Confederate Kentucky - Planning Thread

As @BlueandGrayl points out, the Union experienced several financial difficulties during the war. What good books are out there discussing each sides' ability to finance the war? I'm wondering how the changed situation will impact the Union's finances. Considering the bank runs that happened IOTL, it could be interesting if the Union just isn't able to fund the war.

Also, just for the fun of it, here's a list of possible Confederate presidents in case I have Britain mediate:
1862-1868: Jefferson Davis (Non Partisan-MS)
1868-1874: John C. Breckinridge (Confederate Democratic - KY)
1874-1880: Isham G. Harris
(States' Rights - TN)
1880-1886: John B. Gordon (Confederate Democratic - GA)
1886-1892: ?
1892-1898: ?
1898-1904: ?
1904-1910: Samuel Spencer (Confederate Democratic - GA)
1910-1916: Joseph Evan Davis (Confederate Democratic - MS)
 
Last edited:
As @BlueandGrayl points out, the Union experienced several financial difficulties during the war. What good books are out there discussing each sides' ability to finance the war? I'm wondering how the changed situation will impact the Union's finances. Considering the bank runs that happened IOTL, it could be interesting if the Union just isn't able to fund the war.

Also, just for the fun of it, here's a list of possible Confederate presidents in case I have Britain mediate:
1862-1868: Jefferson Davis (Non Partisan-MS)
1868-1874: John C. Breckinridge (Confederate Democratic - KY)
1874-1880: Isham G. Harris
(States' Rights - TN)
1880-1886: John B. Gordon (Confederate Democratic - GA)
1886-1892: ?
1892-1898: ?
1898-1904: ?
1904-1910: Samuel Spencer (Confederate Democratic - GA)
1910-1916: Joseph Evan Davis (Confederate Democratic - MS)

Don't have any references but almost certainly it will hurt the north somewhat. There will be less taxpayers to fund the war. Also since it will make a final union victory more difficult the big question is likely to be, as it is with financial issues, how it affects confidence in the union's ability to win the war/pay debts. Possibly virtually impossible to say what the tipping point would be as to when locals growing increasingly reluctant to accept government script for goods, or foreign investors to buy government bonds. This may not happen at all as even if the US loses the war, which will make any spending on it a bad debt, it still have substantial resources to meet debts. However it will very likely increase interest rates on loans which will hurt. There may be a point at which, most noticeably in 64 if the south still looks capable of prolonged further resistance, public will to continue the war will fail in the north.

This might even happen earlier with less success because Kentucky is clearly on the rebel side and the south are doing better Lincoln might be forced to accept mediation.

There is always the possibility of course that it could have net counter-productive effects. I.e. a greater problem with funds to wage a tougher war might drive Washington to significantly increase net taxation, say with an income tax, and also possibly for the north to accept this without overwhelming opposition. In which case, in fiscal terms anyway this could make funding the war and obtaining foreign loans easier and also helping the country recover after the war, even if the south was still lost.

Hope this doesn't qualify as waffle. :redface:
 
As @BlueandGrayl points out, the Union experienced several financial difficulties during the war. What good books are out there discussing each sides' ability to finance the war? I'm wondering how the changed situation will impact the Union's finances. Considering the bank runs that happened IOTL, it could be interesting if the Union just isn't able to fund the war.

Also, just for the fun of it, here's a list of possible Confederate presidents in case I have Britain mediate:
1862-1868: Jefferson Davis (Non Partisan-MS)
1868-1874: John C. Breckinridge (Confederate Democratic - KY)
1874-1880: Isham G. Harris
(States' Rights - TN)
1880-1886: John B. Gordon (Confederate Democratic - GA)
1886-1892: ?
1892-1898: ?
1898-1904: ?
1904-1910: Samuel Spencer (Confederate Democratic - GA)
1910-1916: Joseph Evan Davis (Confederate Democratic - MS)
Well actually they experienced at least two occasions of financial difficulty: one where banks suspended their specie payments of gold and silver after the Trent Affair going even further back Salmon P. Chase faced defaults in St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Springfield by January 1862 he was out of money to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln.

The second time the Union experienced financial difficulty was after McClellan failed to capture Richmond, Virginia which as a result caused Federal currency/greenback dollar and Wall Street stock to go into a financial panic.,
 
I've been thinking of using some kind of wargaming system to simulate the major battles in this timeline. I might decide to use some kind of board game to represent the grand strategic aspects, and use a miniature system when battles take place. If anyone has recommendations for either, please let me know. Thanks in advance.
 
I might decide to use some kind of board game to represent the grand strategic aspects, and use a miniature system when battles take place. If anyone has recommendations for either, please let me know.
The systems I'm aware of are...

Great Campaigns of the Civil War (strategic) - it only has the eastern theatre, unfortunately, but could be worth investigating
Civil War (strategic) - whole war, not just Western

and
Volley and Bayonet (tactical)

You could also look into getting Age of Rifles, which is a hex computer game for the whole 1840-1910 period. Downside here is that it's very old (DOS) and while very flexible indeed it has a steep learning curve.
 
The systems I'm aware of are...

Great Campaigns of the Civil War (strategic) - it only has the eastern theatre, unfortunately, but could be worth investigating
Civil War (strategic) - whole war, not just Western

and
Volley and Bayonet (tactical)

You could also look into getting Age of Rifles, which is a hex computer game for the whole 1840-1910 period. Downside here is that it's very old (DOS) and while very flexible indeed it has a steep learning curve.
I've heard of several of those, and I'll definitely consider them. For strategic board games, I'm thinking of the following:
- The Civil War (Victory Games)
- War Between the States (Decision Games)
- The War for the Union (Compass Games reprint)
- For the People (GMT)
- The US Civil War (GMT)

Does anyone have opinions on any of these?

For grand tactical wargame rulesets, I've been considering these:
- Altar of Freedom
- A Firebell in the Night
- Brigade Fire & Fury
 
It seems this much will likely be happening as a result of Fremont taking Paducah, and Kentucky seceding:
1) Fremont will be removed from command in the West, likely with no chance of future commands
2) Robert Anderson will be removed as well, likely still replaced by Sherman. Whether Sherman will still suffer his nervous breakdown is debatable.

Scott could also find himself removed, and with McClellan still winning his victories in western Virginia, he'll still be the likely replacement.

In the event of a failed Peninsula campaign as @Saphroneth describes, it could be interesting to see who gets the AotP.
 
In the event of a true failure on the peninsula, how could McClellan being captured affect the army and the home front?
Pretty bad. The Eastern Theatre was as important as the Western Theatre since it lay between the Union and Confederate capitals of Washington and Richmond if either were captured it would be devastating blow to morale.

McClellan and the Army of the Potomac getting captured by Robert E. Lee would be horrible for Union morale and public opinion not to mention cause panic in cities such as Washington, Baltimore, New York, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia.
 
Pretty bad. The Eastern Theatre was as important as the Western Theatre since it lay between the Union and Confederate capitals of Washington and Richmond if either were captured it would be devastating blow to morale.

McClellan and the Army of the Potomac getting captured by Robert E. Lee would be horrible for Union morale and public opinion not to mention cause panic in cities such as Washington, Baltimore, New York, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia.
It's very unlikely the entire Army of the Potomac will be captured, but the rest could happen.
 
Pretty bad. The Eastern Theatre was as important as the Western Theatre since it lay between the Union and Confederate capitals of Washington and Richmond if either were captured it would be devastating blow to morale.

McClellan and the Army of the Potomac getting captured by Robert E. Lee would be horrible for Union morale and public opinion not to mention cause panic in cities such as Washington, Baltimore, New York, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia.
In the 1862 midterms, 184 seats in the House were available in our world, but we have to subtract Kentucky's 11 seats due to it being impossible to hold the elections, leaving 173 seats (87 needed for majority). The Republicans lost 21 seats in our world, but with less military successes here, they may lose the House even with the Unionists added in.
 
@67th Tigers, do you have anything to add on the course of events, both for overall strategy and on the peninsula? I'm wondering how Farragut's attack on New Orleans will go if Hollins with the Mississippi and Louisiana are present. @rebelatsea, anything to say on naval affairs or otherwise?
 
Missouri is a big one, yes.

The ironclads built on the Mississippi river system by the Union were at:
(n.b. the Casco design utterly sucked but this would not necessarily be true of a Confederate ironclad)

Cincinnati x2 Casco
St Louis x2 Casco
Brownsville x1 Casco
St Louis x2 Neosho
Mound City x1 Ozark
St Louis x4 Milwaukee
Pittsburgh x2 Marietta
Cincinnati x3 Canonicus
Pittsburgh x1 Canonicus
St Louis x7 City
Cincinnati x1 Indianola
St Louis x1 Benton
Cincinnati x1 Chillicothe
(Can't identify where Essex was upgraded)
St Louis x1 Choctaw
St Louis x1 Lafayette
Cincinnati x1 Tuscumbia

Overall total is that St Louis produced 18 out of the 31 Union ironclads I could localize in the Mississippi river system, and they're preferentially the earlier ones like the Cities. This means that essentially possession of St Louis, especially early in the war, would give the Confederacy a major advantage in the ironclad war... much like no Peninsular campaign would give the Confederacy a major advantage simply by meaning that the Virginia didn't need abandonment and scuttling.

Any Confederate possession of St. Louis means another major city in their hands and the nearby Union states of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio could be threatened. Even without St. Louis, having Missouri in Confederate possession will give them another important border state like Kentucky.

Well if they got St Louis, even if in such a way it was seriously damaged and they couldn't produce any ironclads there that sounds like it would be bad for the union simply because of the loss of production on the Mississippi, although possibly more union ironclads could have been produced elsewhere? Coupled with holding New Orleans it sounds like the south could hold pretty much the entire Mississippi up to the Ohio junction at least for quite a while. Which would make attacks further south a lot more difficult and a longer business at the very least.

If their able to use even a fraction of St Louis's production it would considerable boost their capacity, especially since according to Wiki it had a larger population than New Orleans by this point.
Would the Confederates even be able to take St. Louis or Louisville? They're both on major rivers, meaning that even if they are cut off on land, they can just be resupplied via river. The rebels will need to control the river they're located on to take either city.

If they are both present and fully operational I doubt Farragut would even try it.
I'm guessing Farragut/Porter will do more than just wait a few months on Ship Island, but exactly what I'm not sure.
 
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.

"Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us." -- Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Orville Browning, September 22, 1861​

I have assumed that Lincolns was implying that that he would have to acquiesce to peaceable Southern secession under the scenario described. On the date of the letter the chief battlefield results had been federal defeats at Bull Run and Wilson's Creek.

BTW, what is OTL?
 
Last edited:
Would the Confederates even be able to take St. Louis . . .

If McCulloch and Price cooperated instead of going their separate ways after Wilson's Creek, it might have been possible. Instead McCulloch returned to Arkansas with his better-supplied Confederate troops while Price took the Missouri State Guard to another victory at Lexington on the Missouri River. As many as 15,000 additional recruits temporarily flocked to Price's 5,000-man army but ultimately left due to supply shortages.

Taking St. Louis would have required a showdown battle with Frémont. If Frémont were to wait behind entrenchments at St. Louis where he could be resupplied by boats it would have been harder, but he felt it necessary to go after Price following the Union defeat at Lexington.
 
Last edited:
"Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us." -- Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Orville Browning, September 22, 1861​

I have assumed that Lincolns was implying that that he would have to acquiesce to peaceable Southern secession under the scenario described. On the date of the letter the chief battlefield results had been federal defeats at Bull Run and Wilson's Creek.

BTW, what is OTL?

Harvey Johnson

OTL is an alternative history abriviation for Our Time Line, i.e. what actually happened. As opposed to TTL "This time line" which is an alternative historical option under discussion. Hope that helps. :smile:

Steve
 
Would the Confederates even be able to take St. Louis or Louisville? They're both on major rivers, meaning that even if they are cut off on land, they can just be resupplied via river. The rebels will need to control the river they're located on to take either city.

I'm guessing Farragut/Porter will do more than just wait a few months on Ship Island, but exactly what I'm not sure.
Well St. Louis and Louisville do have shipyards given their river-based locations so it helps the Confederates a bit.
 
Back
Top