Confederate Kentucky - Planning Thread

[OldReliable1862]

Kentucky was also one of the main domestic sources of saltpeter for the Union. Despite the Union's dependence on British imports, does this really impact the Union powder situation? Not to mention the Confederacy will have access to a good source of saltpeter.

 

[OldReliable1862]

At what point is it too late for the Confederacy to go with something other than King Cotton Diplomacy?

@USS ALASKA and @DaveBrt, would either care to give any opinions on naval or railroad railroad developments in this scenario?

 

[BlueandGrayl]

At what point is it too late for the Confederacy to go with something other than King Cotton Diplomacy?

@USS ALASKA and @DaveBrt, would either care to give any opinions on naval or railroad railroad developments in this scenario?

Well you're back on this thread. Nice.

 

[OldReliable1862]

Well you're back on this thread. Nice.

Yeah, I've recently been working on a Renaissance Europe timeline for a while now. I still plan to do this one, just not sure quite when (I have...a lot of reading ahead of me).

 

[DaveBrt]

I'm guessing Farragut/Porter will do more than just wait a few months on Ship Island, but exactly what I'm not sure.

Take the Mobile Bay forts.

 

[DaveBrt]

At what point is it too late for the Confederacy to go with something other than King Cotton Diplomacy?

@USS ALASKA and @DaveBrt, would either care to give any opinions on naval or railroad railroad developments in this scenario?

No comment on the political side. On the military side, the Union still controls the ocean and the rivers and has the population and industrial base --- so, little change in the war, though it might last a little longer.

 

[USS ALASKA]

At what point is it too late for the Confederacy to go with something other than King Cotton Diplomacy?

In order to get foreign recognition / intervention?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

...railroad railroad developments in this scenario...

At the beginning of the war, KY had all the railroad she could economically support, having a fairly robust usable river system with access to the open ocean. More navigable river mileage than say, Pennsylvania. After the war begins and she is on the Confederate side, no more will be built and she'll be lucky to even keep what she has without it being torn up and shipped south.

http://cdoovision.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/map-of-canals-in-us-1820-1860-transportation.jpg

http://www.csa-railroads.com/

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

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.

The question becomes where do these extra armaments and powder come from to fortify the south bank of the Ohio?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

Also if New Orleans stayed in southern hands that would also help in this as one more port available to the south and denied the north.

Keeping NOLA doesn't mean it will be useful as a port. Savannah wasn't captured until December 22, 1864 but as a port stopped being useful in April of '62. Mobile surrendered after Appomattox but wasn't used for shipping after Aug '64. Pensacola was never valuable to the Confederacy as a port as long as she held it.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

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.

Agreed but only so far as it denies the Union these ironclads at first. Production would be moved further up the Ohio and Mississippi rivers (mainly the Ohio). This however does not mean that ironclads not produced for the Union equates to a like number of ironclads for the Confederacy.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

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.

According to the 1860 census, NOLA was #6 with 168,675 and St Louis #8 at 160,773 but frankly, that is a minor quibble. The issue of St. Louis being able to produce things while not under Federal control is questionable. St. Louis was a bustling ship building center but where did the materials to fabricate these vessels originate from? Where did she get her iron? I can't find one Phoenix Iron Works-esque establishment in Missouri. (If someone else can, please post - my google-fu seems to be off on this topic). Without the iron, no ironclads. No armor, no engines, no armament...I believe her metals stock came from other Union States.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[OldReliable1862]

@USS ALASKA - I can't insert quotes for whatever reason, but I'll try to answer how the Confederates might fortify the Ohio. Here, the Confederacy will still have access to assets such as the Cumberland Iron Works, so that could allow them to fortify the Mississippi and Ohio.

 

[steve59p]

Keeping NOLA doesn't mean it will be useful as a port. Savannah wasn't captured until December 22, 1864 but as a port stopped being useful in April of '62. Mobile surrendered after Appomattox but wasn't used for shipping after Aug '64. Pensacola was never valuable to the Confederacy as a port as long as she held it.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

True but the capture of New Orleans not only meant the south couldn't use it, or link up coastal traffic with those bits of the Mississippi it held but meant it was available for the north to use. Without that capture how far away would the northern blockading fleet be based from New Orleans or other gulf ports such as Mobile? Do they control other ports in the Gulf already from which a blockading force can operate or would they have to use a base further away? If they have somewhere close than it's continued possession by the south may not be that useful for trade by them.

Steve

 

[USS ALASKA]

It's possible some ironclads could have been produced elsewhere, but it would definitely cause a major cut in production because you'll notice that all those ironclads were built in just four places. St. Louis was highly productive because it had the shipyards able to go straight into ironclad production, though it looks like Cincinnati ultimately ended up producing more of the larger, more sophisticated ironclads (though they took so long they mostly didn't see much action.)

'...some...' ?!? Ironclads would have still been produced and possibly in even greater numbers for the need to clear and patrol the Ohio River. Just the timeline would have been pushed to the right. Ironclads were built where they were out of convenience not necessity. Production could be moved to Pittsburgh for example.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

Here, the Confederacy will still have access to assets such as the Cumberland Iron Works, so that could allow them to fortify the Mississippi and Ohio.

Cannon production does not happen overnight. To the best of my knowledge, it is a lengthy process even using the Rodman system which the Confederates didn't. Cumberland Iron Works did not produce any cannon for either side as per http://www.civilwarartillery.com so this would be a new product line for them. If they tried, where would they get their iron / iron ore from? Perhaps someone like @redbob or @ucvrelics.com can provide a better handle on the time necessary to cast / bore / test one cannon. Grant launched his assault on Fort Henry and Fort Donelson in Feb of '62 and the amount of Confederate artillery in those places failed to stop the Union. The Confederates would need 100s of cannon to secure the Ohio River from Union usage starting from April of '61. Where would they get the weapons and powder to successfully accomplish this? Self-production is a non-player for a host of reasons.
1788

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

Without that capture how far away would the northern blockading fleet be based from New Orleans or other gulf ports such as Mobile? Do they control other ports in the Gulf already from which a blockading force can operate or would they have to use a base further away? If they have somewhere close than it's continued possession by the south may not be that useful for trade by them.

Take the Mobile Bay forts

...or finish the capture of Pensacola as the forward tactical base. Operational supply base? Key West.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[redbob]

Cannon production does not happen overnight. To the best of my knowledge, it is a lengthy process even using the Rodman system which the Confederates didn't. Cumberland Iron Works did not produce any cannon for either side as per http://www.civilwarartillery.com so this would be a new product line for them. If they tried, where would they get their iron / iron ore from? Perhaps someone like @redbob or @ucvrelics.com can provide a better handle on the time necessary to cast / bore / test one cannon. Grant launched his assault on Fort Henry and Fort Donelson in Feb of '62 and the amount of Confederate artillery in those places failed to stop the Union. The Confederates would need 100s of cannon to secure the Ohio River from Union usage starting from April of '61. Where would they get the weapons and powder to successfully accomplish this? Self-production is a non-player for a host of reasons.
1788

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

The simplest gun (perhaps a 12# Napoleon) probably took about a week to produce with the majority of the time being spent waiting on the tube to cool after casting. Boring/rifling added additional time as did increases in the size/complexity of the tube. Plus if the tube failed proofing, it was back to square one.

 

[USS ALASKA]

The simplest gun (perhaps a 12# Napoleon) probably took about a week to produce with the majority of the time being spent waiting on the tube to cool after casting. Boring/rifling added additional time as did increases in the size/complexity of the tube. Plus if the tube failed proofing, it was back to square one.

Thank you sir! And something worthy of taking on ironclads? Say a 6.4 inch Parrot?
1817

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[BlueandGrayl]

According to the 1860 census, NOLA was #6 with 168,675 and St Louis #8 at 160,773 but frankly, that is a minor quibble. The issue of St. Louis being able to produce things while not under Federal control is questionable. St. Louis was a bustling ship building center but where did the materials to fabricate these vessels originate from? Where did she get her iron? I can't find one Phoenix Iron Works-esque establishment in Missouri. (If someone else can, please post - my google-fu seems to be off on this topic). Without the iron, no ironclads. No armor, no engines, no armament...I believe her metals stock came from other Union States.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

At the beginning of the war, KY had all the railroad she could economically support, having a fairly robust usable river system with access to the open ocean. More navigable river mileage than say, Pennsylvania. After the war begins and she is on the Confederate side, no more will be built and she'll be lucky to even keep what she has without it being torn up and shipped south.

View attachment 214806
http://cdoovision.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/map-of-canals-in-us-1820-1860-transportation.jpg

View attachment 214809
http://www.csa-railroads.com/

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

In so far Kentucky joining the Confederacy in this scenario, there's also another thing to note.

Kentucky had a fairly sizable slave population and only stopped a bit due to a controversial law that banned slave importation in 1815 and 1833 but that would later be overturned in the 1840s and by 1860 they would comprise 19.5% (#9 in the 15 slave states, 236,167 overall only behind Georgia and Virginia) of the state population the largest of the border states more than Missouri (still a bit sizable at 114,931), Maryland, or Delaware (the latter two states' populations had been in decline since the War of American Independence), the state was also home to 1,155,684 (1.15 million) whites and because of Kentucky's proximity to the Ohio and Cumberland Rivers it was a major seller in slaves "sold down the river". Louisville (Kentucky's largest city) was a mixture of Northern and Southern elements on one hand as one newspaper editor noted its sentiments were Southern but it had industry (useful for the Confederacy) such as meatpacking and there were Irish and German Protestant/Catholic immigrants but there was also the slaves who worked various occupations there.

Kentucky slavery had its plantations and farms and was concentrated in the hemp and tobacco growing regions of the state cotton wasn't a major part of the economy though other crops such as corn were common as with the aforementioned hemp and tobacco. A number of Confederate figures also were born there such as Jefferson Davis, Albert Sidney Johnston, John Bell Hood, and John C. Breckinridge. So with Kentucky's addition to the Confederacy as Lincoln best put it "to lose the whole game".

Anyway, OldReliable1862 when will you transition from a mere planning thread to a full on timeline?