Maxey, Samuel Bell (not confirmed by Richmond)
19. Parsons, Mosby Monroe (not confirmed by Richmond)
20. Smith, William "Extra Billy"
21. Walthall, Edward Cary
22. Wharton, John Austin
23. Withers, Jones Mitchell
24. Wright, Ambrose Ransom "Rans"

Brigadier Generals, CSA; Major Generals, state forces:

1. Bonham, Milledge Luke
2. Floyd, John Buchanan
3. Gholson, Samuel Jameson
4. Jackson, Henry Rootes

Brigadier Generals, CSA:

1. Adams, Daniel Weisiger
2. Alcorn, James Lusk
3. Allen, Henry Watkins
4. Archer, James Jay
5. Baker, Alpheus
6. Barringer, Rufus Clay
7. Battle, Cullen Andrews
8. Beale, Richard Lee Turberville
9. Benning, Henry Lewis
10. Benton, Samuel
11. Branch, Lawrence O'Bryan
12. Brantley, William Felix
13. Brevard, Theodore Washington
14. Campbell, Alexander William
15. Cantey, James
16. Carter, John Carpenter
17. Chalmers, James Ronald
18. Chesnut, James Jr.
19. Clanton, James Holt
20. Clark, John Bullock Jr.
21. Clingman, Thomas Lanier
22. Cobb, Thomas Reade Rootes
23. Cockrell, Francis Marion
24. Colquitt, Alfred Holt
25. Conner, James
26. Cook, Philip
27. Cox, William Ruffin
28. Davis, Joseph Robert
29. Davis, William George Mackey
30. DuBose, Dudley Mciver
31. Duke, Basil Wilson
32. Echols, John
33. Ector, Matthew Duncan
34. Evans, Clement Anselm
35. Featherston, Winfield Scott
36. Finegan, Joseph
37. Finley, Jesse Johnson
38. Forney, William Henry
39. Garland, Samuel Jr.
40. Garrott, Isham Warren
41. Gartrell, Lucius Jeremiah
42. Gary, Martin Witherspoon
43. Gist, States Rights
44. Granbury, Hiram Bronson
45. Gray, Henry
46. Gregg, John
47. Gregg, Maxcy
48. Hagood, Johnson
49. Hanson, Roger Weightman
50. Harris, Nathaniel Harrison
51. Harrison, Thomas
52. Hatton, Robert Hopkins
53. Hawthorn, Alexander Travis
54. Hays, Harry Thompson
55. Helm, Benjamin Hardin
56. Hodge, George Baird
57. Hogg, Joseph Lewis
58. Holtzclaw, James Thadeus
59. Humphreys, Benjamin Grubb
60. Hunton, Eppa
61. Imboden, John Daniel
62. Iverson, Alfred, Jr.
63. Jackson, John King
64. Jackson, William Lowther
65. Jenkins, Albert Gallatin
66. Johnson, Bradley Tyler
67. Johnston, George Doherty
68. Johnston, Robert Daniel
69. Kennedy, John Doby
70. Lawton, Alexander Robert
71. Lee, Edwin Gray
72. Lewis, Joseph Horace
73. Lowry, Robert
74. McGowan, Samuel
75. McRae, Dandridge
76. Marshall, Humphrey
77. Miller, William
78. Morgan, John Tyler
79. Nelson, Allison
80. Nicholls, Francis Redding Tillou
81. O'Neal, Edward Asbury
82. Palmer, Joseph Benjamin
83. Paxton, Elisha Franklin
84. Payne, William Henry FitzHugh
85. Perrin, Abner Monroe
86. Perry, Edward Aylesworth
87. Pettigrew, James Johnston
88. Pettus, Edmund Winston
89. Pike, Albert
90. Pillow, Gideon Johnson
91. Posey, Carnot
92. Preston, John Smith
93. Preston, William
94. Pryor, Roger Atkinson
95. Quarles, William Andrew
96. Rains, James Edward
97. Randolph, George Wythe
98. Ransom, Matt Whitaker
99. Reynolds, Daniel Harris
100. Richardson, Robert Vinkler
101. Rust, Albert
102. Scales, Alfred Moore
103. Sharp, Jacob Hunter
104. Shoup, Francis Asbury
105. Simms, James Phillip
106. Slack, William Yarnel
107. Smith, Preston
108. Strahl, Otho French
109. Tappan, James Camp
110. Terrill, James Barbour
111. Terry, William
112. Thomas, Allen
113. Toombs, Robert Augustus
114. Tracy, Edward Dorr
115. Tucker, William Feimster
116. Walker, James Alexander
117. Walker, Leroy Pope
118. Wallace, William Henry
119. Waul, Thomas Neville
120. Wickham, Williams Carter
121. Wigfall, Louis Trezevant
122. Williams, John Stuart
123. Wilson, Claudius Charles
124. Wise, Henry Alexander
125. Wofford, William Tatum
126. Wood, Sterling Alexander Martin
127. Wright, Marcus Joseph
128. York, Zebulon

[The Reaper]

AL:

We are only as good as our references.

Using the records I have access to right now, I have reviewed your list of 158 Confederate Generals who were lawyers before the Civil War. I am not seeing that the following ever practiced law or were identified as lawyers. Were they all recognized by the Bar? I will look them up individually tomorrow:

Hampton, Wade
Allen, William Wirt
Anderson, James Patton
Bate, William Brimmage (listed as a lawyer post-war)
Davis, William George Mackey (listed as a lawyer post-war)
Wright, Marcus (listed as a law clerk, not as a lawyer)

The following are not listed as Confederate General Officers in my sources:

Alcorn, James Lusk
Bagby, Arthur Pendleton

I did see Maney, George Earl, confirmed as a CSA BG April 1862 showing as a lawyer before the war on one list, so if so, he would make it 151 Confederate Generals who were lawyers before the Civil War.

TR

[The Reaper]

Further investigative research completed.

It would appear that in order to discuss this further with any hope of agreement, we are going to have to define the terms "lawyer" and "Confederate General".

The following is what I have found on each of the disputed eight:

Wade Hampton is a Confederate Major General who may have studied law, but was never recognized or practiced law:

"He graduated from South Carolina College in 1826 and studied law, but he did not practice."

"...graduated from the South Carolina College (now the University of South Carolina) at Columbia in 1836; studied law but never practiced."

As you surmised, I would not call that being a lawyer. I have studied physics, but would not consider myself a physicist.

William Wirt Allen was another Confederate Major General who never practiced law before the war.

"General William Wirt Allen was born in New York City on September 11, 1835. He was raised in Montgomery, Alabama, and was graduated from Princeton in the class of 1854. Although he had read law, he took up the life of a planter and was thus engaged at the outbreak of the war."

I can find no reference of Confederate Major General James Patton Anderson studying or practicing law. He was, to all acounts I can find, a physician, a U.S. Marshal and a politician:

"James Patton Anderson Born in Franklin County, Tennessee, on February 16, 1822, Anderson grew up in Mississippi. Although he attended college briefly in southwest Pennsylvania, a family financial crisis forced him to withdraw before graduation. Called "Patton" by his associates, he began studying and practicing medicine. Later, he fought in the Mexican War, served in the Mississippi legislature, as a U.S. marshal for Washington Territory, and was elected to the U.S. Congress. After two years, he moved to Florida, set up a plantation near Monticello, and participated in the Florida state secession convention.

Confederate Major General William Brimage Bate was indeed a pre-war lawyer:

"BATE, William Brimage, a Senator from Tennessee; born near Castalian Springs, Sumner County, Tenn., October 7, 1826; completed an academic course of study; served as a private in Louisiana and Tennessee regiments throughout the Mexican War; member, State house of representatives 1849-1851; graduated from the law department of Lebanon University, Lebanon, Tenn., in 1852; admitted to the bar and commenced practice in Gallatin, Tenn.; elected attorney general for the Nashville district in 1854; during the Civil War served in the Confederate army, attained the rank of major general, surrendered with the Army of the Tennessee in 1865; after the war returned to Tennessee and resumed the practice of law at Gallatin."

It would appear that Confederate Brigadier General William George Mackey Davis "read law" and "practiced law" before the War, in Tallahassee, Florida:

"William George Mackey Davis, a rather wealthy Leon County lawyer, “. . . widely known as a gentleman of great legal ability and high rank in his profession . ." took it upon himself to form a regiment of Cavalry in the summer of 1861."

Similarly, Confederate Brigadier General Marcus Joseph Wright practiced as a lawyer before the Civil War, (though I can find no record of formal schooling):

"Marcus Joseph Wright was born in Purdy, McNair county, Tenn., in 1831. He was the son of Capt. Benjamin Wright of the 39 Regular Infantry who served in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, and grandson of Capt. John Wright of the Georgia Line, Continental Army. He practiced law and entered the Confederate Army in May, 1861, as lieutenant-colonel of the 154 Senior Regiment of Tennessee Infantry"

James Lusk Alcorn was another politician who may have practiced law without qualification, but was never recognized by the Confederacy as a General Officer.

"ALCORN, James Lusk, statesman, born near Golconda, Illinois, 4 November 1816. He early removed to Kentucky, and was educated at Cumberland College. For five years he was deputy sheriff of Livingston County, Kentucky, and in 1843 was elected to the legislature. In 1844 he removed to Mississippi and began the practice of law. From 1846 to 1865 he served in one branch or the other of the legislature. In 1852 he was chosen elector- at -large on the Scott ticket, and in 1857 was nominated as governor by the Whigs. This he declined, and was a candidate for congress in that year, but was defeated by L. Q. C. Lamar. He was the founder of the levee system in his state, and in 1858 he became president of the levee board of the Mississippi-Yazoo Delta. In 1861 he was elected Brigadier-General by the state convention, of which he was a member, but Jefferson Davis refused his commission"

He served in command of a group of 60 day volunteers, I can find no indication that he ever saw action.

Arthur Pendleton Bagby is another politician cum lawyer who was never recognized as a Confederate General Officer outside of his command. He did see combat and all indications are that he served well and faithfully.

"Arthur Pendleton Bagby (1833-1921), lawyer, editor, and Confederate general, was born in Claiborne, Monroe County, Alabama, on May 17, 1833, the son of Arthur Pendleton Bagby. The elder Bagby served in the Alabama state Senate and House of Representatives, where he was the youngest member ever elected speaker. He was also twice elected governor of Alabama, served in the United States Senate, where he supported the annexation of Texas, and was appointed United States ambassador to Russia by President James K. Polk.

The younger Bagby attended school in Washington, D.C., and the United States Military Academy at West Point. At age nineteen he became the youngest graduate to be commissioned a second lieutenant of infantry. He was stationed at Fort Columbus, New York, in 1852-53 and saw frontier duty at Fort Chadbourne, Texas, in 1853 with the Eighth Infantry, Eighth Military Department. He resigned to study law, was admitted to the bar in Alabama in 1855, and practiced in Mobile until 1858, when he moved to Gonzales, Texas. There he married Frances Taylor in June 1860.

Upon the eruption of the Civil War he joined the Confederate Army and raised the first company of men from the Victoria area for the cause. He served as a major, Seventh Regiment of Texas Mounted Volunteers, in Gen. Henry H. Sibley's Army of New Mexico. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel in April 1862 and later to colonel. On January 1, 1863, he led his regiment in the battle of Galveston, in which his "Horse Marines" assisted in the capture of the federal ship Harriet Lane. In this encounter Bagby won, according to Gen. John B. Magruder, "imperishable renown." Bagby later served under generals Richard Taylor and Thomas Green in western Louisiana, where he was wounded in fighting along Bayou Teche on April 13, 1863. For his service in Louisiana he was promoted for gallantry in action to brigadier general in early 1864 by E. Kirby Smith, although the rank was not approved in Richmond.

Following the surrenders of Lee and Johnston, Bagby was assigned to duty as major general on May 16, 1865, by E. Kirby Smith. He was placed in command of all cavalry forces in Louisiana and held that post until the surrender of the Trans-Mississippi Department. Bagby's latest promotion, however, was not approved in Richmond either. Thus Bagby was a general only as a result of a temporary appointment by Smith's headquarters."

Based on this, I would not call Wade Hampton, William Wirt Allen, James Patton Anderson, James Lusk Alcorn, or Arthur Pendleton Bagby, Confederate General Officers who were lawyers before the Civil War.

I would cede that William Brimage Bate and William George Mackey Davis were lawyers before the Civil War who became Confederate General Officers.

That would make the count 152, by my reckoning.

TR

[magician]

Holy shit.

Pardon me while I back on out of here.

;)

[The Reaper]

Holy shit.

Pardon me while I back on out of here.

;)

Don't worry.

A hundred years from now people will be doing that with you and your history.

Make sure to leave them something interesting. :D

The stuff you have written is a good start.

TR

[HOLLiS]

Great Thread.

The South Raised the first black Regiments, New Orleans home quard. Native Americans served the South 2:1 to the North. The South was not anymore racist than the North. If Northern Generals listened to run-aways at Menassas/Bull Run, the North may have had a victory. We were a country divided......... Not a country of two different groups of people with different beliefs.

Georgia had areas that were strong Unionist, Just as the North had Copper heads.

IMHO slavery was ending, it was a matter of time. But the Change in political power and representation between a Industrial North and a agrarian South couldnot seem to be reconciled.

IMHO, The major the important factor of the North was President Lincoln, and major failure in the South was Jeff Davis. A good read is, "A Southerns View of the War" by Mr. William Pollard, he was the editor of the Richmond Journal during the war of Northern Aggression.

IF the North was really for Abolition/Civil rights............ why was the reconstruction/retribution period following the war so poorly administered? Also read the Surpreme Court decission on "Plessy Vs Ferguson" and "Brown Vs the Board of Education". I hope I have the titles rights, it has been a while.

On King David Hotel, the Stern Gang were terrorist. Personally I liked the Haganah. "AND" Yes the British Military did not plan well.

[Peregrino]

This is NOT a hijack and the post is in the right thread. :p For those of you with an interest in Insurgency-Civil War and the time/inclination to read a work of "speculative" fiction I strongly encourage you to check out "A State of Disobedience" by Tom Kratman. I just blew through it in about six hours non-stop. It raises some disturbing spectres. Texans will love it, everybody who has ever sworn the "Protect and Defend" oath will pause to think, and it will definitely stir emotions (fan flames) on both sides of the aisle. Klinton advocates are already frothing at the mouth. :munchin My .02 - Peregrino

[Roguish Lawyer]

RL, do you believe that the Federal government should have usurped the states rights' that it has in the past 140 years?

No, generally not.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I could have counted them all, but did not see the relevance of a peripheral discussion when the primary point of my response about Insurrection vs. Civil War remained unanswered by RL, who asked the question.


What is the difference between an insurgency and an "armed rebellion"? The latter is a subset of the first, isn't it?

Not relevant to me in this case, since I disagree with the premise.

On a theoretical discussion, since JCS Pub 1-02 defines insurgency as :

"insurgency — (*) An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict."

The Confederacy attempted a seccession, initially peacefully. The Union denied that. Prior to the War, it could be argued that states freely joining the Union, could decide to freely leave the Union. There was no effort to overthrow the Federal government. Thus, I would submit that there was no effort to overthrow the government, just to declare independence and secede from it.

I'm not clear on what I was supposed to answer, but your response confirms what I said, which is that "armed rebellion" is a subset of "insurgency."

I am not well-versed in the history of the Civil War and have no reason to doubt your statement that the North invaded the South in response to what could have been a peaceful secession.

[The Reaper]

No, generally not.

Well, it has been a downhill slide since 1783, with real acceleration since 1865.

I wish that the States were able to establish and run their own affairs, without the yoke of the massive Federal bureaucracy and millions of Federal statutes.

At least you could move to a better place if your State went too far from your vision.

What did the Founding Fathers like GEORGE WASHINGTON, JAMES MADISON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JOHN ADAMS, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, ALEXANDER HAMILTON, JOHN JAY, GEORGE MASON, GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, EDMUND RANDOLPH, ROGER SHERMAN, or JAMES WILSON say about the people's right to overthrow the government, if it became oppressive? Did they believe that the government they established was supposed to operate in perpetuity? Do you think they would approve of today's federal government?

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Well, it has been a downhill slide since 1783, with real acceleration since 1865.

I wish that the States were able to establish and run their own affairs, without the yoke of the massive Federal bureaucracy and millions of Federal statutes.

At least you could move to a better place if your State went too far from your vision.

What did the Founding Fathers like GEORGE WASHINGTON, JAMES MADISON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JOHN ADAMS, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, ALEXANDER HAMILTON, JOHN JAY, GEORGE MASON, GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, EDMUND RANDOLPH, ROGER SHERMAN, or JAMES WILSON say about the people's right to overthrow the government, if it became oppressive? Did they believe that the government they established was supposed to operate in perpetuity? Do you think they would approve of today's federal government?

TR

We are on the same page.

[The Reaper]

I'm not clear on what I was supposed to answer, but your response confirms what I said, which is that "armed rebellion" is a subset of "insurgency."

The issue was, given the definitions of an insurgency, did you agree or disagree with the position that you posted by Bard O'Neill?

Do you think that the American Civil War was an armed insurgency?

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

The issue was, given the definitions of an insurgency, did you agree or disagree with the position that you posted by Bard O'Neill?

Do you think that the American Civil War was an armed insurgency?

TR


The only reason I posted O'Neill's view was that I am reading his new (newly revised, technically) book and thought some might be interested in his opinion. I don't think I know enough to answer your question, but it seems to me that you can argue it either way.

Your argument seems to be that because the South's attempt to secede initially was peaceful, and the North started the armed hostilities, there was no insurgency. I don't know if that matters. There certainly was an attempt to overthrow the government, and the fact that the regime did not allow a fait accompli does not necessarily mean you can't call this an insurgency. I certainly don't think the fact that the South sought to secede rather than overthrow the federal government in its entirety means there was no insurgency -- was/is there a Kurdish insurgency in Iraq/Turkey/Iran?

On the other hand, one might argue that an insurgency must be a movement from within a state, and that the War Between the States was exactly that -- a war between separate, sovereign groups of states, not an attempt to overthrow a state from within.

Is there an insurgency in Taiwan right now? :munchin

[The Reaper]

Your argument seems to be that because the South's attempt to secede initially was peaceful, and the North started the armed hostilities, there was no insurgency. I don't know if that matters. There certainly was an attempt to overthrow the government, and the fact that the regime did not allow a fait accompli does not necessarily mean you can't call this an insurgency. I certainly don't think the fact that the South sought to secede rather than overthrow the federal government in its entirety means there was no insurgency -- was/is there a Kurdish insurgency in Iraq/Turkey/Iran?

On the other hand, one might argue that an insurgency must be a movement from within a state, and that the War Between the States was exactly that -- a war between separate, sovereign groups of states, not an attempt to overthrow a state from within.

Is there an insurgency in Taiwan right now? :munchin

I never said that the North initiated armed hostilities. Pretty clearly, that was done by the South at Fort Sumter. I said that the North invaded the South.

IMHO, Taiwan is a sovereign state. Any attempt at annexation or invasion by the Red Chinese is an external threat and would be war. If an irregular force rose up within Taiwan to overthrow the government, that would be insurgency. If the Northern half of Taiwan wanted to secede and used their militia forces to try to do so, that would be civil war.

Define the Korean War.

The Vietnam conflict? As defined by the VC? As defined by the NVA? From the RVN viewpoint?

TR

[Airbornelawyer]

I can find no reference of Confederate Major General James Patton Anderson studying or practicing law. He was, to all acounts I can find, a physician, a U.S. Marshal and a politician:

"James Patton Anderson Born in Franklin County, Tennessee, on February 16, 1822, Anderson grew up in Mississippi. Although he attended college briefly in southwest Pennsylvania, a family financial crisis forced him to withdraw before graduation. Called "Patton" by his associates, he began studying and practicing medicine. Later, he fought in the Mexican War, served in the Mississippi legislature, as a U.S. marshal for Washington Territory, and was elected to the U.S. Congress. After two years, he moved to Florida, set up a plantation near Monticello, and participated in the Florida state secession convention.James Patton Anderson studied law at Montrose Law School in Frankfort, Kentucky and was admitted to the bar and practiced in Hernando, Mississippi from 1842 to 1846. Source is his US Congressional bio.

To "read law" or "study law" in 19th Century parlance is not just to study law as a field, it means to study law as a profession (to "read law" is British English usage). If you want to draw a fine line, admittance to the bar is the modern dividing line, but in the 19th century, the rules in some states were less clearly defined. But this is merely a minor quibble that only applies to two names. I would note, however, that I have worked over the years with quite a few lawyers who do not actually practice law, including for example military analyst David Isby.

As for Bagby, since the Confederacy did not have a system of brevet promotions like the Union, I would not credit Kirby Smith's appointment of Bagby to BG and I can understand why it was not recognized by Richmond. But his major general's appointment, though not officially recognized, was one in fact, and involved actual command. Given the Trans-Mississippi Department's isolation from Richmond, Gen. Smith's autonomy and the lateness in the war, the fact that Richmond did not give de jure recognition of his de facto status is not surprising, but is really only a quibble. You may dismiss if you so choose.

Alcorn you are welcome to dismiss too. His commission was not accepted by Richmond, but he remained a brigadier general of the state militia for the duration. So he may not formally have been a "Confederate general" but he was a general in the Confederacy, at least as far as his state was concerned.

In any event, none of this changes the essential facts: lawyers were more "overrepresented" in Confederate ranks than in Union ones. In both armies, though, the difference was not significant - both in the 30-40% range.

Further, you have not produced any evidence that lawyers were better or worse as generals (or officers or soldiers of any rank) than non-lawyers. A brief perusal of bios indicates that some Confederate lawyer-officers were good, some average, and some bad. Same goes for the Union. Same goes for non-lawyers.

You haven't even advanced a hypothesis as to why one would expect lawyers to be worse officers. Are they less decisive leaders, because they are tempermentally inclined to overanalyze things? Might many, especially the generals, been worse not so much because they were lawyers as because they were politicians, and owed their positions to patonage, not skill? Or is there some deep-rooted moral flaw in lawyers, something in their characters that draws them to the practice of law, or something the law does to them, that makes them bad men, and hence bad leaders of men?

[Airbornelawyer]

Due to the engineering degrees awarded at that point from the USMA, I would have expected a disproportionate number of engineers by civilian profession.Remember that this was in the days before sewers and indoor plumbing and many other things. There were not that many jobs in engineering to be had. Canal building, mining, maybe railroads, would have employed a fair number, but not enough. Major highway, dam and bridge projects were yet to come.

Engineering only began to organize as a profession in mid-century. The American Society of Civil Engineers was founded in 1852. The American Institute of Architects in 1857. The American Institute of Mining Engineers followed in 1871, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in 1880 and the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in 1884. Of course, several of these predate the American Bar Association, founded in 1878.

[pulque]

Oh, and one of the things I have learned from you gentlemen is that I do not need to fight my own battles. It is far better to win the battle without fighting, either through psyops or by convincing others to do it for me while I down a few cold ones. ;)

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."