Independent Kentucky?

So I've read, Kentucky was an interesting case during the Civil War. It declared itself neutral at the very beginning, and subsequently had two different governments and representation in the legislatures of both the CSA and USA.

Is it possible that Kentucky could become independent as a result of the war? In a split Union, could Kentucky wind up being North America's Switzerland?
 
It shouldn't be impossible, if you do manage to wriggle the CSA out of the Union's hands. it is also something hat hasn't been tried before and a new take on the whole independent south, aside from the independent industrialized CSA that is always at odd with the Union cliche, is always welcomed.
 
Based on the way it had two governments, isn't the more likely option that it becomes its own private battleground, fought over by Kentuckian supporters of the two states?

I must admit, I'm no expert, so I'm half hoping someone will tell me how I am wrong, but that's how it seems on the face of it.
 
Near ASB. It is relatively small compared to both the USA and CSA who both want it. It will be gobbled up by either or both even if the CSA wins.
 
I don't know about an independent Kentucky, but breaking up the state is certainly within the realm of possibilities: just look at Virginia during the war. Should Kentucky secede from the Union (willingly or not), many of the Eastern Counties could feasibly choose to secede from the rest of the state for much the same reasons West Virginia chose to join the Union.

Of course, I'm no expert, but being a native Kentuckian has to count for something :).
 
Is it possible that Kentucky could become independent as a result of the war? In a split Union, could Kentucky wind up being North America's Switzerland?

No. The Union's attitude towards secession, and the means they were willing to employing in crushing it, are too well demonstrated to consider this possible.
 
Armed neutrality

For Kentucky to pull off its independence after the CSA successfully suceeds, it requires several things, IMVHO.

The main thing is that the state be united--and that needs some serious explaining. If it's not united, then the state likely splits in half at some point.

Kentucky also has to be expensive to seize, or sooner or later, it will be collected.

One remotely possible scenario I can think of: Kentucky ends up in the CSA, but is decidedly NOT happy with that over time. So, it wants to leave. The CSA can see that trying to stop it would result in the break-up of the Confederacy. (The states just fought a war over the right to leave; I can't see them fighting to prevent a state from leaving...)

But having Northern Armies in Kentucky would be a bad thing. So, the USA, CSA, and Kentucky negotiate a pact, where Kentucky becomes neutral. How long it would last is another story...
 
as a native kentuckian as well, i should know more than i do. i know that ky was strategic to both the north and the south, and technically claimed by both. Lincoln even said, if we lose ky we might as well lose maryland, and then there goes the war (not his exact words). KY also is represented by the middle star on the confederate flag. Independence, which would be awesome, seems impossible. The only way i can see that happening is a longer war with less decisive victories, and a strong independence movement rather than polarization. I do know that lexington changed hands several times, and we have a statue to Hunt Morgan downtown. You would think it was a confederate city all along
 
Kentucky never wanted to be independent. It wanted to prevent pro-Union and pro-Confederate Kentuckians from killing each other.

Its course of "neutrality" was never viable. At some point, it was going to be plunged into the maelstrom along with the rest of the country. Ultimately, it is going to join one side or the other, and in the end remain part of the Union once the Federal Government puts down the rebellion.
 
So I've read, Kentucky was an interesting case during the Civil War. It declared itself neutral at the very beginning, and subsequently had two different governments and representation in the legislatures of both the CSA and USA.

Is it possible that Kentucky could become independent as a result of the war? In a split Union, could Kentucky wind up being North America's Switzerland?

Not really possible considering the pro-Unionist state legislature that dominated the state government during the war. Also you have to stop CSA Maj. Gen. Leonidas Polk from occupying Coloumbus KY in 1861. That occupation is what drove the KY legislature into the Unionist camp.
 
all but impossible for Kentucky to become its own country, do to the size of its neighbors and the lack of a strong enough national identitiy to go it alone.
 
Not really possible considering the pro-Unionist state legislature that dominated the state government during the war. Also you have to stop CSA Maj. Gen. Leonidas Polk from occupying Coloumbus KY in 1861. That occupation is what drove the KY legislature into the Unionist camp.

Perhaps that could be the POD. Instead of running to the arms of the Union, the state militia -- or something -- could be drawn up to fight off Polk and his army, which has "violated Kentucky's neutrality." You'd need a reason for the changed in decision, but it isn't quite ASB. Stranger Things Have Happened™.
 
Perhaps that could be the POD. Instead of running to the arms of the Union, the state militia -- or something -- could be drawn up to fight off Polk and his army, which has "violated Kentucky's neutrality."

In which case the state would still become a battlefield; the CSA would reinforce Polk, if not in response to the militia's demonstration, then certainly in response to the Union troops that would be pouring in whether Kentucky thought it was neutral or not. Washington's attitude towards states that ignored or defied the Federal Government is entirely too well demonstrated to believe otherwise.
 
Top