ACW - CSA controlling parts of Kentucky for most of the war

[How Do Name Good?]

Hey, first thread I've made here. I am wondering about the plausibility during the American Civil War that something like Braxton Bragg's Kentucky campaign could have resulted in the Confederacy controlling parts of Kentucky for at least a couple of years, even if they fail to decisely defeat Union forces.

This is part of me trying to formulate what a relatively "believable" aftermath of a CSA victory would be, and the South controlling parts of Kentucky could be a bargaining chip to exchange for Confederate state territory occupied by the Union early in the war, in a hypothetical peace deal.

 

[Nytram01]

Too much of Kentuckian sympathy was with the North for the Confederacy to control the state for any reasonable amount of time. The reason Bragg withdrew to Tennessee after Perryville was because local support for the Confederacy within the state had been lukewarm and he wasn't getting the recruits he'd expected.

There would have to be some change in pre-war attitudes within Kentucky to make it more Southern sympathetic to enable the Confederacy to control parts of it for any significant period of time.

In particular, the division of power within the State legislature would have to be divided evenly enough that Governor Magoffin doesn't get overrulled when he denounced both sides for violating Kentuckian neutrality and called for them both to withdraw.

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

Too much of Kentuckian sympathy was with the North for the Confederacy to control the state for any reasonable amount of time. The reason Bragg withdrew to Tennessee after Perryville was because local support for the Confederacy within the state had been lukewarm and he wasn't getting the recruits he'd expected.

There would have to be some change in pre-war attitudes within Kentucky to make it more Southern sympathetic to enable the Confederacy to control parts of it for any significant period of time.

In particular, the division of power within the State legislature would have to be divided evenly enough that Governor Magoffin doesn't get overrulled when he denounced both sides for violating Kentuckian neutrality and called for them both to withdraw.

A better way to get Kentucky to be more Confederate would be for the CSA not to violate Kentuckian neutrality. The Union forces were about to violate it themselves and had the Confederates waited, the Union would have done much of the work for them. This could have caused many Kentuckians to initially side with the Confederates rather than the Union as it would have been the North that would have been seen as the invader.

 

[OrcaBattalion]

Kentucky could've gone fully Confederate rather than its divided, but nominally pro-Union stance.

In 1862/3 you had one of the early day Unionists and the governor of Kentucky Bramlette claim that he would "bloodily baptize the state into the Confederacy" upon hearing news of the Emancipation Proclamation, but by then it was too late to do anything. Let's not forget something like 35-40,000 Kentuckians already were fighting in the Confederacy too, including many of Kentucky's most prominent sons. Keep in mind, again, this was one of the early day Unionists of the state who was involved with Camp Dick Robinson; Unionism in Kentucky was skin deep and associated solely with the delusion that they could get special treatment on the slavery question for remaining loyal. Take that away, Kentucky is as Confederate as Tennessee. It wasn't ever a "true" border state with a northern migrant population fighting a southern migrant population like Missouri. It's population and institutions were decidedly culturally southern.

Easiest POD for a fully Confederate Kentucky IMHO? Missouri Proclamation is extended to Kentucky, which makes neutral Kentuckians switch sides rather swiftly, even if Lincoln tries to denounce it--- because it becomes obvious that slavery and union can't be maintained together, which is what Kentuckians hoped for. State is too large for the Union Army to 'Maryland', as well, but ultimately Kentucky "legitimately" seceding won't change the outcome of the war. At least I don't think it would.

 

[dmg86]

The problem with that idea is the US officers in charge in Kentucky until late 1862 Anderson. Sherman,and Buell were fairly conservative officers [Anderson was from the state and a former slave owner] and Sherman and Buell were not friendly towards freeing the slaves during the war at least.

 

[OrcaBattalion]

The problem with that idea is the US officers in charge in Kentucky until late 1862 Anderson. Sherman,and Buell were fairly conservative officers [Anderson was from the state and a former slave owner] and Sherman and Buell were not friendly towards freeing the slaves during the war at least.

Fremont considered including Kentucky in his proclamation in 1861, which is what I'm talking about. It will eventually get rescinded but its not improbable that the panic it creates causes the otherwise neutral Kentuckians, and even many of the nominally pro-Union ones (like the aforementioned Bramlette) to vote the state into the Confederacy.

 

[Raferty]

It is possible an area in SE Kentucky near the Tennessee border remains under Confederate control, I suppose, or maybe some of the border areas near WV

Difficult terrain, not essential for the war effort, and easily bypassed, much as some areas of TN were bypassed during the Tullahoma Campaign in order to drive on Chattanooga

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

ultimately Kentucky "legitimately" seceding won't change the outcome of the war. At least I don't think it would.

Kentucky seeding would be HUGE. It would add all sorts of resources, manpower, and land to the Confederacy. Much more of the war would be fought in that state and this alone would at least provide more of a buffer and provide more time for the CSA to outlast the Union until '64 where Lincoln loses reelection to a Peace Democrat.