How long can Kentucky remain neutral in the ACW?

Lincoln's famous quote is that "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky."

Kentucky of course managed to remain neutral for a few months during the ACW. The official period of neutrality ran from 20 May 1861 until Leonidas Polk, Lincoln's greatest ally in the South, invaded Kentucky and pushed it into the Union side.

Now, assuming that Leonidas Polk is out of commission for some reason (stopped a bullet, choked on a mouldy sausage, take your pick), how much longer can Kentucky remain neutral during the ACW? Kentucky was drifting into the Union camp anyway; the June congressional elections were an overwhelming victory for the Union. (Albeit with the winning margin improved because some Southern supporters boycotted the elections). But there was still some sentiment for remaining neutral, and the official neutrality remained in place even when there were unofficial violations (recruiting camps) by both sides.

Could Kentucky remain neutral for much longer? Would there be circumstances where the North violated its neutrality first? (Unlikely, since Lincoln was far too canny to authorise that, so it would probably only happen if someone acted without sanction.) What would be the consequences, if any, of Kentucky remaining neutral for a few more months?
 
Addendum: I've found references online (e.g. here) which claim that the North was planning to seize Columbus, Kentucky. More specifically, that on 28 August Fremont had ordered Grant to seize Columbus. I don't have access to my hard-copy sources at the moment. Does anyone have any confirmation / refutation of that from reliable sources?

If Polk was somehow stopped from invading Kentucky when he did (perhaps by his ritual suicide, which would probably be the best thing he could do to aid the Confederate cause), would the Union have gone ahead and invaded Kentucky in the short term?
 
Honestly, I find it unlikely that Kentucky would have remained neutral much longer with or without the Confederate invasion - the summer elections of 1861 resulted in veto-proof Unionist majorities in the state legislature, which would certainly have brought Kentucky into the war on the Union side sooner or later.
 
I've always wondered why Kentucky becomes Confederate in most CSA TLs if in reality it was mostly Unionist. Wouldn't Missouri be more likely to be Confederate?
 
I've always wondered why Kentucky becomes Confederate in most CSA TLs if in reality it was mostly Unionist. Wouldn't Missouri be more likely to be Confederate?

The strength of pro-Union sentiment may be somewhat exaggerated, since pro-Southerners boycotted the Congressional elections. But Unionist sentiment was clearly in the majority; that's why the Southerners boycotted the elections in the first place. The only question is how large the Unionist majority was.

In terms of why Kentucky ends up in the CSA in Confederate timelines, I think there's a variety of factors at play. One is probably to make the CSA stronger, both in numbers and defensibility. Another is a view that if the USA lacks the political will to keep fighting the CSA, it may also lack the will to keep slaveholding states in the Union. (Kentucky, and possibly Missouri. Maryland and Delaware are somewhat different.) Or it may be a view that the CSA can somehow conquer Kentucky.

I don't think any of those are particularly likely, myself. Even a scenario where the Union invades first is unlikely to produce a pro-CSA majority in Kentucky. But those seem to be the reasons people have.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The thing is, the "neutrality" vote was about the MOST

Lincoln's famous quote is that "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky."

Kentucky of course managed to remain neutral for a few months during the ACW. The official period of neutrality ran from 20 May 1861 until Leonidas Polk, Lincoln's greatest ally in the South, invaded Kentucky and pushed it into the Union side.

Now, assuming that Leonidas Polk is out of commission for some reason (stopped a bullet, choked on a mouldy sausage, take your pick), how much longer can Kentucky remain neutral during the ACW? Kentucky was drifting into the Union camp anyway; the June congressional elections were an overwhelming victory for the Union. (Albeit with the winning margin improved because some Southern supporters boycotted the elections). But there was still some sentiment for remaining neutral, and the official neutrality remained in place even when there were unofficial violations (recruiting camps) by both sides.

Could Kentucky remain neutral for much longer? Would there be circumstances where the North violated its neutrality first? (Unlikely, since Lincoln was far too canny to authorise that, so it would probably only happen if someone acted without sanction.) What would be the consequences, if any, of Kentucky remaining neutral for a few more months?

The thing is, the "neutrality" vote was about the MOST the pro-rebel faction in the Legislature was able to get; the Legislature was evenly divided before the August, 1861 election; given that election gave a 3-1 advantage in both houses to the pro-Union side, the state was not going to secede.

Likewise, no one boycotts an election they are going to have a shot at winning; because of gthe results of the June, 1861 Congressional election, nine loyalists were elected to one pro-secessionists (54,000 vote majority, in fact), which put the writing on the wall.

There's also the reality that there were strong loyalist forces in place, even by the middle of 1861; the State Guard, which included loyalists along with Magoffin's partisans, was backed up by the Home Guards (outside of the governor's authority, with some 10,000 being armed by the federal government) as well as the 1st and 2nd Kentucky, already organizing in Ohio, the Union Club in Louisville (6,000 strong), and a variety of Kentucky units being organized in Indiana, as well. By September 1, Nelson had ~4,000 Kentuckians and half as many Tennesseans at Camp Robinson, and other loyal units were organizing elsewhere in the state.

Polk occupied Columbus, in large part, because he was concerned the Kentucky loyalists would bar his forces anyway, and if Polk hadn't jumped the gun Sept. 3, presumably Zollicoffer would have at Cumberland Ford. The Legislature had already voted to require Polk's forces leave Kentucky, which Magoffin vetoed and which was promplty passed over his veto.

By the end of the year, there were 34 regiments of USV infantry and cavalry already organized in Kentucky; over the course of the war, almost 76,000 Kentuckians enlisted in the USVs/USCTs, almost 52,000 of them "white"... and that doesn't count Kentuckians in the regulars or who enlisted in other USV units.

Bottom line, none of the border states were going to secede; the number of enlistments alone show where sentiment lay:

Delaware: 12,000+
Maryland: 46,000+
(West) Virginia: 32,000+
Kentucky: 75,000+
Missouri: 109,000+
Total: 274,000

"Rebel" state enlistments in the USVs (i.e. white):
Alabama: ~2,600
Arkansas: ~8,300
Florida: ~1,300
Louisiana: ~5,200
Mississippi: 545
North Carolina: ~3,200
Tennessee: 31,000+
Texas: ~2,000
Total: 54,000

USCTs numbered ~180,000, of which more than half (~99,000) enlisted in southern states.

All figures are from Dyer and the OR, but rounded.

Best,
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The strength of pro-Union sentiment may be somewhat exaggerated, since pro-Southerners boycotted the Congressional elections. But Unionist sentiment was clearly in the majority; that's why the Southerners boycotted the elections in the first place. The only question is how large the Unionist majority was.

There was obviously no reliable polling back then, but I think it's fair to say that opinion was roughly 60-65% for the Union and 35-40% for the Confederacy. Something like 30,000 Kentuckians served in the Confederate Army and 75,000 in the Union Army, but you have to factor in the fact that the Union controlled the state for almost the entire war and was thus able to recruit its men much more easily. That, and many of those counted in the Union column were U.S.C.T. troops. But I think opinion had turned by 1864 towards the Confederate cause, largely thanks to the brutal and often stupid military rule of General Stephen Burbridge (aka "The Butcher of Kentucky").

Interestingly, after the war, Kentucky arguably became the most "Confederate" state of all. Its postwar politics were dominated by men who had served the Confederacy.
 
There was obviously no reliable polling back then, but I think it's fair to say that opinion was roughly 60-65% for the Union and 35-40% for the Confederacy. Something like 30,000 Kentuckians served in the Confederate Army and 75,000 in the Union Army, but you have to factor in the fact that the Union controlled the state for almost the entire war and was thus able to recruit its men much more easily. That, and many of those counted in the Union column were U.S.C.T. troops. But I think opinion had turned by 1864 towards the Confederate cause, largely thanks to the brutal and often stupid military rule of General Stephen Burbridge (aka "The Butcher of Kentucky").

Interestingly, after the war, Kentucky arguably became the most "Confederate" state of all. Its postwar politics were dominated by men who had served the Confederacy.

By the autumn of 1862, public opinion was against the confederacy.

Ome of the sad things about it's post war history is the ridiculous number of monuments to confederate soldiers and generals that were erected between 1890-1930. They played a large part in revising the history of the confederacy; and the aging veterans could do nothing about it. Today, many Kentuckians would be shocked to know that their ancestors fought for the north.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
If you look at the organization dates of Kentucky USV units

There was obviously no reliable polling back then, but I think it's fair to say that opinion was roughly 60-65% for the Union and 35-40% for the Confederacy. Something like 30,000 Kentuckians served in the Confederate Army and 75,000 in the Union Army, but you have to factor in the fact that the Union controlled the state for almost the entire war and was thus able to recruit its men much more easily. That, and many of those counted in the Union column were U.S.C.T. troops. But I think opinion had turned by 1864 towards the Confederate cause, largely thanks to the brutal and often stupid military rule of General Stephen Burbridge (aka "The Butcher of Kentucky").

Interestingly, after the war, Kentucky arguably became the most "Confederate" state of all. Its postwar politics were dominated by men who had served the Confederacy.

If you look at the organization dates of Kentucky USV units, it's interesting:

34 regiments organized entirely in 1861, or in 1861-62; 11 more in 1862; 11 in 1863, four in 1865; that's not really an atypical pattern for a loyal state, border or otherwise.

Lincoln did better in Kentucky in 1864 than he had in 1860, certainly.;)

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/Moments09RS/web/Lincoln moments 25.pdf

Best,
 
Top