WI: Kentucky is Taken by the Confederacy

Magoffin was solidly pro-Confederate and wanted the state to secede, the legislature was much more pro-union and wanted to stay Union, the eventual results was neutrality. Most of the state by area supported the Confederacy, but the population was concentrated along the Ohio river, and Louisville has the Falls of the Ohio which can provide an effective blockade for any shipping up river. Southern Illinois was also flirting with secession and a Confederate KY might make Cairo - Mt Vernon area tempted to leave. KY has signficiant industry, coal resources, manpower, tobacco, a north-south railroad, and notable coal resources. You can control the Ohio without putting troops in Indiana, Ohio, or Illinois if KY is frmy under your control though in this case I don't think the CSA would have rock-solid control in a war situation. At one point in 1862 KY was largely under Confederate domination and Bragg could easily have swung west from Lexington to take Louisville, leaving Cincinnati open and exposing Indianapolis to danger. Remember that a lot of Union manpower comes from states on the northern side of the river, and if Rebels are rampaging across the homestead what will those Union troops in the East do?

I'm not sure it would win them the war or even drag the war on, most of KY thinks of itself as a Southern state these days anyway so not sure that even taking the state has a dramatic outcome...
 
Probably not. Iirc, in the August 1861 State elections, the Unionist majority in the Legislature slightly increased. But the legislators evidently saw no reason to call a Convention. After all, they didn't need one in order to stay in the Union.

This was the case in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia and none of those states' populations wishes were respected with regard to which side of the war they were dragooned to fighting on.
 
This was the case in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia and none of those states' populations wishes were respected with regard to which side of the war they were dragooned to fighting on.


Not quite the same thing. Those other states voted against secession prior to the war, but switched over after its outbreak.

The elections in Kentucky still went "Union" even when the war was well under way.
 
Not quite the same thing. Those other states voted against secession prior to the war, but switched over after its outbreak.

The elections in Kentucky still went "Union" even when the war was well under way.

Not exactly, there's a reason each of these three states was a hotbed of Unionism. This in fact is how West Virginia came into being, that and Lee's first offensive failure. The Ozarks and East Tennessee had strong Unionist elements and were running sores in the Confederate body politic from the first. Of course regardless of rhetoric the Confederacy was never a democracy in the first place, so.......
 
I grew up in Lexington, and you would think that Kentucky was taken by the confederacy. There is a statue downtown to confederate John Hunt morgan, and the flag was raised several times over the courthouse during the coarse of the war.
I read somewhere once that Lincoln was especially worried about kentucky joining the CSA because that would increase the likelyhood of Maryland, which would place the white house in a sea of confederacy.
In school we're taught that kentucky stayed neutral, but in fact was more a microsm of the war itself, much in the way that it way it was also fought in Kansas. Union Militia from Louisville fought men from Confederate Paducah, etc. In fact, the confederacy felt enough support in Kentucky to represent them with the middle star of their flag. So i've heard, anyway.
As far as the reason they didnt follow Virginia's lead, it has to do with Kentucky being culturally divided. The legislative and populated portion in the west (spanning from louisville to lexington, ending about at slade) is distinct from the eastern region, which has more in common with Southwest virginia, southern West virginia, northern tennesee, so on, being part of the Coal Belt.
And finally, in response to the fact that many other states boarder the Ohio river, ownership of Kentucky would almost guarantee control of it. This is due to the placement of cinncinnati, which started as a fort. It is literally right across the river from Kentucky. It would be a lot easier to take and reinforce with troops pulled form lexington and Louisville than from the Columbus/dayton area, which were more sparesely populated during the war.
 
I am reading the book 'Civil War in Kentucky', and it states that the most fateful moment concerning Kentucky and the Confederacy came when Generals Polk and Pillow (defying the will of their superiors in Richmond) decided to occupy Columbus, thus being the first to violate the official neutrality of that state and inadvertently ensured that Kentucky would remain with the Union for the duration of the war. And to top it off, they were both so incompetent that they failed to make the most of their initial invasion of the state by not also occupying Paducah.

As it happened both Grant and Fremont also had plans to occupy Columbus, which leads me to my question:

What would have happened had Grant and Fremont occupied Columbus first (also being the first to violate Kentucky's neutrality), and how would that have changed the trajectory of the war?
 
Top