alternatehistory.com

One event that has always stood out as one of the biggest mistakes made by the CSA during the early phase of the war was Polk's misguided attempt to seize Columbus Kentucky or "The Gibraltar of the Mississippi" as he called it. Such a move violated Kentucky's neutrality and brought it into the war on the side of the Union.

Or so I had thought for a few years now...

Looking into it recently, I realized that Polk was not alone in his desire to seize Columbus. Indeed though many Union officials were wary of violating Kentucky's neutrality, John Fremont, leader of the Union army in Missouri was not and indeed dispatched none other than U.S. Grant to seize the vital town along the Mississippi. Though Grant lost the race for Columbus, he promptly occupied Paducah Kentucky days later.

Now, what would have happened had Polk and not Grant broken Kentucky's neutrality first?

I'm not convinced that much of anything would have happened differently than OTL. You see Kentucky's state elections in June had returned strong Unionist majorities in both houses of the State Legislature. These same majorities when Kentucky's neutrality was broken by both the Confederacy and the Union almost simultaneously, voted to condemn the Confederate attack and allow the Union to remain. Even had Grant struck first I doubt the legislature, being firmly Unionist, would make a difference. There might be more uproar about the decision but I think that the Kentucky state government would side with the Union regardless.

Now does Kentucky not siding with the CSA invalidate the POD? Would history have continued on the same? I don't think so, here are some possible ramifications.

1)Instead of fortifying Columbus KY, only to be forced to abandon it without a fight due to Union advances at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, Polk and his men can spend the time they spent fortifying Columbus in OTL, fortifying positions further down the Mississippi such as Island no. 10 more extensively. These fortifications could then significantly slow Pope's (or his TTL replacement) down considerably in his offensive down the river towards Memphis.

2) John Fremont's days as a Union commander are effectively over. Lincoln was intent on keeping the border states in the Union and in TTL Fremont threatened the loyalty of not 1 but 2 of them. He's going to be shuffled off into retirement and won't be brought back. This probably means that Rosecrans remains in command in West Virginia which could possibly cause problems for Stonewall Jackson during the Valley campaign.

3)Grant's star may rise earlier. With his bloodless capture of the Gibraltar of the Mississippi, Grant will undoubtedly receive a boost in popularity and could potentially rise to a high ranking position earlier than OTL. Perhaps he could replace Fremont in Missouri?

4)Some of Kentucky's population might be more inclined to join with the Confederacy leading to more volunteers and more recruitment.

Thoughts? or am I totally off base here?
Top