Interesting. Wasn't aware of the Fremont proclamation's impact (potentially) on Kentucky. ThanksTitle; Tactically sound, strategically inept: Union and Confederate missteps in neutral Kentucky, 1861.
Author; Small, Logan J.
Branch/Country; US Army
Abstract
In May 1861, Kentucky declared neutrality in the burgeoning US Civil War. Both the Union and Confederacy vied for the state's loyalty by overtly respecting its neutrality and covertly currying support within it. By August 1861, the Union appeared to have the upper hand. Pro-Union supporters had won recent local elections and a Union recruitment camp was operating within the state's borders. However, the Union's gains were nearly erased when Union General John C. Fremont declared all slaves in Missouri free on August 30, 1861. This proclamation caused an uproar in slave-holding Kentucky. The state threatened to tilt toward the Confederacy when, just days after Fremont's proclamation, Confederate General Leonidas Polk ordered troops to occupy Columbus, Kentucky. With its neutrality overtly violated by Polk, Kentucky declared its loyalty to the Union on September 18, 1861. Both Fremont's and Polk's actions were contrary to the policies of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Why did two senior military commanders ignore the strategic implications of their tactical actions? Using Eliot Cohen's "unequal dialogue" as a standard, this monograph argues that neither commander engaged in an adequate dialogue with their respective policymaker. A dialogue which adhered to Cohen's model could have avoided disaster for either commander. Additionally, both commanders' inexperience at military command, ignorance of Kentucky's political situation, and exclusive focus on tactical issues contributed to their mistakes. Fremont's and Polk's actions serve as an important lesson for current and future military leaders charged with implementing policy.
Series; Command and General Staff College (CGSC), School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) Monograph
Publisher; Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date, Original; 2018-05-24
Date, Digital; 2018-05-24
Release statement; Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-author and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository; Combined Arms Research Library
Library; Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created; 2019-04-16
CONTENTdm
cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org
Cheers,
USS ALASKA
-
Welcome to CivilWarTalk, a forum about the American Civil War! - Join today! It's fast, simple, and FREE!
Kentucky Neutrality.
- Thread starter FlorianWarth
- Start date
USS ALASKA
Major
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
Lost Cause
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
Lincoln did not tread as carefully as perceived. Upon the initial call for 75,000 troops, he sought 4 regiments from Ky. Gov. Magoffin had this response from the demand:
"I say, emphatically, Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern states."
During the neutrality period, Lincoln and Magoffin were at odds over Union enlistments and civilian arrests (which defied the constitution).
USS ALASKA
Major
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
University of Louisville
ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
1-2005
Casualty of War : the governorship of Beriah Magoffin, 1859-1862.
Robert William Goebel
University of Louisville
This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It as been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected].
ABSTRACT
This thesis seeks to understand Beriah Magoffin as Governor of Kentucky. Adding to the work begun by Michael T. Dues and Lowell H. Harrison during the 1960s and 1970s, this thesis fleshes out a man little studied in history. It addresses several questions: Who was Governor Beriah Magoffin and what type of leader was he? Answering these questions, this thesis provides Magoffin as a mediocre leader who unsuccessfully tried to prevent civil war through compromise, neutrality, and obstruction. Moreover, Magoffin was a complex man with complex principles that guided his actions and eventually ruined his governorship. Magoffin believed in state's rights, majority rule, a strict construction of the Constitution, compromise, and the Union as it was. Over the course of the war, Magoffin held onto his principles without evolving. Unable to influence policy or the Unionist dominated General Assembly, Magoffin resigned as a political casualty of war.
Cheers,
USS ALASKA
ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
1-2005
Casualty of War : the governorship of Beriah Magoffin, 1859-1862.
Robert William Goebel
University of Louisville
This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It as been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected].
ABSTRACT
This thesis seeks to understand Beriah Magoffin as Governor of Kentucky. Adding to the work begun by Michael T. Dues and Lowell H. Harrison during the 1960s and 1970s, this thesis fleshes out a man little studied in history. It addresses several questions: Who was Governor Beriah Magoffin and what type of leader was he? Answering these questions, this thesis provides Magoffin as a mediocre leader who unsuccessfully tried to prevent civil war through compromise, neutrality, and obstruction. Moreover, Magoffin was a complex man with complex principles that guided his actions and eventually ruined his governorship. Magoffin believed in state's rights, majority rule, a strict construction of the Constitution, compromise, and the Union as it was. Over the course of the war, Magoffin held onto his principles without evolving. Unable to influence policy or the Unionist dominated General Assembly, Magoffin resigned as a political casualty of war.
Cheers,
USS ALASKA
BillO
Captain
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Location
- Quinton, VA.
Kentucky is a funny place. It's the only State that has tried to join the Confederacy after the war was over.
Forum Host- Joined
- Mar 3, 2020
- Location
- Hartford, CT
"I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky."
- A. Lincoln
- A. Lincoln
I remember reading a history of Lewisville that talked about how it was manly pro union before 1865, but so many former Confederates moved in after the war that by the end of reconstruction they were putting up pro confederacy monuments and trying to rewight history to show the city being far more pro confederacy then it actually had been, Just wild.
The Ninth Ohio
First Sergeant
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2017
- Location
- Queen City of the West
I'm honestly curious what a "Kentucky declares for X" scenario would look like, and whether it would realistically look anything different than what actually happened. Would declaring one way or the other make people want to enlist differently than they did? Tennessee seceded and still contributed several regiments to the union cause. There were Kentucky regiments in service to both federal and confederate governments before neutrality was violated, were there not? There were certainly hundreds if not thousands who left Kentucky to Ohio, Tennessee and elsewhere to enlist.
What functional difference would it really have made, looking back?
What functional difference would it really have made, looking back?
Probably depend on the exact circumstances. Those people favourable toward X - whichever way X is - are likely to be more open about supporting such a decision and those opposed to X either more or less likely to object depending on their level of commitment. The biggest impact might be on those more uncertain on the issue where a clear decision by the state government gives them a push to support their state. How many people would be affected to change their status between supporting X, staying as neutral as they could or opposing X would be very difficult to say I suspect.
Seeking34
Corporal
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2023
- Location
- Kentucky descended from Tennesseeans
After years of researching Kentucky's role in the civil war. I've finally concluded that the state was a confederate state that couldn't secede. The state didn't want to go to war. 1. It had economic ties to the north. Meaning it couldn't afford to go to war. 2. It's social and cultural hearts were with the south. But it's economics and politics (mostly the Whig party of Henry Clay) made it unionist. 3. Kentucky slave holders thought the best way to keep their slaves. Was to remain in the union. Rather than try an unrisky confederacy that would for sure guarantee the end of slavery it if failed. You can also look at the number of men. Who didn't enlist in the union army or the confederate army (probably out of fear of being arrested). The union vote is misleading because the vast majority of confederate voters boycotted the elections. If you go into the Kentucky state archives you can find the neutrality document. It says Kentucky will join the rest of the south if the North does not allow it to remain neutral. But we saw what happened when Polk invaded. After the EP and the martial law in late 1863/1864. And with a great number of Kentucky slaves running away to join Union ranks. Kentucky's union support was diminished. So much so that it was said you could find more union support in Birmingham than in Louisville. I believe Kentucky would have seceded in 1863 had it remained neutral. Kentucky was just like the other upper south states of VA, TN, AR, And NC. Only difference being KY had more economic ties to the Midwest and Northeast due to the railroads. So it would have needed a little more time to secede. Just like how the aforementioned 4 states needed a few months to decide to secede after Lincoln called for 75k volunteers.
USS ALASKA
Major
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
University of Louisville
ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository
College of Arts & Sciences Senior
Honors Theses
5-2015
The electoral victory of John Bell and the constitutional Union in Kentucky, 1860.
Samuel Thomas Whittaker
University of Louisville
This Senior Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Arts & Sciences Senior Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Introduction
The presidential election of 1860 is one of the most studied in United States history. Four candidates contested the presidential race that saw the Democratic Party split in two and the Republican Party gain the presidency without a single southern electoral vote. The election precipitated the Civil War as the victory of Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans led to the secession of southern states from the Union. A wealth of historians have focused on the role of Lincoln and the rise of the Republican Party in the election. Many have also examined the Democratic split as northern Democrats backed Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas and southern Democrats gave their support to Vice President John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky. However, relatively few historians have made Tennessee Senator and Constitutional Union presidential candidate John Bell the focus of their work, despite the fact that he received 39 electoral votes and carried Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, all located within the key border region between the North and Deep South. Bell failed to secure the national support necessary to become president of the United States. However, his pluralities in three key states and strong showings in the Upper South/Border States of Maryland, Missouri, and North Carolina merit further study. Bell's electoral success in Kentucky may be attributed to three key factors. First, as the Constitutional Union candidate, Bell received the support of influential former Whig Party politicians from Kentucky such as Senator John J. Crittenden, former Congressman Garret Davis, and former Governor Charles S. Morehead. Bell gained the loyalty of former Whig voters in Kentucky which had been a stronghold of the party and home to its greatest leader, Henry Clay. The Whig tradition in Kentucky gave Bell a firm support system in the state. Second, Bell enjoyed the advantage of a divided Democratic Party. Though John C. Breckenridge had the support of a majority of Kentucky Democrats, Stephen Douglas peeled away a crucial twenty-five thousand Democratic votes to open the door for Bell's victory. The divided Kentucky Democracy significantly weakened Bell's opposition. Finally, the Constitutional Union Party of Kentucky ran a successful campaign with an appealing message to Kentucky voters. The Constitutional Union rhetoric in the state emphasized popular pro-Union and proslavery positions successfully. This pro-Union and proslavery message earned the trust and support of Kentucky voters, ultimately granting Bell an electoral victory in the state. A unique political situation existed in each border state, but these three factors to Bell's success, though varying in importance, played a role throughout the states where Bell had significant electoral support.
Because of copyright, please use above link
Cheers,
USS ALASKA
ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository
College of Arts & Sciences Senior
Honors Theses
5-2015
The electoral victory of John Bell and the constitutional Union in Kentucky, 1860.
Samuel Thomas Whittaker
University of Louisville
This Senior Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Arts & Sciences Senior Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Introduction
The presidential election of 1860 is one of the most studied in United States history. Four candidates contested the presidential race that saw the Democratic Party split in two and the Republican Party gain the presidency without a single southern electoral vote. The election precipitated the Civil War as the victory of Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans led to the secession of southern states from the Union. A wealth of historians have focused on the role of Lincoln and the rise of the Republican Party in the election. Many have also examined the Democratic split as northern Democrats backed Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas and southern Democrats gave their support to Vice President John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky. However, relatively few historians have made Tennessee Senator and Constitutional Union presidential candidate John Bell the focus of their work, despite the fact that he received 39 electoral votes and carried Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, all located within the key border region between the North and Deep South. Bell failed to secure the national support necessary to become president of the United States. However, his pluralities in three key states and strong showings in the Upper South/Border States of Maryland, Missouri, and North Carolina merit further study. Bell's electoral success in Kentucky may be attributed to three key factors. First, as the Constitutional Union candidate, Bell received the support of influential former Whig Party politicians from Kentucky such as Senator John J. Crittenden, former Congressman Garret Davis, and former Governor Charles S. Morehead. Bell gained the loyalty of former Whig voters in Kentucky which had been a stronghold of the party and home to its greatest leader, Henry Clay. The Whig tradition in Kentucky gave Bell a firm support system in the state. Second, Bell enjoyed the advantage of a divided Democratic Party. Though John C. Breckenridge had the support of a majority of Kentucky Democrats, Stephen Douglas peeled away a crucial twenty-five thousand Democratic votes to open the door for Bell's victory. The divided Kentucky Democracy significantly weakened Bell's opposition. Finally, the Constitutional Union Party of Kentucky ran a successful campaign with an appealing message to Kentucky voters. The Constitutional Union rhetoric in the state emphasized popular pro-Union and proslavery positions successfully. This pro-Union and proslavery message earned the trust and support of Kentucky voters, ultimately granting Bell an electoral victory in the state. A unique political situation existed in each border state, but these three factors to Bell's success, though varying in importance, played a role throughout the states where Bell had significant electoral support.
Because of copyright, please use above link
Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Paul Yancey
Sergeant
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2019
- Location
- Kentucky
Very informative. Thanks for posting.
USS ALASKA
Major
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
CONFEDERATE SYMPATHY IN KENTUCKY
Pro-Confederate Sympathy and Its Results in Northern Kentucky
Joel Shutt
Liberty University
Spring 2020
Abstract
During the Civil War, Kentucky was deeply divided in sentiment between Union and Confederate sympathies. Although these divides could be found anywhere, even within the smallest of towns, the population of some regions numerically favored one side or the other. Even so, there was always a vocal and active minority present, leading to political and even violent contention. This thesis seeks to understand the role that pro-Confederate sentiment played in northern Kentucky during the war. It will investigate how the region influenced the war and public sentiment statewide, and the nature of the conflict within. It will investigate geographic, social, and economic factors prior to the outbreak of conflict in hopes of better understanding the local culture these people were a part of, and thereby ascertain their viewpoint on the issues related to the war. Some important sources this study relies on include political results, personal accounts, newspaper articles, and the analysis of other historians.
Please use above link
Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Pro-Confederate Sympathy and Its Results in Northern Kentucky
Joel Shutt
Liberty University
Spring 2020
Abstract
During the Civil War, Kentucky was deeply divided in sentiment between Union and Confederate sympathies. Although these divides could be found anywhere, even within the smallest of towns, the population of some regions numerically favored one side or the other. Even so, there was always a vocal and active minority present, leading to political and even violent contention. This thesis seeks to understand the role that pro-Confederate sentiment played in northern Kentucky during the war. It will investigate how the region influenced the war and public sentiment statewide, and the nature of the conflict within. It will investigate geographic, social, and economic factors prior to the outbreak of conflict in hopes of better understanding the local culture these people were a part of, and thereby ascertain their viewpoint on the issues related to the war. Some important sources this study relies on include political results, personal accounts, newspaper articles, and the analysis of other historians.
Please use above link
Cheers,
USS ALASKA
The most interesting account is the story of the former slave owner lamenting his situation. Not for the $5,000 loss of his now freed men and women- but rather there is now none to call him "master".
Interesting thanks. Didn't realise there was so much opposition to the union in northern Kentucky and the reasons for it.
Seeking34
Corporal
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2023
- Location
- Kentucky descended from Tennesseeans
Yep. Kentucky unionists were unionst due to slavery. They thought the best way to retain their slaves was to stay loyal.
Seeking34
Corporal
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2023
- Location
- Kentucky descended from Tennesseeans
Yeah there's a big myth in the civil war. That Kentucky was some union hot-bed. It was way more confederate than believed.
Reconstructed Rebel
Captain
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2021
Kinda of depended on which county or creek you hailed from, speaking for me and my kin. It varied a lot in the area of central Kentucky where I am from. I would have bet all I own we were die hard Confederates, (my middle name is Lee out of respect for the General) but when we started researching the family tree some years ago it turns out all but one one man fought for the Union. Kentucky is hard to lay claim to one way or the other- just my opinion.
There may be mutiplel reasons behind Kentucky unionist sentiment.
I can point out several counties with a minimal slave population, and where support for the Union was overwhelming.
Obviously, these folks were not pulling for the Union to protect their slaves. As they had none.
Similar threads
- Learn About Us
- ►About CivilWarTalk
- ►Contact the Webmaster
- ►Meet the Staff
- ►Link to CivilWarTalk
- Join Our Community
- ►Register
- ►Browse Forums
- ►View Today's Discussions
- ►Search the Forum
- Get Help
- ►FAQ
- ►Student Guide
- ►Forum Rules & Etiquette
- ►Copyright / DMCA
Bringing the