What If Kentucky had become Confederate?

[richard]

At the start of the war, Kentucky remained a slave state but had declared itself to be neutral. Most people who study the war, are fully aware that General Leonidas Polk made it possible for the Union to enter Kentucky by his attack on Columbus, Ky in September 1861.

What might have happened if Kentucky elected to join the Confederacy ?
Three important factors must be taken into consideration. First, the non slave population, the third largest behind Missouri, and Virginia. Second, the horse and mule population and third, the 500 mile water boundry of the Ohio river and not to be overlook, the control of the Tennessee and Cumberland river.

I hope to hear some very good answers from all of you, the professors of civil war history

[william42]

Hey Richard: Good question/thread. If you drive down into Kentucky without knowing any history of the Civil War, you might actually think Kentucky was a Confederate state, just judging by the Johnny Reb statues on most of the courthouse lawns.

I think that issue was probably won of Lincolns greatest worries. It's one of the reasons he didn't declare slaves freed in any of the non-Confederate states. He knew he would lose Kentucky.

To keep it short, if Kentucky had gone to the Confederacy, there would not have been much of a change in anything, at least enough to tip the scales toward a different outcome of the war. Throughout the entire state people were divided, families were divided, as to which side to pledge their allegiance to. As we all know it was common for members of the same family to fight against each other in opposing armies. That still would have been the case regardless of whether Kentucky lay under a Confederate or Union banner, IMO.

Terry

[nbforrest]

Even if Kentucky went for the South, the Bowling Green line was untenable. It would have just become the first occupied Confederate state.

Respectfully

[samgrant]

The North would have had an 'Orphan Brigade'?

[richard]

When one really thinks about it, Missouri would have been a sitting duck for the southern armys if they had the necessary good leadership needed to win the state. Missouri had the largest number of non slave people of all the slave states. It is said that the addition of the states of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri would have added 45% more troops, added 80% more to the manufacturing and 40% more horses and mules to the Southern cause.

With Kentucky firmly in southern hands, the Union would have had a much harder time holding Missouri and St Louis. They may have been able to hold the Mississippi much longer than they did.

Nashville, the largest city in the south at that time, with its industry and distrubition system of rail roads could have been held much longer.

I hope that y'all can come up with more than i have.

[william42]

I hope that y'all can come up with more than i have.

I think I'm outta bullets....

[samgrant]

Apparently these states just were not convinced that sucession was the answer.

I wonder if there were any referendums on the issue in these states?

I think the Gov. of KY was fors sucession, but the KY congress was not.

Missouri was very mixed up!

[whitworth]

The problem with Kentucky and those with Confederate sympathies, was all those Yankees from Illinois, Indiana and Ohio were just across the Ohio River.

[william42]

An article I found on the subject.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...2052005/148703

Terry

[larry_cockerham]

Kentuck was rebal in their hearts where it counted. With much farmland, small population, no industry and political differences, the role of Kentucky was mostly to keep Indiana and Ohio from touching Tennessee .