ACW Kentucky & Missouri question

[herricks]

i dont know if this has been asked before but since Kentucky & Missouri both declared to be neutral at the beginning of the war until the CSA invaded them what would change if the confederacy decided to honor their neutrality & never invaded? my two scenerios would be

A. both countries honer the states neutrality so an important front is taken out of the picture. what would that change for the war?

B. the Union decides to move into Kentucky & Missouri. Would this cause one or both of the states to seccede &/or have more people side with the confederacy? what this change for the war?

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Weren't the constituents of both states practically pro-union anyway?

 

[Mikestone8]

i dont know if this has been asked before but since Kentucky & Missouri both declared to be neutral at the beginning of the war until the CSA invaded them what would change if the confederacy decided to honor their neutrality & never invaded? my two scenerios would be

A. both countries honer the states neutrality so an important front is taken out of the picture. what would that change for the war?

B. the Union decides to move into Kentucky & Missouri. Would this cause one or both of the states to seccede &/or have more people side with the confederacy? what this change for the war?

Afaik Missouri never declared neutrality, though Kentucky did for a time.

I don't see how it could have lasted five minutes once both sides were fully mobilised and ready to get serious about the war..

 

[herricks]

Weren't the constituents of both states practically pro-union anyway?

pretty much but someone correct me if im wrong but the CSA moving into Kentucky(not so sure on Missouri) really pushed the majoty of the population to support the Union. if in my scenerio B the Union invades & breaks their neutrality while it still might not have either state secede wouldnt it more likley cause the population that could care less which side won as long as they were left alone might be pushed to being more pro confederacy.

 

[herricks]

Afaik Missouri never declared neutrality, though Kentucky did for a time.

I don't see how it could have lasted five minutes once both sides were fully mobilised and ready to get serious about the war..

you sure i was pretty sure missouri did but i could be wrong

well i figured my A scenerio wouldnt be very probable but the B scenerio could be

 

[Anaxagoras]

Weren't the constituents of both states practically pro-union anyway?

There was no such thing as accurate polling back then, but my impression has always been that Missouri was about 65/35 in favor of the Union, whereas Kentucky was more like 55/45 in favor of the Union. There's no way to know for sure, though.

 

[herricks]

There was no such thing as accurate polling back then, but my impression has always been that Missouri was about 65/35 in favor of the Union, whereas Kentucky was more like 55/45 in favor of the Union. There's no way to know for sure, though.

which side did you put the people that didnt care either way

 

[Anaxagoras]

which side did you put the people that didnt care either way

I would put them in the category of "bullied and threatened by their neighbors until they declared sides, too".

 

[Blackfox5]

Kentucky was pro-Union. The legislature was overwhelming pro-union, and the Kentucky voters had decisively rejected pro-Confederate candidates in the special election of summer 1861. Support for the Confederacy was noticeable, but as a distinct minority within the state.

Kentucky's "neutrality" had to do with the fact that its governor was pro-Confederate, and his stance prevented the state from being explicitly pro-Union. There was a political struggle for power with the Unionists gaining the advantage and isolating the governor. The neutrality resolution was merely a stop-gap measure to prevent fighting inside the state while the different political factions could decide things peacefully. By September 1861, it was clear that the state's sympathies were with the Union, not the Confederacy.

The Confederates invaded Kentucky because they saw which way the wind was blowing, and hoped by invading they would bolster the pro-Confederate minority or simply take over the state government by force.

The Confederate and Union armies practically entered Kentucky at the same time. The governor attempted to blame both sides equally and ask both the Union army and rebel army to leave. The legislature refused and explicitly condemned only the rebel army and told them to leave. When they refused, the last political obstacle for Kentucky aligning itself with the Union was removed.

Eventually the governor resigned, because it was apparent that his actions were against the will of the people of Kentucky and the constant fighting between him and the rest of the government was paralyzing the state government. To his credit, I believe that governor never actually committed treason despite his sympathies for the Confederates.

If the Union army enters Kentucky first, I don't see this ending any different. Kentucky - overall - was clearly sympathetic to the Union, and its legislature was not going to bash the Union. The only way to get Kentucky to go Confederate is if Lincoln is a complete moron and goes out of his way to antagonize the state. In actuality, Lincoln knew Kentucky had to be played delicately and made sure that no provoking actions were done so that the Unionist majority could consolidate control in the state given enough time.

Missouri was very similar, with a pro-Confederate governor but many pro-Unionists. Both sides utilized armed militias to influence the state's politics, and neutrality was a way to prevent bloodshed - or at least buy time until one side could outmaneuver the other. The local Union commander told the Missouri governor that he wasn't going to accept neutrality. So the governor fled and set up an illegal rebel government. The actual state government then declared the post vacant and put in a pro-Union governor.

In both cases, pro-Unionists were in the majority, but with a large minority. In both cases, an obstructionist governor attempted to foil this Union majority and lost. In both cases, the governor was eventually removed.

Neutrality was a stop gap measure as two uneven sides attempted to politically outflank the other. It should not be confused that these two states actually would not have joined the war. The majority in both were pro-Union, but with a significant pro-Confederate minority that would drag the state in internal guerilla war and provide a recruits to the Confederates. In hindsight, the end result was not in doubt, and the legitimate governments of these states were never going to join the Confederacy.

 

[Elfwine]

Given the overwhelming number of men serving in blue vs. serving in gray for Kentucky, 55-45 seems a little off.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Given the overwhelming number of men serving in blue vs. serving in gray for Kentucky, 55-45 seems a little off.

Maybe, but since the Union controlled the vast majority of the state for the majority of the war, they obviously had a much easier time recruiting troops.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I think it's also worth pointing out that support for one side or the other fluctuated over the course of the war. There's a good deal of evidence to suggest that the harsh military rule of General Stephen Burbridge - "The Butcher of Kentucky" - in 1864 had alienated many formerly pro-Union men. Just look as the example of Lieutenant Governor Richard Jacob, who had remained loyal to the Union and raised a Union cavalry regiment, yet was arrested by Burbridge and expelled from the state.

 

[Elfwine]

Maybe, but since the Union controlled the vast majority of the state for the majority of the war, they obviously had a much easier time recruiting troops.

That doesn't stop Kentuckians in favor of the Confederacy from either going south, or forming units while Union control is fragile.

 

[Anaxagoras]

That doesn't stop Kentuckians in favor of the Confederacy from either going south, or forming units while Union control is fragile.

No, it doesn't. The Orphan Brigade (one of the best units of the war, on either side) was formed when the South held the southern part of the state in late 1861. But it certainly makes it harder. It's not like the North and South had an equally easy time recruiting Kentucky troops in, say, late 1863.

 

[matashowski]

To say that Kentucky was pro-anything is over generalizing. (I've spent the majority of my life here, and have been educating myself on our weird stance in the war). While the legistator was pro union pro-union and the governor was pro-confederate (he went on to be a general, who was exiled to cuba) Kentucky was more anti-conflict then anything else. They more than most other places tried to broker a resolution, rather than see the country split. See the Crittenden compromise (which wasn't much of one at all, it just said give the south all they want) and the failed peace conference. They recognized that if they succeeded, they would be invaded and torn apart much like northern virginia was. Many different railways connected them to the north, but only one connected them to the south.

Also, many of the population center's were divided. Louisville (the largest) was mostly pro union except for the merchants who sold down river. Lexington initially raised a Confederate flag, and had many of their prominent families split into different sides.

Kentucky wasn't really a unified place (and still isnt). The mountainous east was pro union, whereas the west (and most of the slaves) were pro confederacy. Thats why, when the governor and serveral others broke away to form their own confederate-aligned government, the only counties to suceed were western ones bordering Tennessee and the Missouri river.

And to answer your question, it wouldn't have mattered. The union had begun setting up recruiting stations just outside the border (Of columbus, Lville, Covington, etc) and people had been splitting into different factions. If the confederates hadn't invaded, the union would have seized important river cities in a short time.

 

[Elfwine]

No, it doesn't. The Orphan Brigade (one of the best units of the war, on either side) was formed when the South held the southern part of the state in late 1861. But it certainly makes it harder. It's not like the North and South had an equally easy time recruiting Kentucky troops in, say, late 1863.

Which is why I emphasize Kentuckians going outside the state - if Kentuckians were really evenly divided, the number doing so OTL does not support that. It supports that Union "control" was not unpopular.

For instance, West Virginia apparently supplied closer to even numbers, not something like 4-1 Union (the Kentucky ratio), by the latest research. And it's not as if the Confederates had a pretty secure hold on the area at any point.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Which is why I emphasize Kentuckians going outside the state - if Kentuckians were really evenly divided, the number doing so OTL does not support that. It supports that Union "control" was not unpopular.

I'm not disputing that more Kentuckians were pro-Union than pro-Confederate, but your argument here is pretty fallacious. It's obviously much easier for a pro-Union Kentuckian to join the Union army than it is for a pro-Confederate Kentuckian to join the Confederate army, because the Union was in control of most of the state for most of the war.

For instance, West Virginia apparently supplied closer to even numbers, not something like 4-1 Union (the Kentucky ratio), by the latest research. And it's not as if the Confederates had a pretty secure hold on the area at any point.

There were parts of West Virginia under Confederate control until the end of the war.

 

[M79]

To say that Kentucky was pro-anything is over generalizing. (I've spent the majority of my life here, and have been educating myself on our weird stance in the war). While the legistator was pro union pro-union and the governor was pro-confederate (he went on to be a general, who was exiled to cuba) Kentucky was more anti-conflict then anything else. They more than most other places tried to broker a resolution, rather than see the country split. See the Crittenden compromise (which wasn't much of one at all, it just said give the south all they want) and the failed peace conference. They recognized that if they succeeded, they would be invaded and torn apart much like northern virginia was. Many different railways connected them to the north, but only one connected them to the south.

Also, many of the population center's were divided. Louisville (the largest) was mostly pro union except for the merchants who sold down river. Lexington initially raised a Confederate flag, and had many of their prominent families split into different sides.

Kentucky wasn't really a unified place (and still isnt). The mountainous east was pro union, whereas the west (and most of the slaves) were pro confederacy. Thats why, when the governor and serveral others broke away to form their own confederate-aligned government, the only counties to suceed were western ones bordering Tennessee and the Missouri river.

And to answer your question, it wouldn't have mattered. The union had begun setting up recruiting stations just outside the border (Of columbus, Lville, Covington, etc) and people had been splitting into different factions. If the confederates hadn't invaded, the union would have seized important river cities in a short time.

Good points. Eastern KY was full of people who wanted to do business, they dealt with both sides though many kept their politics to themselves. The 1860 Kentucky legislative election is also curious because of the number of people who stayed away from the polls, but there are large groups in the state supporting both sides. Union interest in controlling the Ohio and Confederate interest in a border at the same river means conflict and invasion are inevitable.

For instance, West Virginia apparently supplied closer to even numbers, not something like 4-1 Union (the Kentucky ratio), by the latest research. And it's not as if the Confederates had a pretty secure hold on the area at any point.

Lots of Union soldiers representing West Virginia seem to have crossed over from southern Ohio, especially in the early part of the war. There was a point when Union West Virginia controlled roughly Wheeling, the B&O railroad, Charleston, and the counties along the Ohio River.

 

[Elfwine]

I'm not disputing that more Kentuckians were pro-Union than pro-Confederate, but your argument here is pretty fallacious. It's obviously much easier for a pro-Union Kentuckian to join the Union army than it is for a pro-Confederate Kentuckian to join the Confederate army, because the Union was in control of most of the state for most of the war.

Because crossing into Tennessee or Virginia is so arduous that only the most diehard pro-Confederate men would do it.

If there was nearly equal enthusiasm for the Confederacy, why do we not see it for say, Bragg and Kirby'Smith's invasion? Why do we not see it in 1861? Why do we not see more crossing into Confederate territory?

You have to have pro-Confederate men existing to have the ease matter, and the number of OTL Kentucky Confederate units formed in Virginia or Tennessee is pretty telling on how hard Kentuckians found it to wear gray - not hard at all for those who wanted to.

Example: http://webpages.charter.net/lecgbe/10ky/10cavhome.htm (Sadly the link to Lynn's site doesn't work).

There were parts of West Virginia under Confederate control until the end of the war.

And Kentucky borders two Confederate statements, which would make it very easy for a pro-Confederate Kentuckian to cross into "safe" territory - the fact that more didn't is a pretty strong sign that more weren't interested.

Lots of Union soldiers representing West Virginia seem to have crossed over from southern Ohio, especially in the early part of the war. There was a point when Union West Virginia controlled roughly Wheeling, the B&O railroad, Charleston, and the counties along the Ohio River.

Thus the statement on the most recent research on the subject.

The problem is, if there isn't sentiment for the Confederacy, that doesn't really matter. Men were willing to cross into Virginia from Maryland and form units in Richmond to fight in gray (quite a number apparently not caring about forming Maryland units, interestingly, but the whys of that is another discussion), if Kentuckians had such evenly balanced sympathies, similar actions would be the natural response to Union "occupation" with or without the "doesn't matter if we're fighting as (our state) units".

 

[Rich Rostrom]

i dont know if this has been asked before but since Kentucky & Missouri both declared to be neutral at the beginning of the war until the CSA invaded them what would change if the confederacy decided to honor their neutrality & never invaded? my two scenerios would be

A. both countries honer the states neutrality so an important front is taken out of the picture. what would that change for the war?

B. the Union decides to move into Kentucky & Missouri. Would this cause one or both of the states to seccede &/or have more people side with the confederacy? what this change for the war?

Missouri did not declare neutrality. Missouri elected a state convention, which met, voted against secession, and adjourned, all in early 1861 (before the bombardment of Fort Sumter). However, Governor Claiborne Jackson was a crypto-secessionist, who conspired to achieve secession by force majeure. He rejected Lincoln's call for troops to put down rebellion.

Meanwhile, he called up part of the Missouri State Guard under the command of secessionist officers, and stationed them outside St. Louis. Artillery was secretly provided by the nascent Confederacy.

The goal of this force was to seize the U.S. Arsenal in St. Louis and control the city. However there was a U.S. Regular Army force there, under a fanatical Union officer (Nathaniel Lyon).

Also, St. Louis was predominantly Unionist (and in fact Republican) St. Louis elected the only Republican US Representative from a slave state. This was due to the presence of many German immigrants. Mostly radical refugees from the failed revolution of 1848, they hated slavery. Lyon and Republican leader Frank Blair organized an unofficial pro-Union "Home Guard" in St. Louis.

Lyon determined that the State Guard were plotting rebellion. (He scouted their camp, disguised as an old woman.) So one day he led his Regulars and the Home Guards to the camp and took the entire State Guard force prisoners. While Lyon was marching the prisoners to the arsenal, gunfire broke out and several dozen people were killed.

This almost triggered a secession vote in the legislature in Jefferson City - except that the legislature had delegated that decision to the convention. However Jackson now called up more State Guards, while Lyon marched on Jefferson City. He routed the State Guards and chased out Jackson and his supporters, pursuing them to the far SW of the state.

Meanwhile, a majority of the legislature stayed behind, and reformed the state government. They replaced Jackson as governor, and Missouri was securely in the Union.

Kentucky was a different story. There were no US troops on the ground, and no city with a Republican majority. Governor Magoffin was pro-Southern, though like most Border State men he hoped for a "compromise" to avoid war, i.e. the North and Republicans yielding to Southern demands. He called up state militia under pro-Southern officers and declared the state "neutral".

However, the majority of the state's voters were anti-secession. The US Army stayed out of Kentucky, but Navy Lieutenant William Nelson was sent in to organize a Unionist Home Guard. In mid-1861 elections, Union candidates won overwhelming control of the legislature. Magoffin used every power he had to prevent Kentucky declaring for the Union, but in early September, Confederate forces invaded Kentucky, seizing Columbus on the Mississippi. Union troops then occupied Paducah.

Magoffin tried to demand the withdrawal of both forces, but the legislature instead voted to demand only Confederate withdrawal and request Federal action to expel them. The state militia marched off to join the Confederate army, becoming the "Orphan Brigade". Magoffin clung to office until August 1862.

Ex-Vice President John Breckinridge had been elected US Senator in early 1861. When he was expelled from the Senate, he went South, joined the Confederate Army, and became a major general. (Also the answer to a trivia question: who is the only ex-Vice President that anyone has ever tried to kill, excluding those who became President? Breckinridge had many thousands of Yankees shooting in his direction - at Baton Rouge, Chickamauga, and Newmarket.)

Getting to the What-If... it can't apply to Missouri, because US forces were there already (it was a frontier state, remember).

Kentucky, though... If the CSA had not entered Kentucky... The Union faction was dominant and getting stronger. Jeff Davis endorsed the occupation of Columbus, despite the reaction, because he (and others) were convinced that Kentucky would soon be lost anyway. They were probably right, though I can't figure out how it would happen.

If Kentucky's legislature overrode Magoffin and declared for the Union - then, probably, the Union grabs Columbus first. That's the only major knock-on I can see.