RE: [civilwarwest] Ky. neutrality
Good points and I don’t see much in disagreement with my comments. Lincoln did move in at the appropriate time but the time was set by Polk allowing Lincoln to react accordingly. That could be called a “rescue”, I guess.
The only thing that I disagree with is the concept of the U.S. “invading” Kentucky. Kentucky was and is a State of the United States of America. It had not officially declared itself in revolt as the rest of the South did. As far as the US was concerned, it was little more than moving troops from Indiana to Ohio. I know that is not exactly accurate but I think you understand the concept. The troops had to come in with gloves on and mind their manners trying to get or keep them on the side of the USA. It worked. The Orphan Brigade was called that for a reason. They had no CSA home.
Great parallel with the Fremont situation.
From: Bob Huddleston [mailto:huddleston.r@...]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:45 PM
Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Ky. neutrality
You are correct over the long term. But in the short term of late 1861, both governments realized that Kentucky was an important place. As Lincoln put it, to lose Kentucky was to lose the War.
Both sides played a devious and somewhat public game, arming Kentuckians, training them, and both pretending that only the Other Side was doing anything illegal.
I do not doubt that at some point the US forces would have "accepted" an invitation to "rescue" Kentucky. But when and under what circumstances is the unknown. Lincoln, with his greater sense of political timing would have made the decision when he thought it was time. And, just as he withdrew Fremont's emancipation proclamation because of its effect on Kentucky, a premature invasion by Fremont would have been disavowed. Unlike Davis who decided to support his old friend Bishop Polk, although even Davis recognized Polk was politically wrong -- and, as it turned out, militarily wrong as well.
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
From: Tom Mix [mailto:tmix@...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 8:31 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Ky. neutrality
The CSA viewed itself as a separate country. For the United States to recognize and allow a part of its own country to not participate in that country’s actions would be allowing to not be a part of said country. Therefore, the remaining states could also exert its individual rights to chose not to participate in the concept of a Federal Government. If Ky. did not have to participate in the business of it’s country, then why would Iowa have to? Why couldn’t New York say “No, we don’t agree with this so we will not participate. If we honor the draft then that would violate the concept of our neutrality.”
By honoring Kentucky’s claim of neutrality the Federal Government would make a separate country between the U.S.A. and the C.S.A. In fact allowing a Switzerland to exist in the middle of what had been the “united” states.
In a Federal Government states are subservient to the central authority. A Confederacy allows for a States rights concept but that concept proved to fail.
No, the United States of America could not allow individual states to decide their autonomy in relation to what laws, rules and issues that they chose to accept or refuse. Such an honoring would justify, even and create the Confederacy without a war. Kentucky was either part of the Union or in revolt along with the other Southern states. Neutrality was never an issue as far as pragmatic governing was concerned. They had U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators serving in the U.S. Congress. They were part of the United States.
They are more “Confederate” now than they were then. Virginia was on the border too but it made a decision. So did what would become West Va.