Kentucky Neutrality.

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.
A lot of fantasy still prevails- just no other way to put it.

If you and I drive thru Scott County Tennessee- and I give you a dollar for every rebel flag license plate we see- you'd have quite a wad of cash, by day's end.

And yet, few know that in 1861, only 19 votes were cast in the county for secession. Opposition to joining the CSA was 97%.

In fact, Scott County Tennessee passed a resolution to secede from the state. They formally "rejoined" the state in 1986.
 
I've read books and articles comparing the PA and VA cultures and economies in the antebellum time frame - thought this was interesting...

University Avenue Undergraduate Journal of Economics
Volume 5 | Issue 1 Article 1
2001

The Great Divide: A Comparison of Kentucky and Ohio Counties Along the Ohio River (1840-1860)
Jennie Berry
Stanford University

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economics Departments at Illinois Wesleyan University and Illinois State
University. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Avenue Undergraduate Journal of Economics by the editors of the journal. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ©Copyright is owned by the author of this document.

"The banks of the Ohio River," wrote Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831, "provided the final demonstration…[that] time and again, in general, the colony that had no slaves was more populous and prosperous than the one where slavery was in force." Tocqueville described Kentucky as being a place where "society has gone to sleep…[where] it is nature that seems active and alive, whereas man is idle." The neighboring state Ohio, on the other hand, "on all sides [has] evidence of comfort; man appears rich and contented; he works." (Tocqueville, 1835) Tocqueville's observations seek to answer an intriguing question: could slavery create two distinct levels of economic prosperity in two nearly identical areas?


Because of copyright, please use above link.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Last edited:
I've read books and articles comparing the PA and VA cultures and economies in the antebellum time frame - thought this was interesting...

University Avenue Undergraduate Journal of Economics
Volume 5 | Issue 1 Article 1
2001

The Great Divide: A Comparison of Kentucky and Ohio Counties Along the Ohio River (1840-1860)
Jennie Berry
Stanford University

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economics Departments at Illinois Wesleyan University and Illinois State
University. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Avenue Undergraduate Journal of Economics by the editors of the journal. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ©Copyright is owned by the author of this document.

"The banks of the Ohio River," wrote Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831, "provided the final demonstration…[that] time and again, in general, the colony that had no slaves was more populous and prosperous than the one where slavery was in force." Tocqueville described Kentucky as being a place where "society has gone to sleep…[where] it is nature that seems active and alive, whereas man is idle." The neighboring state Ohio, on the other hand, "on all sides [has] evidence of comfort; man appears rich and contented; he works." (Tocqueville, 1835) Tocqueville's observations seek to answer an intriguing question: could slavery create two distinct levels of economic prosperity in two nearly identical areas?


Because of copyright, please use above link.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Need to really study on this one. The data doesn't lie- the Ohio counties were more prosperous than their Kentucky neighbors.

But as the writer notes- by 1860, the slave population of Kentucky was 7%. Doesn't seem significant enough to account for the disparity.

Maybe some additional factors?
 
Need to really study on this one. The data doesn't lie- the Ohio counties were more prosperous than their Kentucky neighbors.

But as the writer notes- by 1860, the slave population of Kentucky was 7%. Doesn't seem significant enough to account for the disparity.

Maybe some additional factors?

Sir, since the end date for the study was 1860, perhaps the decline in slave population hadn't caught up to be reflected in those figures? Maybe because KY was a slave state regardless of % numbers, immigrants and investors shied away from opportunities there?

Just spit balling,
USS ALASKA
 
Need to really study on this one. The data doesn't lie- the Ohio counties were more prosperous than their Kentucky neighbors.

But as the writer notes- by 1860, the slave population of Kentucky was 7%. Doesn't seem significant enough to account for the disparity.

Maybe some additional factors?
Soil quality, the vast majority of the south has very acidic soils and the only way to economically add base into the soil was to leave a feald fallow for 15 to 20 years then burn the forest that grow their. The only fertilizer that could add base to soil before the civil war was crushed limestone and that was just not economically fisable even with trains. It wasn't until after the civil war that fertilizer that can add base to soil was invented (in Georgia).
 
Need to really study on this one. The data doesn't lie- the Ohio counties were more prosperous than their Kentucky neighbors.

But as the writer notes- by 1860, the slave population of Kentucky was 7%. Doesn't seem significant enough to account for the disparity.

Maybe some additional factors?
IIRC Kentucky had the 3rd or 4th most slaves in the south in 1860. At around 400,000.
 
Need to really study on this one. The data doesn't lie- the Ohio counties were more prosperous than their Kentucky neighbors.

But as the writer notes- by 1860, the slave population of Kentucky was 7%. Doesn't seem significant enough to account for the disparity.

Maybe some additional factors?
Just finished reading it, and my take-away in answer to your point, is that it was the continuing culture of slavery that was the problem. Menial labor, working in any way with your hands, was what slaves did - "working like a (black man)" was not something white people aspired to. A white person showed status by avoiding manual labor. In Ohio, you could earn a living by doing manual labor, let your children attend the free schools, and see your family fortunes improve each generation.

In the South, the use of slaves depressed the demand for manual labor by whites, and the stigma attached to such labor further discouraged it.
 
Taken from ''for slavery and union''. A book by Patrick A. Lewis.

"Benjamin Forsythe Buckner was a conservative proslavery Unionist who was for the Union because he thought slavery would be safest in the Union, and who never accepted emancipation as a Union war aim. This insightful book positions Patrick Lewis among the cutting-edge scholars who have punctured the mythology about Kentucky's benign slave system, harmonious social order, and enlightened political leadership."―Daniel W. Crofts, author of Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis.

"Patrick Lewis paints a splendid picture of pro-slavery Unionism in the form of Major Benjamin Buckner. His portrayal of the Kentucky planter gives texture, depth and nuance to an ideological position that has confounded historians for many years. This may be the first biography we have seen to capture the cultural and political center of Civil War-era Kentucky, including the state's embrace of a conservative Union in 1861 and its rejection of a transformed Union in 1865."―Aaron Astor, Maryville College, author of Rebels on the Border: Civil War, Emancipation and the Reconstruction of Kentucky and Missouri

"Patrick Lewis's splendid For Slavery and Union is a most welcome contribution to Civil War, Kentucky, and border state historical scholarship. Deeply researched and gracefully crafted, Lewis's book provides the best insights available into the conflicted ideological and social worlds of Benjamin Forsythe Buckner and like-minded proslavery unionists during the Civil War era. Better than any previous scholar, Lewis untangles the conundrum conservative and upwardly mobile white southerners confronted as the nation dissolved. They believed not only that unionism and slavery went hand and hand, but envisioned that secession signaled the death knell not only of the 'peculiar institution' but also of white southerners' much-boasted 'way of life,' a Weltanschauung predicated on ****. Lewis's mature, richly interpretive study places Buckner's postwar life in the whirligig world of Jim Crow/New South Kentucky, a world he quietly embraced."―John David Smith, author of Lincoln and the U.S. Colored Troops

"On a fellow historian's tip, as part of a recent book project, I researched the letters of Benjamin Forsythe Buckner written to his fiancée. This revealing collection of Civil War documents offers the perspective of a Kentucky Union officer who resigned his military commission in 1863 specifically to protest the Emancipation Proclamation, long before his home state saw its slaves freed by wartime realities. Patrick A. Lewis has turned this small set of letters into a larger, more troubling story―the postwar transformation of the former loyal Bluegrass State into an unreconstructed southern state, accomplished by the defiant politics of racial hatred, war allegiance, and fictive memory."―Christopher Phillips, University of Cincinnati, author of The Civil War in the Border South

"Well-researched, well-argued, and well-written, For Slavery and Union is an exemplary study. Benjamin Buckner of Kentucky personifies the dilemma of the Upper South proslavery unionist, during and after the Civil War. Author Patrick Lewis ably portrays the trials, contradictions, and struggles of those who favored the union, but who also saw it as the best way to protect slavery. Once the conflict became one to end slavery, Buckner zealously joined blue and gray allies in protecting whiteness. By placing Buckner fully in the context of his times, Dr. Lewis reveals that the old unionist did not change, but rather the circumstances in the world around him did. To Benjamin Buckner, the best way to protect slavery was to keep the union together. He thus joined the Union cause as the Civil War began. But his opposition to emancipation brought about his resignation. Soon he joined his former enemies in trying to shape a postwar world that would replicate the prewar racial one. All this in well-told in a wonderful case study by Patrick Lewis. His well- researched and well-written work personifies the dilemmas faced by Upper South proslavery unionists, in war and in the fights that followed the peace"―James C. Klotter, State Historian of Kentucky and professor of history at Georgetown College

"Patrick Lewis has written and engaging and insightful portrait of a man who embodied the struggle many loyal whites in the Upper South endured during the Civil War era. His nuanced examination of Benjamin Buckner's outlook and choices elucidate the phenomenon of pro-slavery Unionism shared by many white Southerners. This is a biography that will deepen our understanding of an important but understudied wartime faction."―Anne Marshall, Missisippi State University

"Deeply researched and narrated with elegance and verve, For Slavery and Union is the story of a fascinating Kentuckian whose life mirrored the larger ordeal of the state in the era of the Civil War and Reconstruction. In Lewis' skillful hands, Benjamin F. Buckner's life becomes an account of loyalties divided but never fully reconciled, and of a proslavery Unionism that foundered in the face of emancipation. The result is essential reading for anyone wanting to understand why Kentucky sided with the Union in the Civil War―and then turned south to align with the former Confederates states in the decades beyond. A sobering but thoroughly enjoyable read."―Amy Murrell Taylor, University of Kentucky

"White Unionists in Kentucky, argues Patrick Lewis, fought with the Union for the benefit of slavery, not despite slavery
. That one insight is the basis of a gracefully written, beautifully argued reinterpretation of Kentucky's experience in the Civil War era that also speaks to American political culture more generally. Even as the Civil War divided the nation, support for slavery and racial inequality flourished in both the Union and the Confederacy, suggesting how difficult it would be to find a resolution to the conflicts that led the nation to war."―Laura Edwards, author of A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction: A Nation of Rights

"This is the first major work to personify how Kentucky cultivated a Confederate identity after the Civil War."―Kentucky Alumni

"With this first book Lewis, an assistant editor of publications at the Kentucky Historical Society, emerges as a preeminent student of the Civil War and subsequent decades of "adjustment" in the Bluegrass State. Thoroughly researched, persuasively argued, and elegantly written, For Slavery and Union merits careful reading and rereading."―Civil War Book Review

"Most readers will find For Slavery and Union both enjoyable and informative."―Journal of American History

"An admirable job of explaining the complexities of Kentucky's competing political factions as they existed before, during, and after the war. Civil War scholars and those who focus on border state issues will find the volume informative. Civil War enthusiasts and generalists with a penchant for American history will enjoy this. Overall, the book is well written, engaging, and adequately documented."―Tommy Brown, Civil War Monitor
 
Last edited:
IIRC Kentucky had the 3rd or 4th most slaves in the south in 1860. At around 400,000.

Looked at 1860 census numbers via Wikipedia. Kentucky had a little over 225,000 enslaved people- for 19.5%.

More than Texas, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, and Maryland. So- kind of "middle of the pack".

But 19.5% is far more than the thesis writer reported (7%). Wondering where he got those figures.
 
Soil quality, the vast majority of the south has very acidic soils and the only way to economically add base into the soil was to leave a feald fallow for 15 to 20 years then burn the forest that grow their. The only fertilizer that could add base to soil before the civil war was crushed limestone and that was just not economically fisable even with trains. It wasn't until after the civil war that fertilizer that can add base to soil was invented (in Georgia).
Well, there was also manure (aka guano) among other natural improvements, used before the war, and the benefit of crop rotation was also well known according to the source below. This quote comes from an interesting study published in 1856 comparing the practices of Northern farmers with Southern planters.

Not all Southern planters ignored the then known methods to improve their soil, but the problem was that Southern agriculture in general had a regional tendency in many cases to lean on one cash crop, like cotton or tobacco, and the standard practice that was adopted was to wear out the land and then move on to more land. The thesis in post #42 made mention of this particular drawback.


Mr. C.'s practice of applying guano differs, in some particulars, from that commonly adopted here. After a deep ploughing of land intended for wheat, he sows the seed and guano at the same time, and harrows both in. The common custom here is to plough in the guano, six or seven inches deep, in preparing the ground for wheat. I believe Mr. C.'s plan is the best. I have myself used guano on a variety of soils for several years with great success for wheat, and I may mention the practice I have adopted from the outset, and with which I am well satisfied. It strikes between the two systems I have mentioned, and I think is philosophically right. After preparing the ground with plough and harrow, I sow wheat and guano together, and plough them in with a gang-plough which covers to a depth, on an average, of three inches.
Clover seed is sowed in the spring following the wheat-sowing, and the year after the wheat is taken off, this — on the old sterile hills — grows luxuriantly, knee-high. It is left alone for two years, neither mown nor pastured; there it grows and there it lies, keeping the ground moist and shady, and improving it on the Gurney principle.


Source:
 
Looked at 1860 census numbers via Wikipedia. Kentucky had a little over 225,000 enslaved people- for 19.5%.

More than Texas, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, and Maryland. So- kind of "middle of the pack".

But 19.5% is far more than the thesis writer reported (7%). Wondering where he got those figures.
I was incorrect. I should have said slaveholders, not slaves. Here's the more accurate numbers. Kentucky held more enslaved people (225,483) than Texas, Florida, and Arkansas, and the state contained more slaveholders than any other Southern state except Georgia and Virginia. The single largest slaveholding county in Kentucky, it turns out, stood right on the border on the Ohio River: Jefferson County with over 10,000 enslaved persons.
 
Well, there was also manure (aka guano) among other natural improvements, used before the war, and the benefit of crop rotation was also well known according to the source below. This quote comes from an interesting study published in 1856 comparing the practices of Northern farmers with Southern planters.

Not all Southern planters ignored the then known methods to improve their soil, but the problem was that Southern agriculture in general had a regional tendency in many cases to lean on one cash crop, like cotton or tobacco, and the standard practice that was adopted was to wear out the land and then move on to more land. The thesis in post #42 made mention of this particular drawback.


Mr. C.'s practice of applying guano differs, in some particulars, from that commonly adopted here. After a deep ploughing of land intended for wheat, he sows the seed and guano at the same time, and harrows both in. The common custom here is to plough in the guano, six or seven inches deep, in preparing the ground for wheat. I believe Mr. C.'s plan is the best. I have myself used guano on a variety of soils for several years with great success for wheat, and I may mention the practice I have adopted from the outset, and with which I am well satisfied. It strikes between the two systems I have mentioned, and I think is philosophically right. After preparing the ground with plough and harrow, I sow wheat and guano together, and plough them in with a gang-plough which covers to a depth, on an average, of three inches.
Clover seed is sowed in the spring following the wheat-sowing, and the year after the wheat is taken off, this — on the old sterile hills — grows luxuriantly, knee-high. It is left alone for two years, neither mown nor pastured; there it grows and there it lies, keeping the ground moist and shady, and improving it on the Gurney principle.


Source:
Guano dosnt add base to soil, that was the issue. Everybody at the time knew that guano added nutrients to soil, hell peru is considered one of the first resource curse states because of the guano trade. But nutrients wasn't really the issue, the soil was generally as fertile if not more so then the north,even after the soil was "depleted". the issue was that framing depleted the base of the soil far more quickly then would happen in the north, due to the soil haveing little base to start with hence the soil was "acidic"(and this would have happened even if the south had the same farming model as the north) so that crops would stop growing. Like I said fertilizer that was specifically made to add base to soil wasn't invented until after the Civil war.
 
Guano dosnt add base to soil, that was the issue. Everybody at the time knew that guano added nutrients to soil, hell peru is considered one of the first resource curse states because of the guano trade. But nutrients wasn't really the issue, the soil was generally as fertile if not more so then the north,even after the soil was "depleted". the issue was that framing depleted the base of the soil far more quickly then would happen in the north, due to the soil haveing little base to start with hence the soil was "acidic"(and this would have happened even if the south had the same farming model as the north) so that crops would stop growing. Like I said fertilizer that was specifically made to add base to soil wasn't invented until after the Civil war.
Very interesting! Thanks for pointing out something I need to research. Per this source, it sounds like soil acidity is a problem, north, south, east or west in the US and not something unique to the south.

Generally speaking, soils in the U.S. are moderately acidic in the Eastern and Southeastern portions of the U.S. and the Pacific Northwest, which includes the western portions of Washington, Oregon and Northern California. Rainfall is greater in these areas of the country, and over time, rain leaches away the alkaline elements in soil, creating a more acidic soil.

Source:

Getting back to Kentucky's use of slave labor vs Ohio, and the thesis' reference to the counties that were studied, all these counties were along the Ohio River and they were chosen because of the similarities of their soil and weather.

In humid regions like Kentucky, soils are most likely to be acidic and in dry regions they are more likely to be basic. However, soil pH levels can vary widely even from one field to another. Limestone based soils generally tend to be the least acidic or nearly neutral.

Source:

 
Very interesting! Thanks for pointing out something I need to research. Per this source, it sounds like soil acidity is a problem, north, south, east or west in the US and not something unique to the south.

Generally speaking, soils in the U.S. are moderately acidic in the Eastern and Southeastern portions of the U.S. and the Pacific Northwest, which includes the western portions of Washington, Oregon and Northern California. Rainfall is greater in these areas of the country, and over time, rain leaches away the alkaline elements in soil, creating a more acidic soil.

Source:

Getting back to Kentucky's use of slave labor vs Ohio, and the thesis' reference to the counties that were studied, all these counties were along the Ohio River and they were chosen because of the similarities of their soil and weather.

In humid regions like Kentucky, soils are most likely to be acidic and in dry regions they are more likely to be basic. However, soil pH levels can vary widely even from one field to another. Limestone based soils generally tend to be the least acidic or nearly neutral.

Source:
Soil acidity is something farmers have always had to deal with sense the dawn of time (not that they had a concept of what composition there soils were made of beyond what they could see) but the south was particularly base poor compared to the north (or really most places were large scale farming was done).
 
Looked at 1860 census numbers via Wikipedia. Kentucky had a little over 225,000 enslaved people- for 19.5%.

More than Texas, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, and Maryland. So- kind of "middle of the pack".

But 19.5% is far more than the thesis writer reported (7%). Wondering where he got those figures.
I've re-read the whole paragraph a couple times and the only way it makes sense to me is that the author is referring to the "Kentucky population" of the nine counties along the Ohio River she researched for the thesis, not the population of the entire state. Again, this is getting back to her premise that it was the cultural acceptance of slavery, and not necessarily the numbers of slaves, that was a cause of economic backwardness as we would define it today.

I think I recall an article or memoir which quoted a Union officer who observed how plentiful house servants were in Jefferson County (Louisville) during the war. He made it sound as if every social class except the poor owned a black servant. So there were a lot of slave owners, even if they only owned one slave. I've been looking for my source for that observation, but haven't been able to find it.
 
I've re-read the whole paragraph a couple times and the only way it makes sense to me is that the author is referring to the "Kentucky population" of the nine counties along the Ohio River she researched for the thesis, not the population of the entire state. Again, this is getting back to her premise that it was the cultural acceptance of slavery, and not necessarily the numbers of slaves, that was a cause of economic backwardness as we would define it today.

I think I recall an article or memoir which quoted a Union officer who observed how plentiful house servants were in Jefferson County (Louisville) during the war. He made it sound as if every social class except the poor owned a black servant. So there were a lot of slave owners, even if they only owned one slave. I've been looking for my source for that observation, but haven't been able to find it.
It's said there was more Union loyalism in Birmingham than Louisville in 1865. Kentucky was like the inverse of the deep south. As the years wore on confederate support dimished, in Kentucky it only grew stronger.
 
A lot of fantasy still prevails- just no other way to put it.

If you and I drive thru Scott County Tennessee- and I give you a dollar for every rebel flag license plate we see- you'd have quite a wad of cash, by day's end.

And yet, few know that in 1861, only 19 votes were cast in the county for secession. Opposition to joining the CSA was 97%.

In fact, Scott County Tennessee passed a resolution to secede from the state. They formally "rejoined" the state in 1986.
I still think it's funny for all the talk of uniform East Tennessee Unionism, there were 5 East Tennessee counties that voted overwhelming for secession. You even had large pro-Confederate minorities in some places, or counties that were an even split (McMinn County).
 
University of Louisville
ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
5-2011

For Union, for Confederacy, for slavery: motivation for enlisting & serving among Kentucky's Civil War soldiers.
James F. Osborne
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 has 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]. Copyright 2011 by James F. Osborne All rights reserved

ABSTRACT
Beginning with Bell Irvin Wiley's 1943 The Life of Johnny Reb: The Common Soldier of the Confederacy, historians have produced many works describing the motivations for soldiers to enlist and serve during the Civil War. However, because they often set up an artificial North-South divide, while suggesting the North and South were homogenous units, the motivations of border state soldiers are not well represented in these works. This thesis starts to mend this oversight and it explores the motivations of white Kentuckians to join both sides of the conflict and remain at arms. This thesis also argues that slavery played a pivotal role in soldier motivations for both Union and Confederate Kentucky soldiers, a point not well developed by the few previous works on Kentucky Civil War soldiers.


Because of copyright, please use above link.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
This might interest you gents...

The Economic Effects of American Slavery, Redux: Tests at the Border
Hoyt Bleakley (Univ. of Michigan) and Paul W. Rhode (Univ. of Michigan)

During their grand tour of the United States in 1831-32, Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont puzzled on divergent regional economic development, until they traveled down the Ohio River. There, they observed differences on opposite riverbanks, where the environment is similar but the institutions differ.


Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
18 Sept 1861

The state of Kentucky declared its support for the Union and authorized the creation of a military force to expel the Confederates from its territory. US President Abraham Lincoln was eager to support Unionists in Kentucky and Tennessee and urged an immediate advance towards the Cumberland Gap in eastern Tennessee. Like the western parts of Virginia, few slaves were owned in the mountainous areas of eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, and the population generally opposed secession. Union sympathisers in Kentucky had already been recruiting and training volunteers at Camp Andrew Johnson in Barbourville for this purpose throughout the summer of 1861. Within days of the pro-secession referendum, a convention of Unionists met at Greenville to discuss ways of resisting secession and firmly declared their loyalty to the Union and the Constitution. The Confederate authorities saw the Greenville declaration as an act of insurrection. A rival Confederate legislature held court at Russellville but it had little influence beyond those Kentuckians who were volunteering to serve in the Confederate army.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Last edited:

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

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top