Q-Ball wrote:In-game, secession actually helps the Union more than the Confederates, because a neutral KY provides a perfect shield. Supposedly, if KY does not secceed, then it should flip to the Union around Mar-Apr 1862 (IIRC, starting in March a 50% chance each turn)
In reality, there is no earthly way Kentucky would have seceeded. There is no doubt the governor and a significant minority of the population was pro-Southern, but not a majority. And "Pro-Southern" doesn't mean "Pro-Secession" either. But in the June 1861 elections, Unionist candidates won 9 out of 10 congressional seats, and a veto-proof majority in the state legislature. Camp Dick Robinson wasn't an official US Camp, but everyone knew it was Unionist, and they were setting up practically on the statehouse lawn, with no interference. What does that tell you? Meanwhile, the Pro-Southern equivalent camp was down in Bowling Green, the only area of the state that was definitely pro-Southern.
Anyway, rant over, but I can't see a series of events that would have led to a vote for secession, and I also don't see how KY could have maintained neutrality into 1862 either once the shooting started
^This
I could not have put it better myself. Lincoln and Davis too the same approach for different reasons and not just bc they were from Kentucky.
Lincoln: Being a brilliant politician understood exactly what you said: that Kentucky would never have seceded when push came to shove. There was a reason that Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and of course Kentucky remained in the Union. They all shared very similar characteristics being pro-southern generally but with only a token slave industry meaning their economies did not rely on the export model the rest of the south did. Almost certainly the strongest motivation for not seceding was that in the event of a war it was guaranteed that their homes would be hit first and probably hardest. Seceding would have helped that process along and would have guaranteed that war would come to their state. The farthest they were willing to go was what Kentucky did, refuse to send troops and declare neutrality. There's no evidence that the majority of people in
any of these states were willing to go farther. Kentucky is reminiscent of Missouri in many ways since it had a pro-secession
governor and a pro-secession
state guard but they did not by any means speak for the population of Kentucky as a whole and were the only ones that I have read or heard about who actively wanted to take the state out of the Union. As was demonstrated in the case of Missouri simply having a governor and a state militia who wanted to yank the state out of the Union into the arms of the Confederacy was simply not enough. Without support from a very large majority of the population then they were powerless. Almost immediately Missouri's governor had to high-tail it to Neosho where he set up a rump state government and "passed an ordinance of secession" in a town that was quite literally on the border and not long after that had to be abandoned in any case. Kentucky was much the same.
So Lincoln knew that the gvr and the militia were just a vocal minority and that as long as he respected the wishes of the true government of Kentucky, the state legislature, then eventually they would choose to stay. Considering that they did not even bring up secession when the real Camp Dick Robinson was established and the commander was given a commission in the army, that to me is a pretty big indicator of popular sentiment.
Jeff Davis knew that a neutral Kentucky was far better than a Confederate Kentucky just like you said since it shielded Tennessee which would make holding the Mississippi river and maintaining control over East Tennessee which was thoroughly Unionist just like West Virginia much easier.
I like history, especially the Civil War
I wish more battles had happened in Maryland, kind of weird to wish for but considering just how damn close to the action we were it
sucks that the only battlefield is in Sharpsburg way out in the boonies
my neighbours are COWS! lol
