AHC: Kentucky in the Confederacy

I have always wondered what differences would occur if Kentucky would join the Confederacy at some point. Personally I think it would be less than most people think (this thinking is probably due to Lincolns saying at the outbreak of the CW for fear of DC being cutoff from the North). However, probably more soldiers would fight for the Confederates than the Federals (70:30 would be the reverse of OTL). But East KY might stay with the Union like West VA, which will be interesting later on.
An interesting fact is that KY had almost 20% slaves (of total population), in the hand of 23% of families, this is comparable to Arkansas and Tennessee, but one the lower end of the scale (not counting Delaware, only MO and Maryland have lower figures, both states which did not seceed as well).

So when could a POD occur?
I can think of at least 2 occasions.
The first is before the outbreak of the Civil War. This contains 2 sub options: A)
According to Wikipedia: "Kentucky governor Beriah Magoffin believed that the rights of the Southern states had been violated and favored the right of secession..." but he did not act on it early on because : "Magoffin called a special session of the Kentucky General Assembly on December 27, 1860, and asked legislators for a convention of Kentuckians to decide the Commonwealth's course regarding secession. The majority of the General Assembly had Unionist sympathies, however, and declined the governor's request, fearing that the state's voters would favor secession."!!!!!
So of a secession convention would be held that early, it could go in favor for it, triggering KY joining the Confederates. However, this quite early, before TN or VA had their conventions, leaving KY isolated.
B)
Furthermore, when the war broke out, Magoffin, a Southern sympathizer, refused Lincolns request to send part of the initial 75,000 troops to put down the rebellion in the South. Maybe public outrage over the request could trigger a secession convention after the Civil war broke out, putting KY in to the rebel camp.

The second option would be during the war.
Kentucky deciced to stay neutral but the Confederates violated the neutrality in September 1861, thus ultimately pushing KY into the Union camp. Interestingly, Governor Magoffin denounced both sides for violating the Commonwealth's neutrality, calling for both sides to withdraw, but he was overruled.

So if the Union gets impatient (think of Lincolns saying we must have KY at the outbreak of the war) and invades KY first, this could lead to an inverse outcome, where KY is pushed into the rebel camp instead of the Union side.

So maybe more knowledgeable persons than me can think of more details how this can be achieved.
 
Last edited:
I think the latter POD is more likely. It also would change... not much. Lincoln overestimated Kentucky's military value. The North can easily capture a railroad for their campaign into Tennessee.
 
Polk's entrance into Kentucky was not an isolated random event; he was in a race for Columbus with Federal Troops under Grant, who entered Kentucky not long after Polk did for the same objective. Had Polk been slower for whatever reason, it would've been Federal troops violating Kentucky's neutrality with all that entails.
 
This is one of my favorite ACW PODs, and possibly one of the best to avoid Confederate defeat that don't involve a certain Royal Mail steamer.

The most helpful book for me on this subject was James Finck's Divided Loyalties: Kentucky's Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the Civil War. One of my recommendations would be to increase the number of pro-Southern delegates elected to the Border State Convention, the House elections, and the state legislature. If it seems Kentucky will be likely to turn rebel, it just scare Frémont into violating neutrality. I had even suggested having Frémont extend his emancipation order to Kentucky, infuriating the state even further (on second thought, this probably isn't necessary, as well as being unlikely). I shared my thoughts with the book's author, and these are the relevant parts of his reply:

I agree, if the SRP won more seats they may have been able to pressure for secession, but that is the first IF, the state seemed to embrace neutrality. Remember it was the SRP that first called for neutrality. If they did push for secession, true, Grant may have wanted to move in, but that is another IF. If he had a scenario you have not mentioned is the military taking over the state as they did in MO and MY and not allow Kentucky to call a convention, I imagine Lincoln would have supported that.



I think it comes down to the Kentucky was very evening divided and so for both sides neutrality was a great option for both to be safe. If as you suggest the SRP dominated the state, then yes secession was possible. I do think it is interested to consider what would have happened if Grant got nervous and had invaded first, would they have joined the South. I am not convinced they would have by that point; the Union party seemed to take control. The only real what if I see making a difference is more Kentuckians were for secession, which they just don’t seem to be.



The other big question is would it have made a difference to the CSA. I do not think so. Many Kentuckians would have still fought for the North, not as many as actually did, but probably about the same as fought for the CSA when they did not secede. All the black troops would have fought for the North. I don’t think the infusion of Kentucky troops would have made a difference. I still think Grant would have taken the rivers and the forts and cut KY from the rest of the south and the power of the Union would still win out in the end.

(Forgive my ignorance, but does anyone know how to quote messages from outside the forum?
 
One important thing to note is that Tennessee was the South's main source of iron ore Pre-War; with the front in Kentucky instead of fighting raging throughout Tennessee, the South will be in position to maintain its railroads as well as keep up quality production of munitions and arms at its factories. For what this could mean, Confederate fuses had a high rate of failure at Gettysburg but likely wouldn't here.
 

Marc

Donor
One important thing to note is that Tennessee was the South's main source of iron ore Pre-War; with the front in Kentucky instead of fighting raging throughout Tennessee, the South will be in position to maintain its railroads as well as keep up quality production of munitions and arms at its factories. For what this could mean, Confederate fuses had a high rate of failure at Gettysburg but likely wouldn't here.

That is assuming that Grant et al don't steamroll through Kentucky, and if so, has a better chance of mopping up Tennessee fairly early in the war. It's not that hard a scenario to construct. More soldiers for the South only guarantees a bigger body count, more mourning wives, and children.
Shrug...
 
That is assuming that Grant et al don't steamroll through Kentucky, and if so, has a better chance of mopping up Tennessee fairly early in the war. It's not that hard a scenario to construct. More soldiers for the South only guarantees a bigger body count, more mourning wives, and children.
Shrug...

Given that IOTL Grant managed to evict Polk immediately thereafter, a faster advance by Grant won't change anything in that regard. The big difference, however, is likely to be Kentucky switching sides during that Winter; if nothing else, the Confederate Heartland offensive will be a smashing success come the fall of 1862.
 
I think the latter POD is more likely. It also would change... not much. Lincoln overestimated Kentucky's military value. The North can easily capture a railroad for their campaign into Tennessee.

This is exactly my thinking, that it would overall not change much, however...

The other big question is would it have made a difference to the CSA. I do not think so. Many Kentuckians would have still fought for the North, not as many as actually did, but probably about the same as fought for the CSA when they did not secede. All the black troops would have fought for the North. I don’t think the infusion of Kentucky troops would have made a difference. I still think Grant would have taken the rivers and the forts and cut KY from the rest of the south and the power of the Union would still win out in the end.

That's my thinking too, that would account for about 70k troops compared to 30k in OTL.

One important thing to note is that Tennessee was the South's main source of iron ore Pre-War; with the front in Kentucky instead of fighting raging throughout Tennessee, the South will be in position to maintain its railroads as well as keep up quality production of munitions and arms at its factories. For what this could mean, Confederate fuses had a high rate of failure at Gettysburg but likely wouldn't here.

This is an interesting fact I was not aware of!

Given that IOTL Grant managed to evict Polk immediately thereafter, a faster advance by Grant won't change anything in that regard. The big difference, however, is likely to be Kentucky switching sides during that Winter; if nothing else, the Confederate Heartland offensive will be a smashing success come the fall of 1862.

This is the most interesting thing, how the Confederate Heartland offensive will be affected by this!
 
Last edited:
With the CSA's iron ore deposits and Nashville's industry secure for the moment, it seems some problems in this area will be lessened.

With about 50k-70k troops, the CSA could do a lot. I'm not talking about invadng Indiana/Ohio, but when McClellan lands in Virginia, the West will probably be able to supply a few divisions for Virginia.
 
Top