Confederate Kentucky - Planning Thread

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OldReliable1862

Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
Hi everybody, my Confederate Kentucky timeline has languished in development hell for a while now, and will likely be there a little longer still. My main reason for this is concerns over plausibility in various respects. I've asked several of the best minds available on both this site and other places to gather information. To avoid spamming this forum and various poor members' inboxes with questions on various topics, I've decided to create this thread as a catch-all for my questions and to propose ideas.

*************************************

Basic Premise: In the elections in April-May, June, and August 1861 at the Border State Convention, U.S. House of Representatives, and state legislature, the pro-Southern States' Rights Party does slightly better at each election. In September, Frémont orders Grant to take Paducah, causing the state legislature to call upon the Confederacy to defend the state.


Questions:
Now that one of Lincoln's worst fears has just been realized, how does he react? I think it's safe to say Frémont is out.

How does this change the Union's overall strategy? McClellan suggested moving a large chunk of his men to Kentucky in early 1862, does this give us any clues?

What will the Kentucky State Guard do? One idea would be to send them to deal with Camp Dick Robinson, but I'm really not sure.

I'm guessing there will still be a battle between Grant and Polk/Pillow. How it will go, I'm not sure, both armies were very green.

I'm also guessing Louisville is going to stay pro-Union, and will be the jumping point for any Union assault into the state.

In Kentucky, it appears there were men who would side with either the Unionists or Secessionists no matter what, but the largest chunk would have sided with their state. My guess is pretty much our history in reverse: roughly 60,000-70,000 men fighting for the Confederacy, and about 30,000-40,000 for the Union.

With Kentucky being where the main battle lines are drawn, it seems Tennessee, particularly Nashville and the industry there, will be much safer.

There are just a few questions/observations, feel free to answer any or make me aware of things I overlooked.

Also, map of Kentucky:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=//www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/as/search?os=0&mid=RUMSEY~8~1~237326~5511102&bs=10
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
Well if you're going to have Kentucky and other border states like Missouri be won by the pro-secessionist Southern Rights' Party perhaps changing one detail like having a Radical Republican president such as John C. Fremont or someone who sympathizes with them like Hannibal Hamlin might be enough to acheive this result in the process.

The thing is about Abraham Lincoln was that he was a moderate Republican and a pragmatist he was willing to compromise with the peculiar institution in the border states since he came from Kentucky and was a Southerner himself though over time he had close connections to the states of Indiana and Illinois so unlike the Radical Republicans he knew he had to appeal to the border states of Missouri and Kentucky by pledging not to abolish their institutions: "I think to lose Kentucky is to lose the whole game" as Lincoln stated himself.

In fact for much of 1861 and 1862 until Antietam Lincoln had chosen not to abolish the institution while he certainly opposed it that was only on an expansion basis he stated in his first inagural address that he had no purpose to interfere with the institutions in the South since he knew he did not have the constitutional authority to do it going as far as to endorse the Corwin Amendment (which would have made slavery legal and irrevocable) stating he had no objections to it being made, he also repealed the Fremont Emancipation in August 1861 because he knew that it would alienate many Missourians and Kentuckians away from the Union and into the Confederacyam , up until August 1862 he stated to Horace Greeley that the sole purpose of fighting the Civil War was simply the preservation of the Union and that he could save it by not freeing any slaves or by freeing some but leaving others in chains, even when he did issue the Emancipation Proclaimation he only targeted those in rebellion against the government and not any of the border states or Union-occupied areas including loyal slaveholders he himself noted that this was a war measure. By the time Reconstruction came, Lincoln planned to do a reconciliatory approach towards the Southern states like Andrew Johnson which is the reasons why Radical Republicans hated him and had formed their own political party (the Radical Democracy Party) in 1864 by running the aforementioned John C. Fremont as their candidate but he dropped out and theu already passed their own plan called the Wade-Davis Bill in contrast to Lincoln's ten percent plan.

A consequence of having either the Radical Republicans or some one close to them in terms of having similar policies in control of the Presidency means an earlier Upper South secession in OTL these states actually voted to remain in the Union and reject secession in conventions plus they also sent Unionist senators and congressmen in seats in the House of Representatives and Congress as many of the populace was pro-Union some of their senators even attended the Washington Peace Conference but after Lincoln's call for 75,000 these states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas) decided they didn't want to send troops against the Deep South states (South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) so they seceded and joined in. With a Radical Republican president like Fremont in charge the reaction from the Upper South states as well as the border states of Kentucky and Missouri is going to be different from a Moderate like Lincoln who tried a compromise in the sense that they secede earlier possibly including 2 border states as well and since Fremont of course issued the Fremont Emancipation this is going to drive away Missourians and Kentuckians in being in the Union and joining the Confederacy instead (which was their reaction to the order just like OTL) since unlike Lincoln Fremont and the Radicals were far more anti-peculiar institution and would have never made compromises of protecting their institutions.

As far some of what you said in your TL like the Kentucky State Guard going to Camp Dick Robinson or Louisville staying pro-Union well that depends (if you can give a book/source) since you have Grant go into Kentucky by occupying Padacuah thanks to Fremont instead of Polk going to Columbus, Kentucky this means Louisville residents aren't going to be too happy at the Union for what they did, probably there's going to be a battle of Grant vs. Polk/Pillow but given the latter two's incompetence in OTL I expect them to do poorly against the former. Since Kentucky is a Confederate state like you mentioned this means that any incursions into Tennessee are unlikely and Kentucky's role is going to be like that state in which there are a lot of battles fought there some of which act like Shiloh for example and it has a bit of industrial capacity as well as railroads and agriculture vital to the Confederate war effort.
 
Last edited:

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
In those circumstances how important might the Ohio river be in providing a barrier to the union forces pushing south? Or would they be likely to have control of river shipping/crossings and possibly also be able to move in from the east.

If the south could estanlish fortified positions on the south bank of the Ohio would you have something like Vicksburg in terms of blocking passage of the river for the union? Suspect this could have important economic as well as military influences? Although given that importance and how close it is to centres of industrial power of the north I could see the latter being able to destroy/conquer such positions and that far north its likely to be difficult for the rebels to maintain them.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
@BlueandGrayl, thanks for your input, though I don't plan on Missouri also seeing in increase in pro-Southern sentiments.
Thank you for my assistance (though others could come in too) in helping you craft this timeline. In regards to Missouri that state also had residents defensive of their institutions evidenced by their reactions like Kentucky to Fremont's order. It was home to the Missouri State Guard as well as pro-Confederate individuals like Claiborne Fox Jackson and Sterling Price. So perhaps having an increase in pro-Southern sentiment which occurred in OTL to the string of Confederate victories from Wilson's Creek to Lexington could happen here if you choose to.
 

OldReliable1862

Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
In those circumstances how important might the Ohio river be in providing a barrier to the union forces pushing south? Or would they be likely to have control of river shipping/crossings and possibly also be able to move in from the east.

If the south could estanlish fortified positions on the south bank of the Ohio would you have something like Vicksburg in terms of blocking passage of the river for the union? Suspect this could have important economic as well as military influences? Although given that importance and how close it is to centres of industrial power of the north I could see the latter being able to destroy/conquer such positions and that far north its likely to be difficult for the rebels to maintain them.
I think a fort at the meeting between the Cumberland, Tennessee, and the Ohio would be a good idea, along with at least a few batteries of big guns on the Columbus bluffs. I'd think that as soon as the Union takes Paducah, they'll move to take the bluffs.

For Kentucky's actual secession, I'm thinking it would be voted on by the legislature, or would a referendum be more likely? Would it even be possible, considering the way events are taking place?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
I think a fort at the meeting between the Cumberland, Tennessee, and the Ohio would be a good idea, along with at least a few batteries of big guns on the Columbus bluffs. I'd think that as soon as the Union takes Paducah, they'll move to take the bluffs.

For Kentucky's actual secession, I'm thinking it would be voted on by the legislature, or would a referendum be more likely? Would it even be possible, considering the way events are taking place?
If we were to use the example of the Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas when they seceded post-Fort Sumter in OTL when there were secession conventions called in those states these were rejected and there were Unionist delegates sent over Secessionist delegates but after Fort Sumter the opposite was true.

So for a possible (and successful) Kentucky (and possibly Missouri) secession it would emulate what their Upper South brethren did: Organize secession conventions for residents to vote and send Secessionist delegates thus leading the state(s) to join the Confederacy and leave the Union.

(As mentioned before it was due to Moderate Republican Abraham Lincoln election and his promises not to abolish their institutions the Upper South states chose to compromise in Washington, D.C. but when Fort Sumter came they refused to send troops and instead seceded with their Deep South brethren. In any Radical Republican presidency like Fremont such secession of the Upper South including the border states of Kentucky and Missouri occur much earlier)
 
Last edited:

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
I think a fort at the meeting between the Cumberland, Tennessee, and the Ohio would be a good idea, along with at least a few batteries of big guns on the Columbus bluffs. I'd think that as soon as the Union takes Paducah, they'll move to take the bluffs.

For Kentucky's actual secession, I'm thinking it would be voted on by the legislature, or would a referendum be more likely? Would it even be possible, considering the way events are taking place?
To be honest while it sounds like an interesting what if I have very little knowledge of such issues, being a Brit and fairly ignorant of internal US state politics at this point [ or nowadays for that matter.:wink:]

I think the big issue would be how easily the confederacy could get such big guns and the supporting resources that far north and protect them again northern attack. However get the feeling that, similar to the Mississippi, if it could restrict use of the Ohio for economic/commercial traffic its likely that have a big impact on the northern economy. However the same factors are likely to make their removal/destruction a high priority for the north so it could result in some heavy fighting.
 

OldReliable1862

Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
To be honest while it sounds like an interesting what if I have very little knowledge of such issues, being a Brit and fairly ignorant of internal US state politics at this point [ or nowadays for that matter.:wink:]

I think the big issue would be how easily the confederacy could get such big guns and the supporting resources that far north and protect them again northern attack. However get the feeling that, similar to the Mississippi, if it could restrict use of the Ohio for economic/commercial traffic its likely that have a big impact on the northern economy. However the same factors are likely to make their removal/destruction a high priority for the north so it could result in some heavy fighting.
If navigation of the Ohio is restricted, I'm sure that's going to be one of the first things the Union try to deal with. I'd think Union priorities might look something like this:
1) Allow the Ohio to be navigable.
2) Capture Frankfort, establish Unionist government.

Confederate priorities:
1) Protect Frankfort.
2) Protect L&N railroad
3) Keep Union from using Cumberland/Tennessee rivers.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OldReliable1862

Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
Here's a partial list of Union Kentucky infantry and cavalry units:
1st KY Inf
Org: March-April 1861 (Pendleton, Cincinnati, OH)
2nd KY Inf.
Org: June 1861 (Pendleton, Cincinnati, OH)
3rd KY Inf.
Org: 8 Oct. 1861 (Camp Dick Robinson, Danville, KY)
4th KY Inf.
Org: 9 Oct. 1861 (Camp Dick Robinson, KY)
5th KY Inf.
Org: 9 Sept. 1861 (Louisville, KY)
6th KY Inf.
Org: 24 Dec. 1861 (Camp Muldraugh's Hill, Elizabethtown/Shepherdsville, KY)
7th KY Inf.
Org: 22 Sept. 1861 (Camp Dick Robinson, KY)
8th KY Inf.
Org: Oct. 1861 (Estill Springs/Lebanon, KY)
9th KY Inf.
Org: 20 Nov. 1861 (Camp Boyle, Adair Co., KY)
10th KY Inf.
Org: 21 Nov. 1861 (Lebanon, KY)
11th KY Inf.
Org: 9 Dec. 1861 (Camp Calhoun, Calhoun, KY)
12th KY Inf.
Org: Co. A: 26 Sept. 1861/Cos. B-J: Dec. 1861-Jan. 1862 (Co. A: Camp Dick Robinson/Cos. B-J: Waitsboro, KY)
13th KY Inf.
Org: 10 Dec. 1861 (Camp Hobson, Greensburg, KY)
14th KY Inf.
Org: 10 Dec. 1861 (Camp Wallace, Louisan KY)
15th KY Inf.
Org: 14 Dec. 1861 (New Haven, KY)
16th KY Inf.
Org: 27 Jan. 1862 (Camp Kenton, KY)
17th KY Inf.
Org: Dec. 1861 (Hartford/Calhoun, KY)
18th KY Inf.
Org: 8 Feb. 1862 (?)
19th KY Inf.
Org: 2 Jan. 1862 (Camp Harwood, Harrodsburg, KY)
20th KY Inf.
Org: 6 Jan. 1862 (Lexington/Camp Dick Robinson/Smithfield, KY)
21st KY Inf.
Org: 31 Dec. 1861 (Camp Hobson/Camp Ward, KY)
22nd KY Inf.
Org: 20 Jan. 1862 (Louisa, Kentucky)
23rd KY Inf.
Org: 2 Jan. 1862 (Camp King, Lexington, KY)
24th KY Inf.
Org: 31 Dec. 1861 (Lexington, KY)
25th KY Inf.
Org: 1 Jan. 1862 (Camp Joe Anderson, Hopkinsville, KY)
26th KY Inf.
Org: July-Nov. 1861 (Owensboro, KY)
27th KY Inf.
Org: 21 March 1862 (Rochester, KY)
28th KY Inf.
Org: 10 Oct. 1861 (Louisville/New Haven, KY)

1st KY Cav.
Org: 28 Oct. 1861 (Liberty/Burkesville/Monticello, KY)
2nd KY Cav.
Org: 9 Sept. 1861 (Camp Joe Holt, Jeffersonville, IN/Camp Muldraugh's Hill, Elizabethtown, KY)
3rd KY Cav.
Org: 13 Dec. 1861 (Calhoun/McLean Co., KY)
4th KY Cav.
Org: 24 Dec. 1861 (Louisville, KY)
5th KY Cav.
Org: Dec. 1861-Feb. 1862 (Columbus, KY)

For a few of these units, I read that they were mustered together at least a month after being organized (several in March 1862, I believe).
 

OldReliable1862

Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
Our Point of Divergence (POD) is September 1861, when Robert Anderson was still in command at Louisville, before Sherman and Buell were given the position. The earliest order of battle I could find in the OR for the department was this one, can anyone find any earlier?

OR Ser. 1/Vol. 7, p. 460-461

Dept. of the Ohio OOB
30 Nov. 1861

BG(R) Don Carlos Buell

1st Bde. - BG (Albin F.) Schoepf
33 IN/12 KY/17 OH/38 OH

2nd Bde. - Col. Manson
10 IN/4 KY/10 KY/14 OH

3rd Bde. - Col. (Robert L.) McCook
2 MN/9 OH/35 OH/18 US

4th Bde. - BG (Lovell H.) Rousseau
6 IN/3 KY/1 OH/15 & 19 US (1 bn.)

5th Bde. - BG (Thomas J.) Wood
34 IL/29 IN/30 IN/77 PA

6th Bde. - BG (Richard W.) Johnston
32 IN/39 IN/15 OH/49 OH

7th Bde. - BG (James S.) Negley
38 IN/78 PA/79 PA/4 WI

8th Bde. - Col. (John B.) Turchin
19 IL/24 IL/37 IN/18 OH

9th Bde. - Col. (Joshua W.) Sill
3 OH/21 OH/33 OH/10 WI

10th Bde. - Col. (Jacob) Ammen
34 IN/36 IN/6 OH/24 OH

11th Bde. - BG (Jeremiah T.) Boyle
1 KY/9 KY/2 OH/59 OH

12th Bde. - Acting BG (Samuel P.) Carter
31 OH/6 KY/1 TN/2 TN

13th Bde. - Col. (Charles) Cruft
31 IN/44 IN/17 KY/- KY

14th Bde. - ?
42 IN/43 IN/11 KY/- KY

15th Bde. - Col. (Milo S.) Hascall
15 IN/17 IN/41 OH/51 OH

16th Bde. - ?
13 KY/15 KY/9 MI/3 MN
 
Last edited:

OldReliable1862

Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
OR Ser. 1/Vol. 7, p. 467-468

Dept. of the Ohio OOB
2 Dec. 1861

BG(R) Don Carlos Buell

1st Div. - BG George H. Thomas
● 1st Bde.
● 2nd Bde.
● 3rd Bde.
● 11th Bde.
● 12th Bde.

2nd Div. - BG Alexander McD. McCook
● 4th Bde.
● 5th Bde.
● 6th Bde.
● 7th Bde.

3rd Div. - BG Ormsby M. Mitchel
● 8th Bde.
● 9th Bde.
● 17th Bde.

4th Div. - BG William Nelson
● 10th Bde.
● 15th Bde.
● 19th Bde.

5th Div. - BG Thomas L. Crittenden
● 13th Bde.
● 14th Bde.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OldReliable1862

Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
OR Ser. 1/Vol. 7, p. 479

6 Dec. 1861
1st Div. - BG George H. Thomas
● 1st Bde. - BG A. Schoepf
○○33 IN/17 OH/12 KY/38 OH
● 2nd Bde. - Col. M. D. Manson
○○4 KY/14 OH/10 IN/10 KY
● 3rd Bde. - Col. R. L. McCook
○○18 US/2 MN/35 OH/9 OH
● 12th Bde. - Acting BG S. P. Carter
○○1 East TN/2 East TN/6 KY/31 OH
Not brigaded:
1 KY Cav/Sqn. IN Cav/Bty. B, 1 OH Arty/Bty. C, 1 OH Arty/Bty. B, KY Arty

Where's the 11th brigade?

****************************************
OR Ser. 1/Vol. 7, p. 503

17 Dec. 1861
18th Bde. - Col. Garfield
42 OH/40 OH/14 KY/- KY
****************************************
OR Ser. 1/Vol. 7, p. 529

3 Jan. 1862
19th Bde. - Col. W. B. Hazen
41 OH/46 IN/47 IN/6 KY
****************************************
OR Ser. 1/Vol. 7, p. 538

8 Jan. 1862
20th Bde. - Col. Forsyth
64 OH/65 OH/51 IN/- KY
21st Bde. - Col. Carr
40 IN/57 IN/58 IN/24 KY

Does anyone know what the 17th brigade's makeup was?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
Germany
Does anyone know what the 17th brigade's makeup was?
To December 1861 it apparently contained at least of the 3rd, 10th and 13th Ohio Infantry regiments thought I don´t know for sure if that were all. In 1862 the 13th was transferred but it got the 15th Kentucky and the 42nd Indiana, getting the new 88th Indiana shortly before the reorganization as well. Attached artillery was (at least at Perryville) Battery A, 1st Michigan Light Artillery.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
So it seems OldReliable1862 you have a bit of knowledge regarding units. OTL's Missouri and Kentucky still held a bit of a Confederate presence up until post-Fort Henry/Donelson February 1862 the former was where the Battle of Wilson's Creek was fought and won by the Confederates as a result they were able to have a string of victories going as far north as Lexington (only 40 miles from Kansas City) that resulted in about half the state falling to them even when it was reduced though there was still a considerable army under Sterling Price and the Missouri Guard in the southwestern portion of the state and about 80,000 pro-Confederate Missourians as stated by Henry W. Halleck himself while the latter there were parts of the state under Confederate control such as Bowling Green and Columbus Halleck explained that he could not attack their fortifications in the latter city because he didn't have enough men and that they were operating in enemy's territory all of this comes from the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion which includes Halleck's letter to Lincoln regarding the Confederate presence in Missouri and Kentucky only after Fort Henry/Donelson under Ulysses S. Grant did the Union successfully drive them out and the former would be the target of an expedition by Price in 1864 that failed after the Battle of Westport (also known as "The Gettysburg of the West") and the latter was idiotically invaded by Leonidas Polk (worst Civil War general) in September though the Confederates would reestablish a presence there as a result of winning at Richmond and Munfordville, Kentucky as well as capturing the state capital Frankfort followed by Frankfort enough to cause a panic in Louisville as well as possessing virtually the entire state according to Don Carlos Buell himself outside that city and Covington as wel as causing a state of emergency in Cincinnati, Ohio but due to the incompetence of Braxton Bragg in uniting with Edmund Kirby Smith as well corps commanders like Polk they would be driven out by Buell in Perryville, both states were also the subject of guerilla warfare and having iconic leaders most notably William Quantrill and John Hunt Morgan.

Lincoln himself understood the importance of the border states since he was from Kentucky (a border state) so he promised not to abolish their institutions in his first months in office and his emancipation plan was one of compensation but with a Radical Republican president like Fremont it's likely the Upper South would secede much earlier and in the border states of Kentucky and Missouri residents would otherwise be worried and resentful being not too happy at the prospect of a radical abolitionist administration taking control (see their reaction to Fremont's Emancipation) since many defended the peculiar institution perhaps leading to a much better result for Southern Rights' secessionists in those states.

But a Confederate Kentucky/Missouri timeline be it Fremont ordering Grant to take Paducah or a Radical Republican president in power (the latter I prefer) means that there is either going to be ATL equivalents or won't happen at all.


Plus judging from your profile picture it appears you are a Confederate descendant.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OldReliable1862

Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
@BlueandGrayl: Yes, my ggg-grandfather was a private in the 13th Georgia Infantry (thread here: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/resources-on-the-13th-ga-inf.148138/)

One idea I had was Fremont extending his Emancipation to Kentucky in addition to Missouri when he orders Grant south, helping force many Kentucky Unionists into the Southern camp. It's possible that this may not be necessary, as the fear that Fremont might do this could be enough.

Earlier in this thread, I suggested that about 60,000 Kentuckians might join the Confederate ranks here, and the state joining the Confederacy will make recruiting for the Union more difficult.

I think Sherman will still ask to be relieved, and Buell will probably still replace him. What happens strategy wise, I'm not sure.
 
Last edited:

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
@BlueandGrayl: Yes, my ggg-grandfather was a private in the 13th Georgia Infantry (thread here: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/resources-on-the-13th-ga-inf.148138/)

One idea I had was Fremont extending his Emancipation to Kentucky in addition to Missouri when he orders Grant south, helping force many Kentucky Unionists into the Southern camp. It's possible that this may not be necessary, as the fear that Fremont might do this could be enough.

Earlier in this thread, I suggested that about 60,000 Kentuckians might join the Confederate ranks here, and the state joining the Confederacy will make recruiting for the Union more difficult.

I think Sherman will still ask to be relieved, and Buell will probably still replace him. What happens strategy wise, I'm not sure.
A fellow from Georgia (the same stock as Alexander Stephens, Robert Toombs, Joseph E. Brown, and Howell Cobb). Many would-be Confederates in the Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas as well as some in the border states of Kentucky and Missouri were initially Unionists (as mentioned before) who wanted to stay and compromise but would not use force against the Deep South states of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas while the border state populations of Missouri and Kentucky were Conditional Unionists in the sense that they were supportive of their institutions and the South but would support the Union so as long as their not forcibly abolished (just like the other Upper South states they refused to send troops to suppress the Southern states) Abraham Lincoln of course had that in mind when he tried to appeal to them by not trying to threaten their way of life as evidenced by the reaction to John C. Fremont (a Radical Republican despite his Southern background being born in Savannah, Georgia) emancipation order in Missouri which caused a lot of Kentuckians and Missourians to be angry for example one regiment of Kentucky Union volunteers dropped their guns and disbanded upon hearing the order (Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation) while General Robert Anderson noted that a company of Missouri Union volunteers were about to sworn into service until they heard about Fremont's order (Abraham Lincoln: A Life Volume II) and Lincoln understood that if it were not to repealed to sum it up in his words would be disastrous to Missouri and Kentucky Unionists in trying to secure their allegiance so too did Border State Unionists acknowledged this so if it were Fremont or another Radical Republican in control of the presidency it would definitely cause many Missouri and Kentucky residents to resent the government perhaps turning to secession, many Radical Republicans hated Lincoln because his policies on the peculiar institution were seen as too soft and too sympathetic they wanted him to get rid of the institution pronto without compromise there is a reason why they chose to run as the Radical Democracy Party in 1864 and nominate the aforementioned John C. Fremont as their presidential candidate and pass their own Reconstruction plan called the Wade-Davis Bill in contrast to the Ten Percent Plan as well as disenfranchise anyone who served with the Confederates unlike Lincoln who planned to take a conciliatory stance towards them by issuing amnesty like Andrew Johnson did.

A consequence of Kentucky/Missouri secession is the Western Theater is that the war might physically come to the Old Northwestern states of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio rather than just mere guerilla raids by John Hunt Morgan for example there could be fighting alongside the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers by Union and Confederate troops between Confederate-held Kentucky and Missouri and Union-held Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, ATL equivalents of battles fought in Tennessee and Mississippi as well the Heartland Campaign would fought instead in Kentucky and Missouri population wise the white citizenry of those states would flock to the Confederates which means there wouldn't be a Missouri State Guard or a Kentucky Orphan Brigade if they did exist they would be regular Confederate state units rather than just special ones in hotly-contested states.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
Another thing to note is that William H. Seward was considered to be the favorite of being the Republican candidate in 1860 but because the Republican State Convention was held in Illinois Abraham Lincoln was able to win the nomination instead, Seward of course had run into concerns by backers from the Northeast for one he was pro-immigrant at a time when nativism was still popular and his constant focus on the peculiar institution which he was strongly against as well as some of his speeches which focused on conflict and arguing that the federal government needed to end the institution was one that his Midwestern backers would not support and the conservatives wouldn't support him other than him most other Republicans were Radicals themselves this is why Lincoln was chosen since he was a Moderate who could balance the issues in the Union and border states instead of alienating the later further potentially joining the Confederacy.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

OldReliable1862

Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
So I've been looking at the OR, Series 1, Volume IV, and in August-October 1861, there were few organized brigades in the department of the Ohio, with many of them being scattered regiments garrisoning parts of Kentucky as Sherman/Buell tried to hold it. I'm guessing Kentucky going rebel will make the Old Northwest increase recruiting (how much I don't know-help?), and possibly keep several regiments within their states for defense.

Questions:
Would Sherman still suffer his (for lack of a better term) nervous breakdown in late 1861 with a rebel Kentucky? It would seem that would make his job even more stressful than it already was?

For a working title, I've been using "To Lose the Whole Game" - how does this work as a title?
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
So I've been looking at the OR, Series 1, Volume IV, and in August-October 1861, there were few organized brigades in the department of the Ohio, with many of them being scattered regiments garrisoning parts of Kentucky as Sherman/Buell tried to hold it. I'm guessing Kentucky going rebel will make the Old Northwest increase recruiting (how much I don't know-help?), and possibly keep several regiments within their states for defense.

Questions:
Would Sherman still suffer his (for lack of a better term) nervous breakdown in late 1861 with a rebel Kentucky? It would seem that would make his job even more stressful than it already was?

For a working title, I've been using "To Lose the Whole Game" - how does this work as a title?
"To Lose the Whole Game" is a fitting title since it represents just how important Kentucky and Missouri were to both sides. Of course I think a Confederate Kentucky is going to cause concern for the Old Northwestern states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois and perhaps Sherman suffering a nervous break down is still possible.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top