Kentucky Neutrality Resolution

[leftyhunter]

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).

On the other hand per Stevn Freeling " the South vs the South" Kentucky provided 50k Union soldiers vs 25k Confederate soldiers. Kentucky also served as an invaluable logistical support base to Union troops in Tennessee.
Lincoln himself stated "to loose Kentucky is to loose the game".
There is no way either side could afford a neutral Kentucky.
Leftyhunter

 

[kevikens]

On the other hand per Stevn Freeling " the South vs the South" Kentucky provided 50k Union soldiers vs 25k Confederate soldiers. Kentucky also served as an invaluable logistical support base to Union troops in Tennessee.
Lincoln himself stated "to loose Kentucky is to loose the game".
There is no way either side could afford a neutral Kentucky.
Leftyhunter

Yes, reality trumps musing every day, but not a day goes by that I don't curse the memory of those responsible for our Civil War.

 

[Borderruffian]

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

We've been over and over this. Lyon advanced into Missouri after the Planter House Meeting in which he said. I would would sooner see every man, woman and Child of this state dead and buried than allow it to dictate to the federal government in any matter. He was speaking of the Price -Harney Truce.

 

[Lnwlf]

To All:

Let us stick with Kentucky neutrality please. There are too few threads devoted to that subject, while we can't swing a dead cat without hitting a thread on Missouri in some form or fashion. Thanks!

Posted as Moderator

 

[wausaubob]

Kentucky determined the outcome of the Civil War. Since Missouri, Maryland and Delaware did not have a large enough enslaved population to create a visceral fear of emancipation, they were not going to secede. Arkansas, Texas and Florida were too remote and too unpopulated to have much affect on the war.
Of the 9 states which permitted slavery, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina had the largest white population. Kentucky and Virginia had the most diverse agricultural areas. Each had resources and communication links that were essential for maintaining mid 19th century warfare.
If Kentucky had completed secession, the war would have been slowed to such an extent that any conclusion would have been postponed for a decade. If Kentucky remained in the US, the US could probably breakthrough at some point on the Kentucky/Tennessee boundary.

 

[wausaubob]

Events in w. Virginia and Missouri had to have had an affect in Louisville, Covington, and Newport. Then Lincoln and Seward used their understanding of Whig politics and the economic concerns in Kentucky to influence the Congressional elections and then the state legislative elections in August of 1861.
If the secessionists could use conventions and quick elections to gain a temporary alliance, Lincoln and the unionists would and did do the same thing.
There are reasons why Lincoln was obsessed with holding Kentucky without a big military battle, between June and the end of September in 1861. If he could hold one of the big four states in the US, he was probably going to be able to hold the captured part of Virginia, including Alexandria, too.

 

[wausaubob]

The first 9 months of the Civil War involved many actions that were mainly political, and did not involve many casualties. The only casualty at Fort Sumter was due to an accident.
Regular US army forces were allowed to evacuate Texas with minimal interference. Kentucky's alliance was determined in elections. They weren't necessary very honest, but 19th century politics were never clean.
There were big surrenders at places and like Harper's Ferry and Fort Donelson, and Congress acted to show a preference for surrender and exchange as early as December 1861. This thread discusses the issue further.
Confederate Letters of Marque

Buckner allowed Wilder to surrender, and Grant likewise paroled the soldiers surrendered at Vicksburg locally, rather than assume responsibility for the sick and hungry men.

 

[wausaubob]

It is William H. Freehling.

 

[jackt62]

Kentucky's Neutrality Resolution is another example of the fragile state of the American Union in that era. It was not only the states that unilaterally seceded from the Union, but those that took a less extreme step like Kentucky, and Missouri which also maintained a sort of military neutrality. One of the far reaching consequences of the CW was the emergence of a strong federal government and a weakening of the position of state sovereignty.

 

[wausaubob]

Kentucky's Neutrality Resolution is another example of the fragile state of the American Union in that era. It was not only the states that unilaterally seceded from the Union, but those that took a less extreme step like Kentucky, and Missouri which also maintained a sort of military neutrality. One of the far reaching consequences of the CW was the emergence of a strong federal government and a weakening of the position of state sovereignty.

Physical independence was disappearing between 1850 and 1860 as telegraph wires spread across the county and train speeds increased.
People in Kentucky who lived along the Ohio River were much more aware of what was happening in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The means to run a continental empire barely existed in the age of Calhoun, Webster and Clay. By 1860 they existed. By 1861 there was a telegraph wire across the continent. And by May 1869 there was a primitive railroad between Omaha and Sacramento.

 

[jackt62]

Physical independence was disappearing between 1850 and 1860 as telegraph wires spread across the county and train speeds increased.
People in Kentucky who lived along the Ohio River were much more aware of what was happening in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The means to run a continental empire barely existed in the age of Calhoun, Webster and Clay. By 1860 they existed. By 1861 there was a telegraph wire across the continent. And by May 1869 there was a primitive railroad between Omaha and Sacramento.

A lot of which was dependent on the resources of the federal government to encourage and fund.

 

[wausaubob]

A lot of which was dependent on the resources of the federal government to encourage and fund.

Which is why the slave owner politicians hated Henry Clay, and by extension Lincoln and Douglas. Canals, railroads and schools meant the end of local sovereignty and local variations. The great blending west of the Alleghanies, not slavery, was the basis for the nation that would become the United States.

 

[uaskme]

KY, just another State to fall to the Lincoln and Republican, War on the States. Suspect they would like to have a Do Over? Oh, we just want you to be Unionist. Ended up, well not quite good enough, you must be Republican.