The Sandman
Banned
Basically, the thread title is self-explanatory: Kentucky joins the other Southern states in seceding in early 1861. How would this affect the war?
Kentucky Secedes
- Thread starter The Sandman
- Start date
The Sandman
Banned
Personally, I'm wondering what effects people think it might have had on the Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and presumably Missouri), and how much it would have delayed the fall of Tennessee.
Did Kentucky have any real industry at this point?
Did Kentucky have any real industry at this point?
HueyLong
Banned
While they were a slave state, resentment among the poor farmers, tradesmen and valley folk was a big reason for not joining the CSA. They hated blacks, hated that slavery let them breed in safety, and hated the privileges that slavery gave the upper class.
Too many relied on the trade with the Union, and they relied on an Ohio River clear of warfare. There were too many poor farmers opposed to slavery, and not enough slaveholders.
Too many relied on the trade with the Union, and they relied on an Ohio River clear of warfare. There were too many poor farmers opposed to slavery, and not enough slaveholders.
Kentucky joining the Rebs doesn't change much as the western theatre comes into play akin to the OTL. Now the Rebs may make a better defence earlier in the war out west, thanks to more troops & supplies from Kentucky, but the Union's superior numbers will eventually have their effect, if not from late 1862, then certainly from 1863 onwards akin to the OTL.
Furthermore, Shiloh is still fought & won by Grant. New Orleans still falls, Vicksburg still falls, & the South is still pushed out of Kentucky & Tennessee by the start of 1864 (at the very latest). Whether Sherman takes Atlanta, by November 1864, is an interesting question, & this maybe the South's only chance where Lincoln's re-election could be put in doubt.
Having said that, I'd expect Atlanta to fall anyway, so whoever may replace Lincoln (& that's if he loses as he may not) is then, more or less, thanks to Sherman's victory, pressured into continuing the war considering that an actual end may be in sight in the near future...
Furthermore, Shiloh is still fought & won by Grant. New Orleans still falls, Vicksburg still falls, & the South is still pushed out of Kentucky & Tennessee by the start of 1864 (at the very latest). Whether Sherman takes Atlanta, by November 1864, is an interesting question, & this maybe the South's only chance where Lincoln's re-election could be put in doubt.
Having said that, I'd expect Atlanta to fall anyway, so whoever may replace Lincoln (& that's if he loses as he may not) is then, more or less, thanks to Sherman's victory, pressured into continuing the war considering that an actual end may be in sight in the near future...
The Sandman
Banned
Was Missouri then more likely to secede? And how would Kentucky's secession affect pro-Southern sympathies on the north bank of the Ohio?
The Sandman
Banned
Well, let's say that greater secessionist sentiment (read: armed uprising) in Kentucky prevents the US from clamping down as hard on Missouri, resulting in its loss to the Rebs. What happens?
The Sandman said:
The US already has the numbers more or less in place by mid-1861 anyways. There were battles taking place in Missouri, eg Battle of Wilson's Creek (around August), whilst around the same time you've also got (in September) the stupid Reb invasion of Kentucky, which inturn was reacted to quickly by the Union. This indicates the strength that the Union already had in place at the time in question out west.
And this is dispite the fact of what I posted earlier - Kentucky joining the Rebs doesn't help them in the long run. You'll basically have a re-run of the OTL albeit a few months delayed.
If the CSA wants a chance to survive the ACW, & note I say survive - not win, not gain a draw, but survive in some form - it's far better for Kentucky to remain neutral, for the entire war, as this ensures that the western theatre becomes a small affair, along the Arkinsas-Missouri border, instead of being a major theatre of war as per the OTL. Fundamentally, the Union won the ACW thanks to their success out west.
The Sandman
Banned
How about Kentucky done a la Kansas or Missouri in regard to constant internecine warfare within the state: partisans, guerrillas, all of that good stuff. If Kentucky goes up in a fratricidal bloodbath, would that impede the ability of Union forces to operate in Tennessee?
And I'm still wondering what happens with Confederate sympathizers in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio if Kentucky leans more towards the Confederates.
And I'm still wondering what happens with Confederate sympathizers in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio if Kentucky leans more towards the Confederates.
The Sandman said:
Well that kind of happened anyway, not to mention the fact that thousands of Kentuckians volunteered & fought for the South. In fact there were 5 Kentucky regiments which fought for the South at Chickamauga.
Also you must consider how Kentuckian Union supporters would have behaved - especially, as it is per my understanding, where most Kentuckians arguably prefered the Union over the CSA & that the act of neutrality, by Kentucky, was more of a local compromise between the pro-secessionist governor & the majority of pro-Union citizens than anything else.
The Sandman said:
I think you've got more chance that Missouri (or even Maryland & Delaware) would turn Reb than any of those three states in the overall scheme of things.
If pleasing Kentucky were less of a factor might Lincoln have felt able to be more radical?
Derek Jackson said:
Nope because Kentucky is more important to the Union, in strategic terms, than anything else. As The Sandman has pointed out, Kentucky becoming Reb means the Union position in Missouri is severly threatened, plus invasion of states like Ohio & Indiana becomes a real possibility. So Lincoln really has to do what he can to keep Kentucky in the Union, or at the very least a repeat of the OTL.
Plus there's still the strong pro-Union citizenship of Kentucky to consider. It's my understanding that the majority didn't want to join the CSA anyway.
Kentucky and its importance
at the time slavory was in the process of being abbolished anyway. Why do you think they left section 10 open after they banned the import of new slaves and banned slave trade. from what ive read and discussed its starting to seem more and more like slavery, by this era, was more like an occupation. because they werent allowed in the north at all and had nothing to do but???...thats right, fight for the people they previously worked for...but to topic: unless the southerners were all chain smokers or did 5 cans of snuff a day kentucky would provide very little to support their cause exept for man power...kentucky had very little industry and its recources were^^^ tobacco and thats nearly it but you have to ask yourselves about the other states that were thinking about succeeding from the yanks. Kentucky was not the only one.
PS: Hey give me some heads up on what some of the strategical importance of having kentucky i find myself out of recourses.
at the time slavory was in the process of being abbolished anyway. Why do you think they left section 10 open after they banned the import of new slaves and banned slave trade. from what ive read and discussed its starting to seem more and more like slavery, by this era, was more like an occupation. because they werent allowed in the north at all and had nothing to do but???...thats right, fight for the people they previously worked for...but to topic: unless the southerners were all chain smokers or did 5 cans of snuff a day kentucky would provide very little to support their cause exept for man power...kentucky had very little industry and its recources were^^^ tobacco and thats nearly it but you have to ask yourselves about the other states that were thinking about succeeding from the yanks. Kentucky was not the only one.
PS: Hey give me some heads up on what some of the strategical importance of having kentucky i find myself out of recourses.
Last edited:
marxist?_idontthinkso said:
Here's a couple of quick references re: Lincoln, Kentucky, & strategic importance...
Arnold, J. 1998, Shiloh 1862, P6.
Engle, S. D. 2001, The American Civil War: The war in the West 1861-July 1863, PP32-33.
Ward, G. C. Burns, R. & Burns, K. 1991, The Civil War, PP72-74
Alas the topic isn't discussed in great detail, but it does point out the importance of Kentucky in the overall scheme of things.
If and I say IF all the Kentuckians that fought for the North stay loyal to thier State,the South has no fewer than 39 additional Infranty Regiments and 17 of Cavalry. I don't know how many "cannon cockers" and know this is the low end on the union forces from the state. 50,000 plus men is not going to allow the South to win but could prolong the Wesern Campaign by a year,this could lead to the McClellan win in the 64 election.marxist?_idontthinkso said:
As stated earlier Ky was extremly Pro Union there are counties in the south central part of the state that were radically anti succesion.One of these counties along the Tennessee border voted 4 to 1 against succeding,as it happens a well known Confederate leader was born in this county,his name was Jefferson Davis. Yet still his former neighbors decided to stick with the Union.
Bottom line Ky would not be the miricle the south needed to win on the battlefield, but just maybe enough to extend the war so that a political win might be possible.
Note: as was Ky fielded maybe 9 Inf and 2 Cav regts for the South(not including Morgan's command) this being the highest numbered units I have ever heard of fighting for the South I based the units on the same numbers in Union service,except I think there were more Cav units, the 17th Kentucky Cavalry being from Trigg County Ky and one of my relatives being a member of that unit.
Ghost 88 said:
true...ive never looked at it from that angle they could possibly have delayed things enough to squeeze out a political win
PS:THanks DMA for the heads up