Given that the Union had a pretty solid naval advantage along the riverways, I'm thinking not much would change.
Impact of Kentucky Joining CSA
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
True. For it to work we must have Maryland be amongst the first to seceede.
That said, could Kentucky alone really make that big of a difference?
Saphroneth
Banned
Kentucky being in Confederate hands (partly or wholly) at the start of the war moves the opening border north. It means that the offensives of the early war have further to go, and it gives extra protection to Chattanooga.
It also offers a substantial amount of industry for the CSA, which offers the possibility of butterflies down the line, and allows for additional CSA recruitment in Kentucky (which could prove important.)
One thing to remember is that people saw themselves less as citizens of the United States but instead as Virginians, or New Yorkers or in this case Kentuckians. I think alot the men who fought for Union in OTL would have followed there state and fought for the South, it could make a difference in the manpower in west for the Confederates
There are already states we can look to for an example of a split state, where the State joined but a chunk of it didn't.
While Kentucky is less likely to join, and there's going to be a hell of a Unionist insirgency, it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
I think the views of the population could make it a poisoned chalice.
Saphroneth
Banned
Again (since it seemed to get lost) - are there any maps showing the relative Pro-Confederate vice Pro Union sympathy in areas of border states?
This is kind of close - slavery prevalence.
Interestingly there's actually a band of slavery across Iowa, which baffles me... but this also suggests that Kentucky has a low-slavery East and a high-slavery West. This colours the discussion here as it means the Mississippi River is buttressed by this area of likely CS sympathy. (Kentucky as a whole has as much slavery as Tennessee and is if anything more slave-populated than Arkansas.)
It also shows the sheer depth of the presence of slavery in Maryland - it honestly does look just like much of the South proper. Rather explains the "military occupation" charge.
This is kind of close - slavery prevalence.
Interestingly there's actually a band of slavery across Iowa, which baffles me... but this also suggests that Kentucky has a low-slavery East and a high-slavery West. This colours the discussion here as it means the Mississippi River is buttressed by this area of likely CS sympathy. (Kentucky as a whole has as much slavery as Tennessee and is if anything more slave-populated than Arkansas.)
It also shows the sheer depth of the presence of slavery in Maryland - it honestly does look just like much of the South proper. Rather explains the "military occupation" charge.
Here's the thing - Kentucky's unionism ran deep up to and during the war in a lot of the state that had the industry, and a lot of the people. I had a professor who used Kentucky as an example of American culture groupings trumping history, because it only got all Lost Cause-y... after a whole generation of Kentuckians had fought to defeat that Cause.
It is a divided state, much closer to the Union's sources of supply, and easily reached by water from those sources. The number of men to hold, plus the number of men required to fight off the Western Department seems like it would be prohibitive. I'm imagining Shiloh - only with bushwhackers behind the CSA lines. And I'm also remembering just how successful Lee was in handing out guns to pro-CSA Marylanders when we talk about "they could raise more men".
Again (since it seemed to get lost) - are there any maps showing the relative Pro-Confederate vice Pro Union sympathy in areas of border states?
This is kind of close - slavery prevalence.
Interestingly there's actually a band of slavery across Iowa, which baffles me... but this also suggests that Kentucky has a low-slavery East and a high-slavery West. This colours the discussion here as it means the Mississippi River is buttressed by this area of likely CS sympathy. (Kentucky as a whole has as much slavery as Tennessee and is if anything more slave-populated than Arkansas.)
It also shows the sheer depth of the presence of slavery in Maryland - it honestly does look just like much of the South proper. Rather explains the "military occupation" charge.
That's Missouri. It's okay, a lot of the Midwest ones kind of look the same.
Saphroneth
Banned
Ah, okay, I thought the big ol' river was a state border.
Still interesting there's slavery so far north.
Something that's worth considering is that, by definition, a civil war is a war over legitimacy. An army briefly present in an area which has been under occupation for two years has less legitimacy than an army which has been invited in by the legitimately elected State government, so you could see an effect there.
As a minor point, one of the bugbears of the CS early in the war in the west was that some of the best sites for forts stopping up the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers were in Kentucky, which they couldn't get to because of the neutrality thing. The war in the west happens the way it does because the Union blitzed its way into a secure base for operations into the deep south at Nashville in the first months of 1862, and the Confederates had to struggle just to stay on the scoreboard.
Kentucky could make a very useful speedbump in terms of manpower and space while the Confederates fortify all the important transportation junctions south of the Ohio. A.S. Johnston told his engineer to fortify the Cumberland river running through Nashville, and the governor told him to piss off, so it fell without a fight. Murfreesboro, Chattanooga, Memphis, Mobile, Corinth-build lots of sites where few can delay many. If Chattanooga is still in Confederate hands in fall 1864, they have a good chance of holding on to their territorial integrity until the democrats take office.
The war continues to a successful conclusion because Abraham Lincoln is president and can get the political and economic support he needs; he gets reelected because of a trifecta of victories at Atlanta, Mobile, and 3rd Winchester, and throughout the war his legitimacy is tied to Union battlefield victories. Setting back the timetable for the Union advance in the west seriously complicates that, not to mention the importance of the west in supplying General Lee's army, the most important national institution in the Confederacy.
Kentucky could make a very useful speedbump in terms of manpower and space while the Confederates fortify all the important transportation junctions south of the Ohio. A.S. Johnston told his engineer to fortify the Cumberland river running through Nashville, and the governor told him to piss off, so it fell without a fight. Murfreesboro, Chattanooga, Memphis, Mobile, Corinth-build lots of sites where few can delay many. If Chattanooga is still in Confederate hands in fall 1864, they have a good chance of holding on to their territorial integrity until the democrats take office.
The war continues to a successful conclusion because Abraham Lincoln is president and can get the political and economic support he needs; he gets reelected because of a trifecta of victories at Atlanta, Mobile, and 3rd Winchester, and throughout the war his legitimacy is tied to Union battlefield victories. Setting back the timetable for the Union advance in the west seriously complicates that, not to mention the importance of the west in supplying General Lee's army, the most important national institution in the Confederacy.
Yeah, but you have to take some of that with a grain of salt. A lot of Kentuckians joined the CS IOTL, and that was with high barriers to entry, because the CS was nowhere near Kentucky for most of the war. Plus, the CS was losing for most of the war, especially from the standpoint of a Westerner. Nobody wants to die for a lost cause. Therefore, I think that the actual level of support for the Confederacy was higher than it might seem. The prevalence of slaveholding was a little less than Tennessee and a little more than Arkansas, and prevalence of slaveholding has been the most reliable gauge of Confederate support. I would imagine that its loyalty would be consistent with Tennessee, Virginia, or Arkansas. Which is to say, not very loyal, but still a net benefit to the Confederate war effort. http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
Anaxagoras
Banned
I think it would have made a tremendous difference. Firstly, as pointed out already, it shifts the border much farther north. Because of their ability to produce gunboats, the Union will not have too much difficulty establishing itself on the south bank of the Ohio River, but it would allow the Confederates to secure the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers by fortifying themselves at Paducah, which will prove a much tougher nut to crack than Fort Henry and Fort Donelson turned out to be. It also means that the Confederates will have a much easier time holding Columbus, making the Upper Mississippi more secure. More than likely, the Union will eventually secure these positions, but it will take longer and be more costly. In the end, we would see the 1862 campaigns over fought Kentucky rather than Tennessee, lengthening the war and making a negotiated peace in 1864 much more possible.
There will still be a hard core of Unionist supporters from Kentucky that will go over to the Union, as there were IOTL in Virginia and North Carolina. But if the fence-sitters who eventually donned the blue IOTL don the gray ITTL, we can add several tens of thousands of men to the Confederate ranks. Kentucky would also provide enormous quantities of horses and rich pastureland, thus strengthening their cavalry. Foodstuffs and industry would also be greatly increased.
OTL, I think Kentucky was somewhat undermobilized for the Confederacy; when they made their invasion in 1862, they did it without the most famous Kentuckian (aside from Lincoln, Davis, and A.S. Johnston, who were all identified with adopted states), former Vice President General Breckinridge, and without the Kentucky Orphan Brigade. Much harder to get people to flock to your colors when they're all down in Baton Rogue.
I don't think the U.S. wins the war without Grant. If a Confederate Kentucky TL can contrive a defeat for him that leads to him chasing Indians around Minnesota (and McClellan is no longer General in Chief after spring 1862), then I think the Confederacy has a very good chance of keeping its territorial integrity until you have foreign recognition or a Democrat armistice. Tennessee is pretty defensible terrain; rocky, lots of mountains, ridges, IIRC there are concentric rings of hills around Clarkesville. When Hood tried to besiege Nashville in 1864, his men could only scrape 2 foot trenches in the frozen, rocky soil. With the luxury of time provided by the Kentucky speedbump, you can throw up all kinds of forts across the state. Slogging through TN is going to be long and very bloody without Grant, though Rosecrans might be better regarded than OTL without being constantly scapegoated.
I don't think the U.S. wins the war without Grant. If a Confederate Kentucky TL can contrive a defeat for him that leads to him chasing Indians around Minnesota (and McClellan is no longer General in Chief after spring 1862), then I think the Confederacy has a very good chance of keeping its territorial integrity until you have foreign recognition or a Democrat armistice. Tennessee is pretty defensible terrain; rocky, lots of mountains, ridges, IIRC there are concentric rings of hills around Clarkesville. When Hood tried to besiege Nashville in 1864, his men could only scrape 2 foot trenches in the frozen, rocky soil. With the luxury of time provided by the Kentucky speedbump, you can throw up all kinds of forts across the state. Slogging through TN is going to be long and very bloody without Grant, though Rosecrans might be better regarded than OTL without being constantly scapegoated.
Saphroneth
Banned
Definitionally the border is - at the start of the war - the line on a map.
The difference between OTL and TTL would be, for example, that the Confederacy could form an army inside Kentucky and take all the important points as noted by people like dandan. (OTL they had to race the Union for the points, where the Union had formed armies ready - as they could do due to their manpower advantage.)
Anaxagoras
Banned
Indeed. During their invasion of the summer and autumn of 1862, the Confederates encountered little support or sympathy in the eastern part of the state, but much more in central Kentucky.
It's been said that Kentucky waited until after Appomattox to secede. Its postwar politics was dominated by former Confederates for decades.
I'm a firm believer that Kentucky in the CSA is a significant game changer in terms of population, industry, and border security. The addition of Kentucky opens the state to recruiting for pro-Confederate soldiers. Now the state will definitely divided in terms of pro-Confederate and pro-Union populations. Still, having additional recruitment potential is huge in the early stage of the war. The same can be said of industry, which will be incredibly useful for obvious reasons. Having the border on the Ohio River changes the game in the Western Theater, and, to some extent, the Eastern and Trans-Mississippi Theaters. In order to take control of the Mississippi River, the Union has to capture more territory. In addition, Kentucky needs to be overrun in order to even attack Tennessee. If the Union wants to take Eastern Kentucky, then it would also have to divert troops from Western Virginia. Early on, the advantage goes to the Confederacy. There is just no way around it. It directly impacts two theaters and indirectly impacts another. Plus it gives the Confederates an easier time to attack Southeastern Missouri.
EMTSATX
Banned
I can not Really add much to this it echo's my thoughts.
The only thing is Lincoln thought the war lost if Kentucky seceded.
His opinion wasn't unfounded. I'm not inclined to disagree with his opinion either. The war would have been lost if Maryland also seceded, but for different reasons (Washington, D.C. isolated). This is a big part of why Maryland was occupied by Federal troops to prevent them from even discussing secession.
Saphroneth
Banned
Something it might be worth thinking about is that OTL at the start of 1862 the CSA actually had slight numerical superiority in the Kentucky-Tennessee region.
And of course, since my perpetual Issue for this topic is the number of rifles and other small arms in Federal v CSA hands, do we know how many rifles were in the hands of the State of Kentucky? (I'm not expecting much, it looks like there's no Federal armoury in the state, but since the first-year mobilization constraint was the number of small arms in the country even a few thousand could be fairly important.
And of course, since my perpetual Issue for this topic is the number of rifles and other small arms in Federal v CSA hands, do we know how many rifles were in the hands of the State of Kentucky? (I'm not expecting much, it looks like there's no Federal armoury in the state, but since the first-year mobilization constraint was the number of small arms in the country even a few thousand could be fairly important.