Confederate KY, MO, and KS

What would it take for the States of KY, MO, and KS to decided to join the CSA and what would be their impact. I suspect that of the 3 KY will be the easiest, followed by MO and KS will be very difficult but with the right pod and butterflies might be possible.
 
For Kansas, you'd need a POD during Bleeding Kansas and have slave-owning Missourians vote for the Lecompton Constitution or some other pro-slavery document. Kansas was admitted as a free state, after all, and a free state isn't joining the Confederacy at any time.
 
In OTL, 38 southern counties in KY seceded to form their own shadow government. To pull the entire state into the Confederacy, you'll likely need some kind of "event" if you don't want a POD that changes the makeup of the state. A good deal of it had to do with economics and the fact that they knew they'd get trashed if they were on the border. Merchants in Louisville had deeper economic ties to the North, as thats were the rail lines went, so they didn't push for succession. Likewise, in Lexington the Confederate flag was raised over buildings, but opinion soured when Morgan raided the town. There was almost a battle between home raised militia. Depending on the instigator and the result, that might sway public opinion towards the south.
 
You'd need to get Kansas before its admission for sure. Kansas is the freshest of the free soil, and they wouldn't tip into the Confederate camp after signing on the line that is dotted.
 
Kentucky's shadow government might fare better if Kirby and Bragg worked together before Perryville, especially if they can take Louisville. That gives the shadow government most of the state and forces the Union to retake it using Nashville as a base, it would probably add a few months onto the war but is not enough to win it. Missouri is more difficult, the population below the Missouri River is sympathetic but the Union controls St Louis, the rivers, and the weapons. It needs to be more organized and more than just Neosho to make headway. Kansas is much more difficult and probably requires pre-ACW changes to make it plausible as a Confederate state.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Kansas contributed 20,000 men to the U.S. Forces

What would it take for the States of KY, MO, and KS to decided to join the CSA and what would be their impact. I suspect that of the 3 KY will be the easiest, followed by MO and KS will be very difficult but with the right pod and butterflies might be possible.

Kansas contributed 20,000 men to the U.S. forces, Kentucky 75,000, and Missouri almost 110,000.

The above totals were from populations of 107,000, 1.15 million, and 1.18 million, respectively.

Kansas and Missouri both elected Republican governors in 1861; in Kentucky, Magoffin was hamstrung by the Unionist legislature in 1861 and resigned in favor of a war Democrat in 1862.

Good luck.:rolleyes:

Best,
 
Last edited:
Yeah I think any POD would have to be before 1861 by far, mainly because of Kansas. Maybe if the mega-south secedes in like 1850 (Millard Fillmore goes crazy and personally attacks Harper's Ferry is the level of unlikely northern aggression you would need here) and then, in the peace treaty, "empty" Kansas is given to the south to make a nice line on a map, before the whole Kansas-Nebraska Act has exploded. Still pretty unlikely, though.
 
Kansas contributed 20,000 men to the U.S. forces, Kentucky 75,000, and Missouri almost 110,000.

The above totals were from populations of 107,000, 1.15 million, and 1.18 million, respectively.

Good luck.:rolleyes:

Best,

One-Fifth of their state population?:eek:That is bloody decent/fair effort.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Considering what Kansas had been through and what

One-Fifth of their state population?:eek:That is bloody decent/fair effort.

Considering what Kansas had been through in the 1850s and what it meant to the nation, not completely surprising, but yes, one in five over four years of war is pretty impressive.

Kentucky raised something close to 45,000 men for the U.S. in 1861-62 response to the 1861 call for troops, and considering Magoffin's borderline treason for much of 1861, that's equally respectable.

Missouri, it is worth pointing out, also raised at least 10,000 state troops (federally funded, but with duty limited to the state) and tens of thousands of state-funded militia, as did Kentucky, for home service.

Ten percent of the general population is the standard for mobilization in the U.S. In the Twentieth Century based on historical experience, without causing major economic impacts due to labor force demographics.

So by that measure, quite impressive, actually.

Best,
 
Last edited:
In OTL, 38 southern counties in KY seceded to form their own shadow government. To pull the entire state into the Confederacy, you'll likely need some kind of "event" if you don't want a POD that changes the makeup of the state. A good deal of it had to do with economics and the fact that they knew they'd get trashed if they were on the border. Merchants in Louisville had deeper economic ties to the North, as thats were the rail lines went, so they didn't push for succession. Likewise, in Lexington the Confederate flag was raised over buildings, but opinion soured when Morgan raided the town. There was almost a battle between home raised militia. Depending on the instigator and the result, that might sway public opinion towards the south.

The problem with Kentucky at the time is that a lot of the hubs and population centers would be at best tepid Confederates and often firmly Unionist. You can get a lot of counties in Kentucky and still not have too many people on your side if they're not the right ones.

Between this and the new Confederate TL that just went up, there some more Johny Reb on this board.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Kansas is pretty much a non-starter. For it to be a secessionist state, you'd need to have a POD going back to 1854, if not earlier. By the time the war ended, the place was a rabidly radical abolitionist stronghold. As already pointed out, Kansas sent a huge proportion of its men to fight for the Union and they developed a reputation as some of the most ferociously anti-Confederate units in the army, too.

Missouri and Kentucky are both doable. IOTL, both were quite divided and contributed tens of thousands of men of the Confederacy (the Orphan Brigade of Kentucky troops and Cockrell's Missouri Brigade were arguably the two best Southern brigades of the entire war).

The unilateral emancipation proclamation issued by General John Fremont (then commanding in Missouri) in late 1861 was very nearly a disaster for the Union. Had Lincoln not handled the matter so adroitly it might have pushed either or both of the border states into secession. Then you have General Leonidas Polk, who stupidly crossed the border into Kentucky to occupy Columbus in October of 1861, thereby making the Confederacy the first to violate the state's declared neutrality. Fremont was even then planning on moving into Paducah, IIRC.

If Fremont and/or Polk (or perhaps Davis, who might have decided it was stupid to appoint Polk to an important command) had done things just a little, then Kentucky and/or Missouri could have ended up seceding. The former is more likely than the latter.

Missouri would have been reconquered, as it would have been very difficult for the South to project force into the region. Kentucky, on the other hand, had more fence-sitters who joined the Union IOTL who might have sided with the South ITTL. Missouri was more strictly divided into pro-South and pro-North sides, it seems to me.

I do agree with Lincoln, though. . . to lose Kentucky was to lose the whole game. If Kentucky seceded, the South would likely have gained its independence.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The Civil War Trust estimates the

The Civil War Trust estimates the number of Kentuckians who served in the rebel forces at 25,000 to 40,000, over four years; they also estimate the number of Kentuckians who served in the U.S. forces at 100,000, by including federally-recruited USCTs.

It's also worth considering the realities of the 1861 and 1862 legislative elections in the state and federal levels, which returned substantial Unionist majorities.

The lack of any substantial rebel turnout during the 1862 invasion makes the loyalties pretty clear.

Same in Missouri; the rebels tried repeatedly to invade the state and pretty much got shown the door in 1861-64. In addition, as posted above, more than 110,000 Missourians served in the U.S. forces; 30,000 or less in the "rebel" forces, including various militia and Missouri "state" troops.

Best,
 
Last edited:
BigSlaveryMap.jpg


Here is a map of the distribution of slavery right before the war. Can't figure out how to make it small. It is certainly doable, swinging KY into the south. Basically, slaves were bred in the central Bluegrass region, then shipped west to the port cities. That's why Louisville (Jefferson County) has such as small slave population. It's also the largest population center in the state. So, you could definitely swing the center of the state, as it's entire economy runs off the slave trade. Its the only time learning a historical fact has made me physically nauseous, since i grew up there and they didn't exactly teach that in schools. Also, i feel like its relevant that there was prolonged Confederate guerrilla campaigns in Ky (and i believe Missouri), these couldn't have happened without the support of the population.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Civil War Trust estimates the number of Kentuckians who served in the rebel forces at 25,000 to 40,000, over four years; they also estimate the number of Kentuckians who served in the U.S. forces at 100,000, by including federally-recruited USCTs.

...

Same in Missouri; the rebels tried repeatedly to invade the state and pretty much got shown the door in 1861-64. In addition, as posted above, more than 110,000 Missourians served in the U.S. forces; 30,000 or less in the "rebel" forces, including various militia and Missouri "state" troops.

Well, obviously, the Union was in control of the states for most of the war and the Confederacy was not, so it was much easier for the Union to recruit in the states than it was for the Confederacy. I think the more remarkable fact is that so many Missourians and Kentuckians joined the Confederate Army in spite of the great difficulties involved in doing so. You don't seriously think that the numbers would have been the same had the Confederacy, rather than the Union, been in control of the two states for most of the war, do you?

The lack of any substantial rebel turnout during the 1862 invasion makes the loyalties pretty clear.

They were only in occupation of any significant territory for a few weeks, which was not enough time to set up recruitment infrastructure. There was actually considerable support and assistance provided to the Confederate forces in many areas, in terms of people coming forward with supplies and food. Eyewitness accounts from people on both sides speak to the fact that the Confederates were greeted very warmly when they occupied certain areas, including Lexington and Bardstown.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Raise the question, however,

Well, obviously, the Union was in control of the states for most of the war and the Confederacy was not, so it was much easier for the Union to recruit in the states than it was for the Confederacy. I think the more remarkable fact is that so many Missourians and Kentuckians joined the Confederate Army in spite of the great difficulties involved in doing so. You don't seriously think that the numbers would have been the same had the Confederacy, rather than the Union, been in control of the two states for most of the war, do you?



They were only in occupation of any significant territory for a few weeks, which was not enough time to set up recruitment infrastructure. There was actually considerable support and assistance provided to the Confederate forces in many areas, in terms of people coming forward with supplies and food. Eyewitness accounts from people on both sides speak to the fact that the Confederates were greeted very warmly when they occupied certain areas, including Lexington and Bardstown.


Raises the question, however, WHY the rebels were not in control, does it not?

The elections, especially in 1861, are pretty clear indicators. As far as why significant numbers of men from both states served the rebellion, the realities of 1861 in both states are pretty clear. Both were contested, and those who backed the wrong horse retreated overland.

Bottom line in these comparisons is that loyal "white" units were recruited in every rebel state except South Carolina; the only elements of the rebel mobilization that are even remotely comparable is the Maryland Line.

As intriguing as some of this sort of supposition may be, when one looks at how those on the ground demonstrated loyalty, the number of volunteers for the U.S. Forces from the Border states VASTLY outnumbered those from the Border States for the rebellion in 1861, which was the only time conscription was not in place on one side or both.


Best,
 
Last edited:
A couple of comments regarding Missouri. Missouri's Governor in 1861 was Claiborne Jackson, a Democrat; he was elected in the same election cycle in which Abraham Lincoln was elected President. Jackson was pro-slavery and led the secession efforts in the state. He was unsuccessful in his efforts.

Missouri convened a special state convention to discuss and vote on whether to secede or not. The convention voted 89-1 against secession on March 19th, 1861; this was after Lincoln's inauguration but before the attack on Fort Sumter. The convention resolved: That at present there is no adequate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve her connection with the Federal Union, but on the contrary she will labor for such an adjustment of existing troubles as will secure the peace, as well as the rights and equality of all the States.

Captain Nathaniel Lyon was transferred to the St. Louis Arsenal in February 1861. The St. Louis Arsenal had probably the largest cache of small arms in the Midwest. Lyon was a fervent abolitionist; while his two superiors were more moderates and didn't want to take stand one way or the other. Lyon using some political connections was able to remove his two superiors from the scene and allow him to take command of the Arsenal in mid-April 1861. He then beginning distributing arms to pro-Union militia and other forces, which up to then had been disorganized and poorly armed.

A POD involving any one or more of these individuals/events could lead to a scenario where Missouri secedes from the Union.
 
Here is a map of the distribution of slavery right before the war. Can't figure out how to make it small. It is certainly doable, swinging KY into the south. Basically, slaves were bred in the central Bluegrass region, then shipped west to the port cities. That's why Louisville (Jefferson County) has such as small slave population. It's also the largest population center in the state. So, you could definitely swing the center of the state, as it's entire economy runs off the slave trade. Its the only time learning a historical fact has made me physically nauseous, since i grew up there and they didn't exactly teach that in schools. Also, i feel like its relevant that there was prolonged Confederate guerrilla campaigns in Ky (and i believe Missouri), these couldn't have happened without the support of the population.

That map is an amazing find... Thank you.

The guerilla operations are a good point - there's a definite level of support. Also, USCT numbers simultaneously show the difficult of those state seceding - but the fact that support for the rebels was not insignificant.
 
Kansas simply can't happen. No way the slave owners can get a large enough percentage of the population on their side - the reality was that Kansas was not situated to support much of a slave population as the crops grown there could not use large numbers of slaves (unlike tobacco, sugar cane, cotton, indigo, rice). St Louis proper, even thoiugh it had a slave market was strongly pro-Union, and again the percentage of the population that was slave holding was small. Kentucky is more doable, more likely you see the central part "going south", the eastern part like eastern Tennessee, was strongly pro-Union. The bits along the Ohio river would be easily held by the Union.
 
Top