Download Free Some Reasons For Kentuckys Position In The Civil War Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Some Reasons For Kentuckys Position In The Civil War and write the review.

" The Civil War scene in Kentucky, site of few full-scale battles, was one of crossroad skirmishes and guerrilla terror, of quick incursions against specific targets and equally quick withdrawals. Yet Kentucky was crucial to the military strategy of the war. For either side, a Kentucky held secure against the adversary would have meant easing of supply problems and an immeasurably stronger base of operations. The state, along with many of its institutions and many of its families, was hopelessly divided against itself. The fiercest partisans of the South tended to be doubtful about the wisdom of secession, and the staunchest Union men questioned the legality of many government measures. What this division meant militarily is made clear as Lowell H. Harrison traces the movement of troops and the outbreaks of violence. What it meant to the social and economic fabric of Kentucky and to its postwar political stance is another theme of this book. And not forgotten is the life of the ordinary citizen in the midst of such dissension and uncertainty.
This book has its beginning over 30 years ago when I was in pursuit of my first master’s degree. It is shorter than I intended originally. There are two reasons for this. First, the period written about is a short span of time. There has not been a great deal written about these months in Kentucky’s history. One can find volumes of literature almost anywhere about the Civil War, of course, and there are multiple writings about Kentucky and her role in the war. But what was happening in Kentucky during the initial months immediately following the attack on Fort Sumter has been given little more than a nod by most historians. Second, I am in the early stages of learning how to write for readership. The facts shared and the points made in this book would remain unchanged had I been less concise and more verbose. This being said, should I write a second book on another topic, my wish will be for more pages to be warranted. I remember studying Kentucky history in the fourth grade. Even at my young age, I was curious about our state’s delay in choosing a Union or Confederate side when the Civil War began. I doubt many of my classmates gave it much thought. We were fourth-graders after all. But my curious mind wondered, “Why did we wait so long?” This question stayed with me into adulthood. When I was older and in graduate school, I read voraciously about Kentucky, our history, and our attempt at neutrality during the summer months of 1861. Only one book, E. Merton Coulter’s The Civil War and Readjustment in Kentucky, provided some insight into what was happening with our citizens and with our state’s political leaders during this time. Even with the help of Coulter’s insightful and well-researched work however, my question of why we attempted an untenable position was answered only partially to my satisfaction. It occurred to me that digging deeper into this topic would be something I would have to do myself to hopefully find the answers I sought. After reading several post-period books, I then immersed myself into articles, pamphlets, newspapers, personal letters, and even a fascinating diary; all written during our five months of neutrality. Following a year of intense research, research that took me to libraries all over our state, A Divided United State: Kentucky and Neutrality in 1861 emerged. My hope is that you find my effort worthy. Linda S. McGinnis, October 2022
Frances Dallam Peter was one of the eleven children of Union army surgeon Dr. Robert Peter. Her candid diary chronicles Kentucky's invasion by Confederates under General Braxton Bragg in 1862, Lexington's monthlong occupation by General Edmund Kirby Smith, and changes in attitude among the enslaved population following the Emancipation Proclamation. As troops from both North and South took turns holding the city, she repeatedly emphasized the rightness of the Union cause and minced no words in expressing her disdain for "the secesh." Peter articulates many concerns common to Kentucky Unionists. Though she was an ardent supporter of the war against the Confederacy, Peter also worried that Lincoln's use of authority exceeded his constitutional rights. Her own attitudes toward Black people were ambiguous, as was the case with many people in that time. Peter's descriptions of daily events in an occupied city provide valuable insights and a unique feminine perspective on an underappreciated aspect of the war. Until her death in 1864, Peter conscientiously recorded the position and deportment of both Union and Confederate soldiers, incidents at the military hospitals, and stories from the countryside. Her account of a torn and divided region is a window to the war through the gaze of a young woman of intelligence and substance.
As a Unionist but also proslavery state during the American Civil War, Kentucky occupied a contentious space both politically and geographically. In many ways, its pragmatic attitude toward compromise left it in a cultural no-man's-land. The constant negotiation between the state's nationalistic and Southern identities left many Kentuckians alienated and conflicted. Lincoln referred to Kentucky as the crown jewel of the Union slave states due to its sizable population, agricultural resources, and geographic position, and these advantages, coupled with the state's difficult relationship to both the Union and slavery, ultimately impacted the outcome of the war. Despite Kentucky's central role, relatively little has been written about the aftermath of the Civil War in the state and how the conflict shaped the commonwealth we know today. New Perspectives on Civil War–Era Kentucky offers readers ten essays that paint a rich and complex image of Kentucky during the Civil War. First appearing in the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, these essays cover topics ranging from women in wartime to Black legislators in the postwar period. From diverse perspectives, both inside and outside the state, the contributors shine a light on the complicated identities of Kentucky and its citizens in a defining moment of American history.
From 1861 to 1865, the border separating eastern Kentucky and south-western Virginia represented a major ideological split. This book shows how military invasion of this region led to increasing guerrilla warfare, and how regular armies and state militias ripped communities along partisan lines, leaving wounds long after the end of the Civil War.
In Creating a Confederate Kentucky, Anne E. Marshall traces the development of a Confederate identity in Kentucky between 1865 and 1925, belying the fact that Kentucky never left the Union. After the Civil War, the people of Kentucky appeared to forget their Union loyalties and embraced the Democratic politics, racial violence, and Jim Crow laws associated with former Confederate states. Marshall looks beyond postwar political and economic factors to the longer-term commemorations of the Civil War by which Kentuckians fixed the state's remembrance of the conflict for the following sixty years.
When the Southern states began to secede from the Union after the election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860, the South expected Kentucky to join them. The North also worked hard to keep Kentucky in the Union. The state originally took a stance of neutrality but in September 1861, chose to remain with the Union. Still, Kentuckians remained greatly divided over the matter. Many men from this Union state chose to go south and fight for the Confederacy, often against the wishes of their community, family, and friends. These [men] joined the Confederate Army for a number of different reasons. Some fought due to their hatred of Abraham Lincoln and in defense of states' rights, or slavery. Others simply sought the adventure that only army life could provide. In true southern form, many of these men enlisted in the army in defense of honor. Others remained loyal to their state and county as they enlisted in the Union Army. These men did so out of a deep devotion for and love of their county. They did not fight to rid the United States of slavery, but rather to preserve United States. Because of this, the Emancipation Proclamation had a great impact on all Kentuckians and their stance on the war. Whether they fought or not, the Civil War affected every citizen of Kentucky in one way or another. Even the men who chose not to fight at all and the women who were left behind ... still held strong opinions on the war, which are briefly covered in this paper. Many families were divided within the state and Kentucky soldiers often found themselves fighting against their cousins, fathers, brothers, and boyhood friend[s].
The purpose of this study was to discover what was typical in the history and character of the state during the period of the Civil War and the readjustment that followed. The author explains the early neutrality of the state that did not secede until after the war, the break-down of that neutrality, the growing dominance of the Confederacy, and postwar reconstruction. Originally published in 1926. A UNC Press Enduring Edition -- UNC Press Enduring Editions use the latest in digital technology to make available again books from our distinguished backlist that were previously out of print. These editions are published unaltered from the original, and are presented in affordable paperback formats, bringing readers both historical and cultural value.