neutral KY

Saphroneth

Banned
What you seem to be doing is translating a vote for a local man on a platform of ‘I agree with the law as it stands today and it would be nice to annex Cuba’ into support for secession which is a whole other thing.

Not really, no, I'm translating "recruited into the CSA when that was possible" into support for the CSA during the early stage and "recruited into the Union over the same time frame" as support for the Union during the same stage.


Note that I allow for people to change their minds over time.

There's also the very, very suspect "infantry regiments" comparison when it's already been mentioned that a large fraction of CSA recruits from Kentucky were cavalry - that's veering close to actively obfuscating facts!
 
Yes really yes.

Its possible to recruit into the CSA for well over a year, and if you include partisans the entire war. There are armed expeditions intending to recruit and Kentucky soldiers clearly felt able to walk home for furlough till Bragg started shooting them.

Noone shows up after the first surge.

Neutrality is a political convenience arranged by one faction who does not want to respond to the volunteer call and another who does. They pretty much agree to put this to the electorate and the electorate decisively goes Up With the Union. But the whole thing happens at the pace of mid 19th century rural economy so the result takes time.

The only ‘evidence’ of any greater support for the south is the vote for Breckenridge which is a vote for a Unionist ( at the time).

As said the whole issue of Border state support, and copperhead support oop north, Union support darn sarf has been done to death in great detail in any number of learned papers.

I agree counting regiments per se is not helpful. One Ky Confederate regiment surrenders in in its entirety at Donelson all 302 of them ( TOE is 1000 inf or cav). Several of the Union regiments are noted as missing one or two companies. One thing worth considering is a full TOE cav regiment costs $300k 1860 ppl to equip and $100k pa to maintain.

The large numbers of rebel cavalry units from Ky I would suggest are understrength units raised from the relative wealth of the planter class, using weapons at hand, shotguns, pistols, they are recruited from the sons of Gentlemen and their immediate neighbours who could ride off to war easily compared with the freeborn free soil yeomen who have to get the harvest in first and issued with a musket and trained and drilled.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Then come up with a comparison of US and rebel cavalry

Not really, no, I'm translating "recruited into the CSA when that was possible" into support for the CSA during the early stage and "recruited into the Union over the same time frame" as support for the Union during the same stage.


Note that I allow for people to change their minds over time.

There's also the very, very suspect "infantry regiments" comparison when it's already been mentioned that a large fraction of CSA recruits from Kentucky were cavalry - that's veering close to actively obfuscating facts!

Then come up with a comparison of US and rebel cavalry recruited in Kentucky at the same time, summer of 1861 through the winter of 1861-62.

According to the NPS database, there appears to have been exactly one full regiment of rebel cavalry recruited at this time, the 1st:

http://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-...tFunctionCode=I&multiselect=I&battleUnitName=

The Link to the CWS&S database was provided earlier, as well.

Worth noting is that the nine rebel infantry regiments recruited in the same period appear to have all been redesignated as mounted infantry later in the war, which presumably accounts for the "more Kentuckians served as cavalry with the rebels" meme.

Then there are various battalions, squadrons, troops, consolidated regiments, new regiments of cavalry, mounted rifles, mounted infantry, etc that are formed, reformed, disbanded, etc over the next four years - as well as multiple units for which no history is available, out to a total of 78 units of various types and establishment dates. You are more than welcome to dig through the database to satisfy your own curiosity.

The obvious inference that can be made is that the rebellion just as not all that popular in Kentucky, whereas Kentuckians came out in large numbers for the US, and in 1861 ... Which is, of course, supported by results of the elections held in 1861-62. Elections, of course, are generally not held in occupied "enemy" territory...

So if the figure of five Kentucky loyalist cavalry regiments is compared to the figure of one rebel cavalry regiment organized as such, and the figure of 28 loyal infantry regiments is compared to the figure of nine rebel infantry regiments, all of the above organized as such in the first year of the rebellion (April, 1861 to April, 1862), one still sees the reality.

Best,
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
I agree counting regiments per se is not helpful. One Ky Confederate regiment surrenders in in its entirety at Donelson all 302 of them ( TOE is 1000 inf or cav). Several of the Union regiments are noted as missing one or two companies. One thing worth considering is a full TOE cav regiment costs $300k 1860 ppl to equip and $100k pa to maintain.

The large numbers of rebel cavalry units from Ky I would suggest are understrength units raised from the relative wealth of the planter class, using weapons at hand, shotguns, pistols, they are recruited from the sons of Gentlemen and their immediate neighbours who could ride off to war easily compared with the freeborn free soil yeomen who have to get the harvest in first and issued with a musket and trained and drilled.

Most regiments in American armies (US and CS) shrank as the war went on, raw numbers are better.
My point about the cavalry thing is that counting just infantry is deliberately biased.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah, the numbers are even worse (5-1) if one just counts

Most regiments in American armies (US and CS) shrank as the war went on, raw numbers are better.
My point about the cavalry thing is that counting just infantry is deliberately biased.

Yeah, the numbers are even worse (5-1) in favor of the US if one just counts cavalry regiments raised in 1861, apparently.

Please, post a link to a source that says otherwise.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Well if you have a source better than the NPS free numbers feel free to identify it.

The rgt I quoted presumably lost people between mustering and surrendering. the question is how many. For Union regiments there is a pretty good record or reasonable inference from companies raised that they were between 100 and 80% TOE on raising.

For the CSA there is no equivalent. But another Ky rgt at Donelson is recorded as raised August 61, 830 men October 81, 618 Surrendered at Donelson.

Balance of Probabilities is that a regiment raised around the same time that starts the battle 302 strong never recruited much over half TOE in the first place.


There really is no reason outside wishful thinking to suppose that there is a vast reservoir of confederate recruits just waiting to rise up. All the evidence is that there was not.

And there were lots of Union men
 

Saphroneth

Banned
So... roughly the same recruitment in raw numbers (not regiments) in 1861 for US and CS is evidence of being a pro union state?

That seems wrong.

I'd like a symmetric definition, basically - it can be recruitment in % of population.

And remember - events after a year or so of the start of the war become effectively irrelevant since the question is attitudes at the start of the war. (Otherwise you can look at how there were very few whites in the US in favour of uncompensated emancipation with no deportation, and conclude that the whole country was CSA!)


Heck, I've not even mentioned looking at the extent to which the later Union recruitment might have been due to the draft...
 
Last edited:
So... roughly the same recruitment in raw numbers (not regiments) in 1861 for US and CS is evidence of being a pro union state?

No the results of an election do.

The size of the army is not a function of support for the cause but of money available to pay troops and perceived level of threat.

That itself varies from arm to arm and level of support intended and is influenced by pre war military training which raised questions as to the level of organisation and selection for pre war militias.


I suggest you go to the NPS website and start looking through kentucky regiments histories TF has given the link a couple of times. Its a good place to start but after that you will probably need to delve into individual unit histories or search learned journals for someone that has done the PhD on this.
 
Top