I know it is unlikely for neither side in the ACW to violate the neutrality of KY. But for discussions lets say both sides respect the neutrality of KY for the entire duration of the war how does this play out. I think this results in the CSA surviving somewhat longer then OTL with them holding onto most of TN for a longer time period.
neutral KY
- Thread starter 606jae
- Start date
Anaxagoras
Banned
Sooner or later, one side or the other is going to violate the neutrality of Kentucky and the fence-sitters are going to have the choose a side. The continued neutrality of Kentucky is essentially impossible.
But assuming handwavium, this obviously helps the Confederacy enormously, since it essentially means that their heartland is shielding from attack. No Union forces are going to come steaming down the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers to strike into western Tennessee and northern Mississippi and Alabama. This means that the Confederates would get to concentrate all their resources at the northern Mississippi River, including their main field army in the West. The Union would still have the advantage, what with their river gunboat fleet, but it would be a much tougher proposition than IOTL.
Yet, as I said, it's not a realistic scenario.
But assuming handwavium, this obviously helps the Confederacy enormously, since it essentially means that their heartland is shielding from attack. No Union forces are going to come steaming down the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers to strike into western Tennessee and northern Mississippi and Alabama. This means that the Confederates would get to concentrate all their resources at the northern Mississippi River, including their main field army in the West. The Union would still have the advantage, what with their river gunboat fleet, but it would be a much tougher proposition than IOTL.
Yet, as I said, it's not a realistic scenario.
Kentucky really wasn't neutral. It just had a governor who was pro-Confederacy, and a legislature which favored the Union. In 1861 though, it favored trying to reconcile the two sides. As that hope faded, everyone knew the time for neutrality was over. It was an expedient measure that temporarily satisfied all sides, not a permanent doctrine.
Public opinion was turning in favor of the Union, and in June 1861, the special congressional election saw 8 of 9 seats go to Unionists. At this point in time, Kentuckians of all stripes were leaving the state to enlist in the army of their choice.
This is not an issue of either the Union or Confederacy violating Kentucky's neutrality, or that Kentuckians didn't care about the issues and would join a side based on whoever provoked it. It's that Kentucky began 1861 in a very divided state, and neither the Unionists or Confederates could control events. So both opted for neutrality to give themselves more time to take control of the state. As 1861 progressed, the state steadily became more Unionist as the undecideds made up their mind.
The Confederate invasion of Kentucky was just a useful pretext for Kentucky to abandon the status quo. If that hadn't happened, Kentucky was going to go for the Union anyway. There is a reason when after both Union and Confederate armies entered the state, Kentucky passed a resolution only demanding the Confederate army leave.
Absent a Confederate invasion, Kentucky was going to slowly align itself with the Union. It's just a matter of finessing it.
So the issue isn't an outside force. It's the internal balance within Kentucky which could not long sustain a policy of neutrality.
Public opinion was turning in favor of the Union, and in June 1861, the special congressional election saw 8 of 9 seats go to Unionists. At this point in time, Kentuckians of all stripes were leaving the state to enlist in the army of their choice.
This is not an issue of either the Union or Confederacy violating Kentucky's neutrality, or that Kentuckians didn't care about the issues and would join a side based on whoever provoked it. It's that Kentucky began 1861 in a very divided state, and neither the Unionists or Confederates could control events. So both opted for neutrality to give themselves more time to take control of the state. As 1861 progressed, the state steadily became more Unionist as the undecideds made up their mind.
The Confederate invasion of Kentucky was just a useful pretext for Kentucky to abandon the status quo. If that hadn't happened, Kentucky was going to go for the Union anyway. There is a reason when after both Union and Confederate armies entered the state, Kentucky passed a resolution only demanding the Confederate army leave.
Absent a Confederate invasion, Kentucky was going to slowly align itself with the Union. It's just a matter of finessing it.
So the issue isn't an outside force. It's the internal balance within Kentucky which could not long sustain a policy of neutrality.
TFSmith121
Banned
Good summary...
Good summary... all one really has to do is look at the total number of Kentuckians who enlisted with the US forces or the rebels in 1861-62; it's more than 2-1, with the ration being about 2.5 to 1 by 1865.
See:
http://www.civilwar.org/hallowed-ground-magazine/spring-2010/civil-war-kentucky.html
Best,
Good summary... all one really has to do is look at the total number of Kentuckians who enlisted with the US forces or the rebels in 1861-62; it's more than 2-1, with the ration being about 2.5 to 1 by 1865.
See:
http://www.civilwar.org/hallowed-ground-magazine/spring-2010/civil-war-kentucky.html
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Nope; as BF5 laid out, it was not neutrality in any
Nope; as BF5 laid out, it was not neutrality in any real sense; it was a political breathing space for the state government to come under the control of Unionists, with Magoffin neutered.
Best,
Nope; as BF5 laid out, it was not neutrality in any real sense; it was a political breathing space for the state government to come under the control of Unionists, with Magoffin neutered.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
The US offensive down the Mississippi includes
The US offensive down the Mississippi includes both Pope's and Grant's armies; Curtis' force in southwestern Missouri is substantially larger as well, and is well placed to drive into Arkansas.
Cox's force in West Virginia is doubled in size; Buell takes an extra corps or two back to Virginia, which suggests an equivalent of the 1864-65 Shenandoah campaigns in 1862-63.
The rebels still lose, possibly even sooner than historically.
Best,
The US offensive down the Mississippi includes both Pope's and Grant's armies; Curtis' force in southwestern Missouri is substantially larger as well, and is well placed to drive into Arkansas.
Cox's force in West Virginia is doubled in size; Buell takes an extra corps or two back to Virginia, which suggests an equivalent of the 1864-65 Shenandoah campaigns in 1862-63.
The rebels still lose, possibly even sooner than historically.
Best,
Anaxagoras
Banned
You always mention this fact, but you always seem to ignore the obvious point that it was infinitely easier for a pro-Union Kentuckian to join the Union Army than it was for a pro-Confederate Kentuckian to join the Confederate Army, since the Union was in physical control of the state for the considerable majority of the war. I am not suggesting that Kentucky was actually pro-Confederate, but using the ratio of Kentucky troops that served each respective side as some sort of barometer simply makes no sense.
TFSmith121
Banned
In 1861-62, presumably, when the ratio is roughly 2-1
In 1861-62, presumably, when the ratio is roughly 2-1 and both Polk and Zollicoffer are doing their "best," seems like a fair measure.
Also makes the point that there was more to being a "Kentuckian" then the vote.
25,000 USCTs were recruited in Kentucky, after all.
Best,
In 1861-62, presumably, when the ratio is roughly 2-1 and both Polk and Zollicoffer are doing their "best," seems like a fair measure.
Also makes the point that there was more to being a "Kentuckian" then the vote.
25,000 USCTs were recruited in Kentucky, after all.Best,
Anaxagoras
Banned
I've always been confused that you make this argument, as it seems to weaken your case considerably. The Confederates held Columbus, Bowling Green, and a few snippets of southeastern Tennessee. The Union held the vast majority of the state, including its major cities. If the Southerners are achieving a 2-1 ratio when they control only about 10% of the population of the state, that would seem to suggest that they would have done much better at recruiting than did the Union had the ratio of population control been closer to even. This is especially true if you include the U.S.C.T. troops in the column of Union recruits, since they came from a portion of the population that the Confederates obviously didn't try to recruit from.
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
The rebels controlled all of eastern and western Tennessee in the
The rebels controlled all of eastern and western Tennessee in the winter of 1861-62, as well as most of Middle Tennessee; in addition, they held a fair amount of southeastern Kentucky, at least until Mill Springs, and (as you note) held Bowling Green until February, for example.
No idea where your 10 percent of the state comes from.
Best,
The rebels controlled all of eastern and western Tennessee in the winter of 1861-62, as well as most of Middle Tennessee; in addition, they held a fair amount of southeastern Kentucky, at least until Mill Springs, and (as you note) held Bowling Green until February, for example.
No idea where your 10 percent of the state comes from.
Best,
Anaxagoras
Banned
Um. . . Eastern, Western and Middle Tennessee aren't in Kentucky. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure they're in Tennessee.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Ah, I see. That was a typo. I meant "few snippets of southeastern Kentucky." I apologize for my snarkiness, though I would have thought you could have deduced that it was a typo through the use of context clues.
In any case, my point stands.
TFSmith121
Banned
Well, one never knows...
Well, one never knows... my point is that in 1861, through to the winter of 1861-62, when the "neutral" status was still in play, and both the US and rebels were recruiting heaviliy - and Kentucky wasn't occupied by the rebs or liberated by the US, even then, recruiting favored the US.
Best,
Well, one never knows... my point is that in 1861, through to the winter of 1861-62, when the "neutral" status was still in play, and both the US and rebels were recruiting heaviliy - and Kentucky wasn't occupied by the rebs or liberated by the US, even then, recruiting favored the US.
Best,
Anaxagoras
Banned
The heavy recruiting began in the winter of 1861-62, after neutrality had been violated and the bulk of the state swiftly occupied by the Union army. It's only to be expected that more men would join the Union army than the Confederate army, since the bulk of the state's population lay within the Union lines. You're weakening your case by making this argument, because the truly surprising fact is that so many Kentuckians joined the Confederate army when it was much more difficult to do so. If the Confederates had somehow been the ones to occupy the bulk of the state, recruiting would obviously have favored the Confederate army, because pro-Union men would have faced the daunting task of crossing enemy-occupied territory to reach the Union lines.
TFSmith121
Banned
Actually, beginning in the summer of 1861 and ending in
Actually, beginning in the summer of 1861 and ending in the winter of 1861-62, rebel units with "Kentucky" identifiers numbered the 1st-9th Kentucky Infantry; in the same period, the US recruited the 1st-28th Kentucky infantry - so, more than three times as many.
This is, of course, the same period the rebels held much of the state, from Columbus in the west to Bowling Green in the center (which was held by the rebels until February, 1862) to Somerset in the east.
US cavalry regiments organized from Kentuckians in the same period include the 1st-5th; two batteries were raised as well. Presumably the rebels raised more cavalry units, given the general divide between the "chivalry" and yeomen, but still - three times as many infantry regiments, loyal vs rebels, and at a time when control of the state was militarily divided suggests a far larger percentage of the population were loyal than rebel.
Best,
Actually, beginning in the summer of 1861 and ending in the winter of 1861-62, rebel units with "Kentucky" identifiers numbered the 1st-9th Kentucky Infantry; in the same period, the US recruited the 1st-28th Kentucky infantry - so, more than three times as many.
This is, of course, the same period the rebels held much of the state, from Columbus in the west to Bowling Green in the center (which was held by the rebels until February, 1862) to Somerset in the east.
US cavalry regiments organized from Kentuckians in the same period include the 1st-5th; two batteries were raised as well. Presumably the rebels raised more cavalry units, given the general divide between the "chivalry" and yeomen, but still - three times as many infantry regiments, loyal vs rebels, and at a time when control of the state was militarily divided suggests a far larger percentage of the population were loyal than rebel.
Best,
Saphroneth
Banned
Would it make sense to, say, take
Confederate controlled portion of Kentucky in White population = CP
Confederate white recruitment in Kentucky = Cr
Union controlled portion of Kentucky in White population = UP
Union white recruitment in Kentucky = Ur
Then compare Cr/CP and Ur/UP and see which is larger.
If it turns out that the Confederate portion is higher than the Union population, that should tell us that the CS did better recruiting than the US.
If it turns out that the Confederate recruitment is actually higher than the adult male white population under Confederate control, that tells us that people were crossing lines to enlist in the Confederate cause. (As in, that it's a mathematical certainty.)
Confederate controlled portion of Kentucky in White population = CP
Confederate white recruitment in Kentucky = Cr
Union controlled portion of Kentucky in White population = UP
Union white recruitment in Kentucky = Ur
Then compare Cr/CP and Ur/UP and see which is larger.
If it turns out that the Confederate portion is higher than the Union population, that should tell us that the CS did better recruiting than the US.
If it turns out that the Confederate recruitment is actually higher than the adult male white population under Confederate control, that tells us that people were crossing lines to enlist in the Confederate cause. (As in, that it's a mathematical certainty.)