Kentucky Neutrality Resolution

[White Flint Bill]

I find the Kentucky Neutrality Resolution one of the most remarkable documents/events of the Civil War. For those who aren't familiar with it, after Kentucky's governor refused Lincoln's call for troops the Kentucky legislature passed this resolution:

Resolution of Neutrality, May 16, 1861

Considering the deplorable condition of the country and for which the State of Kentucky is in no way responsible, and looking to the best means of preserving the internal peace and securing the lives, liberty, and property of the citizens of the State; therefore,

Resolved, by the House of Representatives, that this State and the citizens thereof should take no part in the civil war now being waged, except as mediators and friends to the belligerent parties; and that Kentucky should, during the contest, occupy the position of strict neutrality.

Resolved, that the act of the governor in refusing to furnish troops or military force upon the call of the executive authority of the United States under existing circumstances is approved.
​

Of course we all know what happened to Kentucky in due course, but still....

 

[Borderruffian]

Missouri also tried to remain neutral.......but Saint Nate Lyon and Frankie Baby Blair weren't having it.

 

[leftyhunter]

Missouri also tried to remain neutral.......but Saint Nate Lyon and Frankie Baby Blair weren't having it.

How can a state legally declare neutrality in a civil war? There is no statuory or case law that a state can opt out of supplying what ever aid the federal government required to quash a rebellion.
The subject of Nathaniel Lyon being right or wrong was debated in another thread, actually several threads.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I find the Kentucky Neutrality Resolution one of the most remarkable documents/events of the Civil War. For those who aren't familiar with it, after Kentucky's governor refused Lincoln's call for troops the Kentucky legislature passed this resolution:

Resolution of Neutrality, May 16, 1861

Considering the deplorable condition of the country and for which the State of Kentucky is in no way responsible, and looking to the best means of preserving the internal peace and securing the lives, liberty, and property of the citizens of the State; therefore,

Resolved, by the House of Representatives, that this State and the citizens thereof should take no part in the civil war now being waged, except as mediators and friends to the belligerent parties; and that Kentucky should, during the contest, occupy the position of strict neutrality.

Resolved, that the act of the governor in refusing to furnish troops or military force upon the call of the executive authority of the United States under existing circumstances is approved.
​

Of course we all know what happened to Kentucky in due course, but still....

It was an interesting declaration but as we know it didn't mean much. It is very difficult to be neutral in a major civil war. It basically boils down to fight or flight.
Leftyhunter

 

[Borderruffian]

How can a state legally declare neutrality in a civil war? There is no statuory or case law that a state can opt out of supplying what ever aid the federal government required to quash a rebellion.
The subject of Nathaniel Lyon being right or wrong was debated in another thread, actually several threads.
Leftyhunter

The Price-Harney Agreement observed Missouris Right to remain Neutral, allowing neither side to enter, recruit, or otherwise encamp in the state. Blair had Harney removed as Dept CG and had the Lyon enstalled as Emperor Errrrr CG and so commenced Lyin's 61 campaign.

 

[uaskme]

Lincoln tried to send Breckinridge to the Yankee Gulag. I know what I would of done!

 

[leftyhunter]

The Price-Harney Agreement observed Missouris Right to remain Neutral, allowing neither side to enter, recruit, or otherwise encamp in the state. Blair had Harney removed as Dept CG and had the Lyon enstalled as Emperor Errrrr CG and so commenced Lyin's 61 campaign.

Even that agreement is legally questionable. There is no statutory or case law that a state can legally opt out of supplying what ever aid the federal government requires.Has discussed in a previous thread on Lyon neither President Lincoln or Congress had any problems with Lyon' s actions and praised Lyon for his service to the United States upon his death.
Leftyhunter

 

[Borderruffian]

Even that agreement is legally questionable. There is no statutory or case law that a state can legally opt out of supplying what ever aid the federal government requires.Has discussed in a previous thread on Lyon neither President Lincoln or Congress had any problems with Lyon' s actions and praised Lyon for his service to the United States upon his death.
Leftyhunter

At that stage in 61 neither Abe or Congress gave a rip about Missouri's being invaded while not in Seccession, not one rip and didn't do a thing about Lyon , Blair, Seigal or the rest. They were more worried about what would become te Eastern Stalemate.

 

[leftyhunter]

At that stage in 61 neither Abe or Congress gave a rip about Missouri's being invaded while not in Seccession, not one rip and didn't do a thing about Lyon , Blair, Seigal or the rest. They were more worried about what would become te Eastern Stalemate.

Since the majority of people in both Kentucky and Missouri stayed loyal to the Union it is doubtful that either state was "invaded ". My point is simply that there is no statutory or case law that states can opt out of assisting the federal government in quashing an invasion.
Leftyhunter

 

[Taylin]

There's no case law that states can leave the union either, but that didn't stop them from trying. Legal or not Kentucky made clear is intentions, if the north invaded them she would have likely joined the south, and if the the south invaded she would join the north. We know how that went.

In short it didn't have to be legal, it just had to work. And it did work for ~5 months

 

[Rebforever]

It was an interesting declaration but as we know it didn't mean much. It is very difficult to be neutral in a major civil war. It basically boils down to fight or flight.
Leftyhunter

The 10th Amendment.

 

[Rebforever]

Even that agreement is legally questionable. There is no statutory or case law that a state can legally opt out of supplying what ever aid the federal government requires.Has discussed in a previous thread on Lyon neither President Lincoln or Congress had any problems with Lyon' s actions and praised Lyon for his service to the United States upon his death.
Leftyhunter

The 10th Amendment.

 

[leftyhunter]

The 10th Amendment.

Any case law to support that assertion? How,about an opinion from the U.S. Attorney?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

There's no case law that states can leave the union either, but that didn't stop them from trying. Legal or not Kentucky made clear is intentions, if the north invaded them she would have likely joined the south, and if the the south invaded she would join the north. We know how that went.

In short it didn't have to be legal, it just had to work. And it did work for ~5 months

Actually @Copperhead-mi has many times in the past brought up antebellum case law that secession was illegal. Texas v. White quoted prior case law. The Union Army started of the Civil War with only 16k men spread out over the West. Not enough men to invade any state.
Leftyhunter

 

[Rebforever]

Any case law to support that assertion? How,about an opinion from the U.S. Attorney?
Leftyhunter

How about reading the 10th amendment?

 

[Rebforever]

Actually @Copperhead-mi has many times in the past brought up antebellum case law that secession was illegal. Texas v. White quoted prior case law. The Union Army started of the Civil War with only 16k men spread out over the West. Not enough men to invade any state.
Leftyhunter

I didn't know we were discussing secession.

 

[leftyhunter]

How about reading the 10th amendment?

I did and it makes absolutely no mention of opting out of assisting the federal government to quash a rebellion. What case or statutory directly address the question of a,state opting out of assisting the federal government to quash a rebellion?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I didn't know we were discussing secession.

A state that declares neutrality is in effect aiding the secessionist. No state was neutral during the Civil War. They were governed by one side or the other and able bodies men in all states were legally liable for military service. Texas v White is relevant because it does not establish a right of neutrality. It does state that force may be used to stop secession.
Leftyhunter

 

[Mark Roth]

How can a state legally declare neutrality in a civil war?

Legally, no. Both sides simply chose to respect the state's decision, except when they didn't, until they didn't.

All 34 states were legally obligated to assist the federal government in raising an army to suppress the rebellion. 33 of them provided at least one regiment to the cause; eventually. Though in some of those states, the regiments were raised outside of the province of the (de jure non-existent, de facto in rebellion) state governments.

 

[kevikens]

And the irony of this is that the leaders of both the USA and CSA were born in the state of Kentucky, not too far apart in either location or age. Too bad both of them could not have retained the wisdom of their native born state. It's hard to have a war when your people don't want to fight one to either break up the Union or compel it to remain intact. Oh, that Henry Clay could have been healthier and long lived (and appreciated).