Did Far Upper Border States Tip Union War Success Rates?

CLuckJD

Private
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Location
MS, USA
Abe's extreme fear that states located near Mason-Dixon's border would join rebels makes it seem logically deduced that those jurisdictions were potent foes. Had one or more become alienated from pro Union loyalties, would it have been so bad to cost the Union a lost war?

Why or why not? What Border State(s) is most vital for victory by which side? Did most or all stay in the Union to protect eco self interests in no more free slave labor competition?
 
Last edited:
As I'm sure you know, Abraham Lincoln and his Kentucky allies
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005T6E05G/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

were mighty concerned about Kentucky. Fully 1/3rd of Tennessee Counties rejected secession, and there were very many Unionists/"Tories" in East Tennessee, which was isolated from the plantation economy of Central and Western portions of the State, where pro-secessionist sentiment was much more widespread.

The thesis of William W. Freehling, The South vs. the South: How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped the Course of the Civil War (Oxford, 2001) explicitly argues that the Border States that were made up of either societies with slaves or full-blown slave societies that did not secede contributed heavily to the Civil War's outcome: 450,000 Southerners served as Union troops--border state whites and southern blacks--something like half of the potential industrial capacity of a separate southern nation-state, etc. It was certainly the case that the presence of armies operating in those states allowed slaves to move to Union lines in larger numbers than places farther south, eroding the institution even if the Emancipation proclamation freed slaves in actually seceding slave states.

p. 146: Black anti-Confederates exerted a still larger negative impact on the rebels' share of American military manpower. The free labor states started the Civil War with 61 percent of the U.S. population. The Border South raised the Union percentage to 75 percent. Confederate blacks' willingness to flee could boost Union supporters to 84.5 percent of American peoples. ... By the end of the war, 178,000 blacks had joined the Union army. Another 18,000 had entered the Navy. Enlisted blacks from mid-1863 to 1865 outnumbered all Union fatalities in the period, matching enlisted southern whites' impact from mid-1861 to mid-1863. In 1864, Lincoln called a war without blacks' "help ... more than we can bear," just as he had earlier called a war without borderites' aid "too much for us." "
 
Kentucky, as it existed in 1860, was a unionist, pro slavery state. When Kentucky did not complete secession, that created three water routes and two railroads routes through Kentucky into Tennessee.
The water routes were on the Mississippi, Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. The railroad routes were located at Louisville, and at the ferry crossing between Cincinnati and Covington, KY.
Kentucky was one of the old southern states, and had a rich and diverse agricultural economy, as well a steamboat industry at Louisville.
As low on manpower as were the 11 Confederate secessionist states, there were likely some deficiencies in the defenses intended to protect Tennessee from invasion by the US.
In 1862, both sides were inexperienced and ill prepared. The Confederates made mistakes in attacking at Mill Springs, they did not scrutinize the position of Fort Henry, and they did not execute the evacuation of Fort Donelson with the necessary promptness.
The US won all three of these early battles and the position of the Confederacy in the west never recovered.
Therefore the non-secession of Kentucky, achieved through politics, patronage, trickery, and the implied threat of immediate emancipation, and not very much fighting until 1862, was probably decisive in setting off a series of events which doomed the Confederacy in the west.
 
The Emancipation Proclamation appears to exempt Kentucky from emancipation. But since it authorized the enrollment of black soldiers in exchange for freedom for them and their families, in fact it just operated in Kentucky in a different way.
 
Abe's extreme fear that states located near Mason-Dixon's border would join rebels makes it seem logically deduced that those jurisdictions were potent foes. Had one or more become alienated from pro Union loyalties, would it have been so bad to cost the Union a lost war?

Why or why not? What Border State(s) is most vital for victory by which side? Did most or all stay in the Union to protect eco self interests in no more free slave labor competition?
Not sure what your last sentence implies.....

When Lincoln expressly stated he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed, many in border states felt no need to secede to protect their slave labor economies, it was the point of Lincoln making the assurance......He is avoiding portraying it as a free or slave labor competition, by pointedly saying theres room for slave labor to remain within the Union.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what your last sentence implies.....

When Lincoln expressly stated he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed, many in border states felt no need to secede to protect their slave labor economies, it was the point of Lincoln making the assurance......He is avoiding portraying it as a free or slave labor competition, by pointedly saying theres room for slave labor to remain within the Union.
Why, then, did Bleeding Kansas become that way when state residents didn't hesitate to resist the entrance of free slave labor as unbeatable economic competition? I thought slavery was dead in border geo regions where industry had run the show long before deep south cotton
 
Why, then, did Bleeding Kansas become that way when state residents didn't hesitate to resist the entrance of free slave labor as unbeatable economic competition? I thought slavery was dead in border geo regions where industry had run the show long before deep south cotton

Why would bleeding Kansas have anything to with border states where slavery was already established and supported by its residents? Its apple to oranges that has no relation.

Theres a reason theres no historical references to Bleeding Missouri, Kentucky or Maryland............because in those regions it wasnt considered dead at all......but thriving, and if one looks at election data, proslavery candidates had no shortage of support

In 1860 Republicans got 10%, 1% and 2% of the vote in the three states.......hardly indicating a popular view of their states slave economies being somehow dead by the electorate
 
Last edited:
So you mean any ONE border state by itself would have made a lose vs win difference for the Union?

I will use Maryland as an example. If Maryland secedes Washington falls. However, the odds of the Confederacy holding Maryland is not high.The Union would probably retake Maryland fairly quickly. Southern supporters retreat to Virginia. The Union supporters remain in Maryland.

My take is that the fall of Washington causes many Northern men to join the Union Army. The fall of Washington gives the Confederacy a boost. In the end the city of Washington probably gets destroyed and Maryland is retaken. However, I am not sure Maryland seceding by itself is a game changer.
 
The way I see it, the "battle" for control of the border states was won by the Union in 1861, and although it wasn't apparent at the time, was probably a decisive factor in attaining final victory over the Confederacy. Kentucky was the linchpin that secured key water routes leading directly to the heart of the southland and was a centerpiece of General A.S. Johnston's defensive line in 1861. Missouri controlled the important St. Louis hub along the Mississippi River and became the springboard for Union operations into Arkansas. Maryland and to a lesser extent Delaware's geographic locations were critical in keeping the Washington DC nexus under northern control. And the small scale victories in western Virginia and its eventual breakaway from seceded Virginia was a part of northern strategy to reclaim loyal populations into the Union fold. So each in its own way was critical to achieving northern war aims.
 
Not sure what your last sentence implies.....

When Lincoln expressly stated he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed, many in border states felt no need to secede to protect their slave labor economies, it was the point of Lincoln making the assurance......He is avoiding portraying it as a free or slave labor competition, by pointedly saying theres room for slave labor to remain within the Union.
So why didn't rebel magnates in deep south cotton states have equal high confidence that Abe's promises were honest? In fact, mere thought of Abe as President struck fear in white southerners to incite secession before his election to Oval Office was reality. Each region must have some reason for its perception of him that is direct opposite from Dixie's other end. What else has such power to polarize but pecuniary interests? Slavery was dead to all practical extents up north where industrialists ran the show. Whereas, agricultural pursuits was standing order of every day on killing fields run by King Cotton, Sir Rice Paddy or Lord Sugar Daddy in deep heart of Dixie. Those domains require many Negroes who sustains their eco viability. In fact, most Black captive subjects came from more northerly climes where the air and soil aren't suitable for their toil. More than a million made the trek on foot, boats and trains during the largest forced human migration in human history bka America's Domestic Slave Trade.

Thus, what did Far Upper Borderlanders have to gain from a floodgates of free labor running loose in their territory?
I will use Maryland as an example. If Maryland secedes Washington falls. However, the odds of the Confederacy holding Maryland is not high.The Union would probably retake Maryland fairly quickly. Southern supporters retreat to Virginia. The Union supporters remain in Maryland.

My take is that the fall of Washington causes many Northern men to join the Union Army. The fall of Washington gives the Confederacy a boost. In the end the city of Washington probably gets destroyed and Maryland is retaken. However, I am not sure Maryland seceding by itself is a game changer.
That's what I tended to suspect long before now. But if ALL 4 or 5 holdouts joined rebels in mass secession fever, Union jeopardy would have been overwhelming to become extinct vs the distinct sovereign power it is to this day. Ive read about the many strategic advantages each border state offered. From Kentuckys maritime access, to Missouri's St Louis outlets, to Marylands buffers of protection for DC, et al.

Which brought a new question to mind: Was it possible for a state to declare itself neutral territory and stay off the warpath either way it ran? Or did Union membership come with some dues that are not negotiable in any circumstance?

(BTW, I've read that rebels were far from true confederates, as a few of their own sought to make a new break for themselves.)
 
So why didn't rebel magnates in deep south cotton states have equal high confidence that Abe's promises were honest? In fact, mere thought of Abe as President struck fear in white southerners to incite secession before his election to Oval Office was reality. Each region must have some reason for its perception of him that is direct opposite from Dixie's other end. What else has such power to polarize but pecuniary interests? Slavery was dead to all practical extents up north where industrialists ran the show. Whereas, agricultural pursuits was standing order of every day on killing fields run by King Cotton, Sir Rice Paddy or Lord Sugar Daddy in deep heart of Dixie. Those domains require many Negroes who sustains their eco viability. In fact, most Black captive subjects came from more northerly climes where the air and soil aren't suitable for their toil. More than a million made the trek on foot, boats and trains during the largest forced human migration in human history bka America's Domestic Slave Trade.

Thus, what did Far Upper Borderlanders have to gain from a floodgates of free labor running loose in their territory?
That's what I tended to suspect long before now. But if ALL 4 or 5 holdouts joined rebels in mass secession fever, Union jeopardy would have been overwhelming to become extinct vs the distinct sovereign power it is to this day. Ive read about the many strategic advantages each border state offered. From Kentuckys maritime access, to Missouri's St Louis outlets, to Marylands buffers of protection for DC, et al.

Which brought a new question to mind: Was it possible for a state to declare itself neutral territory and stay off the warpath either way it ran? Or did Union membership come with some dues that are not negotiable in any circumstance?

(BTW, I've read that rebels were far from true confederates, as a few of their own sought to make a new break for themselves.)
Again no idea why you wish to pretend different regions were somehow all the same, as they all reacted different, borderstates were neither the far north or the far south, nor Kansas. Nor does when 90-99 % of an a electorate support pro slavery candidates, it indicate some opposition to slavery.

If the border states were the same as the Deep south or the Union states they wouldnt be distinguished a seperate region to begin with......

the original question was "Did most or all stay in the Union to protect eco self interests in no more free slave labor competition?" The answer was no as they preserved the slave economy by not seceding as I pointed out, which was the point of Lincoln pointing out it was to be preserved.........20 more questions doesn't change that. Every border state that remained, also had retained its slave economy, and had not in any way elected to switch to free labor at all.
 
Last edited:
Again no idea why you wish to pretend different regions were somehow all the same, as they all reacted different, borderstates were neither the far north or the far south, nor Kansas. Nor does when 90-99 % of an a electorate support pro slavery candidates, it indicate some opposition to slavery.

If the border states were the same as the Deep south or the Union states they wouldnt be distinguished a seperate region to begin with......

the original question was "Did most or all stay in the Union to protect eco self interests in no more free slave labor competition?" The answer was no as they preserved the slave economy by not seceding as I pointed out, which was the point of Lincoln pointing out it was to be preserved.........20 more questions doesn't change that. Every border state that remained, also had retained its slave economy, and had not in any way elected to switch to free labor at all.
First, note my most recent post has a long quote from another I wrote but copy pasted into the wrong one to which you reply with a reference to "20 more questions." So, my one follow up query was to ask why Dixie was divided by geo, eco and sociopolitical lines. NOT deny that as a fact. In other words, I fully realize they differed Which is also precisely what puzzles and leads me to believe the sole true difference was economics. But maybe their economic self interests lie in direct conflict. Just wanted to explore a new angle that very recently occurred to me for the first time. Did borderland have just as much or far more to gain from Union victory than dixieland could stand to lose by that same outcome?
And my main question in the OP was whether all or some border states had enough power to dictate civil war victory.
 
First, note my most recent post has a long quote from another I wrote but copy pasted into the wrong one to which you reply with a reference to "20 more questions." So, my one follow up query was to ask why Dixie was divided by geo, eco and sociopolitical lines. NOT deny that as a fact. In other words, I fully realize they differed Which is also precisely what puzzles and leads me to believe the sole true difference was economics. But maybe their economic self interests lie in direct conflict. Just wanted to explore a new angle that very recently occurred to me for the first time. Did borderland have just as much or far more to gain from Union victory than dixieland could stand to lose by that same outcome?
And my main question in the OP was whether all or some border states had enough power to dictate civil war victory.
i would agree border by their very location had strong economic ties to both regions, and would contribute to why neither wanted to break the ties to either, both Missouri and Kentucky tried to adopt positions on neutrality, one violated by the north, the other by the south

Just not seeing the connection to slave vrs free economies, as while not wishing to break ties to the Union, they clearly retained their slave economies
 
The furthest south "Northern city"-- a town, actually, was Cairo, IL. Further South than Richmond. Most of the so-called "Egyptians"--so named because of the constant flooding of the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers--emanated from Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. Very, very many were pro-secessionist, as were many people in southern Illinois more generally. There was support for Secesia even in places like Iowa.

Many places like Mississippi had been developed by slave labor--with a labor force reallocated from the "old South" in one of the largest internal migrations in 19th C. U.S. history--only in the 1830s. So think of Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, portions of Alabama, and portions of Tennessee as having a particular frenzied slave-labor-based settlement and expansion of cash crop economy tied to the riverine system only a few decades before that self same slave system's expansion provoked the formation of the Republican Party and led to the secession crisis.
 
Again no idea why you wish to pretend different regions were somehow all the same, as they all reacted different, borderstates were neither the far north or the far south, nor Kansas. Nor does when 90-99 % of an a electorate support pro slavery candidates, it indicate some opposition to slavery.

If the border states were the same as the Deep south or the Union states they wouldnt be distinguished a seperate region to begin with......

the original question was "Did most or all stay in the Union to protect eco self interests in no more free slave labor competition?" The answer was no as they preserved the slave economy by not seceding as I pointed out, which was the point of Lincoln pointing out it was to be preserved.........20 more questions doesn't change that. Every border state that remained, also had retained its slave economy, and had not in any way elected to switch to free labor at all.
Emancipation was an important issue in Kentucky. The Kentuckians knew the US regiments were gathering in Ohio and Indiana, and if Kentucky seceded the process of emancipation would start immediately.
If they did not secede, than they would by some time before the enslaved people knew that slave system was starting to unravel.
By September 18, 1861 the Kentuckians knew the US had a firm grip on the Ohio River counties of Virginia and had Ohio River traffic blocked at Cairo/Paducah. The Richmond government was not going to be able to do much to protect Kentucky.
 
If the upper border states had all gone for the Cofedercy or only one border state would make a difference.

MO would of made a difference. More Confederate soldiers. Had mfg capacity. Wooden clad armed river boats were made there. Also would of restricted TRR development if South could of held it. Northern Route was going thru MO.

Maryland had the B and O RR. Close proximity to DC. Would of made an attack on the Blue Invaders much easier. The Yankee was not going to let Maryland go. Maryland was a primer of what was going to happen in the South. Fraudulent Elections and Reconstruction. All of which happened in MO, West VA and KY.
 
Again no idea why you wish to pretend different regions were somehow all the same, as they all reacted different, borderstates were neither the far north or the far south, nor Kansas. Nor does when 90-99 % of an a electorate support pro slavery candidates, it indicate some opposition to slavery.

If the border states were the same as the Deep south or the Union states they wouldnt be distinguished a seperate region to begin with......

the original question was "Did most or all stay in the Union to protect eco self interests in no more free slave labor competition?" The answer was no as they preserved the slave economy by not seceding as I pointed out, which was the point of Lincoln pointing out it was to be preserved.........20 more questions doesn't change that. Every border state that remained, also had retained its slave economy, and had not in any way elected to switch to free labor at all.
True, the border states were not the same as the deep south or union states (I would say new england in particular).
 
Just not seeing the connection to slave vrs free economies, as while not wishing to break ties to the Union, they clearly retained their slave economies
Yes, they had their cake and got to eat it, too. But I understand that institutionalized slavery was dead to all practical extents in Northern industrialized economy by no purpose long before War began. That led me to suspect they hoped Union victory would abolish cheap labor and give them another upper hand. Some claim the same true aim for an infamous Tariff of Abominations. Or, maybe Borderland was relatively indifferent with far less to lose either way it went?
 
Back
Top