Kentucky 's Role During The Civil War

Charles B Dew, PHD, a winner of Fletcher Pratt Prize from the Civil War Round table of New York for two of his books: Apostles of Disunion and Iron maker to the confederacy, is a native of St. Petersburg, Florida. A son of the south. His book Apostles of Disunion is a book in an attempt to analyze the question: why did the southern states went to secession? In his book, Dew explains why he is writing it and tries to answer (which I believe he does successfully) the question of was the secession due to state right or was the end motive the institution of slavery? The author clearly mentions that he is writing the book in

America’s transformation into the country we live in today has been formed through numerous events during its short history but the event that will split the United States into North versus South is truly one of the most defining events in American history. Through numerous events leading up to the start of the Civil War, I will attempt to show how the United States was destined for conflict and that the Civil War was inevitable. The first way I will show how the war could not be avoided will deal with the issue of slavery. Slavery should be the first mentioned because many conflicts within the United States leading up to the Civil War and the division of the United States dealt with slavery. The Missouri Compromise should also be talked

The secession of South Carolina on December 20, 1860, by a vote of 169-0 was a response to the election of Abraham Lincoln of 1860. Lincoln perceived as an abolitionist wanted to contain slavery rather than ending it. The majority party above the Mason-Dixon line were Republicans and below were primarily Democrats and Republicans were viewed as abolitionists. The election of a Republican threatened the South’s status quo. The primary catalyst for secession was based on slavery. Different social cultures and political beliefs developed due to the South’s intimate and reliant relationship on slavery. Southern whites feared the end of slavery and this paranoia was shared among plantation slave owners and white Yeoman farmers. Southern whites felt that the North were threatening the supposed tranquility of the South. The South’s agrarian economy, honor, and independence were believed to be in danger. Slavery was intertwined with the South’s social, cultural, and economic makeup. As a result of slavery, the South developed a paternalistic culture and racial ideology of white supremacy. The perceived notion that the North was influencing it’s political and social beliefs on the South lead them to believe that secession was the only act of self-preservation. The growing differences between the South and North made it difficult to negotiate. This fear was exaggerated and accelerated the South’s eventual implosion. The South believed that without slavery it would self-destruct and

The central thesis of this book is that the secession commissioners that were sent Deep South to other slave states in the winter of 1860-1861 played a major role in defending as well as urging people to subscribe to their ideology and follow them out of the Union. This thesis helps in giving insights in the South’s real intention, which can be argued out that it was to defend its slave trade culture that the North was totally against hence the use of secession as a means of convincing people. Even though the historians mostly ignore these men that were involved in the secession, these men played a vital role in the creation of the beautiful country

The controversy over slaves ultimately led to the secession. Abraham Lincoln thinks slavery is wrong and he wants to stop it from spreading. Earlier, he had warned that slavery could separate a nation. In the 1860 election Lincoln is elected, but southerners are worried he will end slavery forever. Southern states start to secede because they are worried. First South Carolina succeeds, then North, Texas, and then Florida too. They give themselves a new name called the Confederate States of America. (Wise...)

Then on December twentieth, 1860 South Carolina, after a special state assembly, declared that the state would secede from the union. In January to June nine other states joined them; Mississippi

With the eruption of the Civil War came one of the biggest tribulations and trials that this country has ever faced, but as we understand the motives of one of the greatest Presidents in American History we can see that the Civil War was inevitable. From his original intentions of merely preserving the Union and holding the country together, to permanently abolishing slavery we can observe why prevailing in the struggle of the Civil War is one of Lincoln’s defining legacies. Thus, as the civil war draws to a close, an old tumultuous era has ended, and a new more prosperous era has

Despite the differences in the primary reasons for Northerners in the war, Gallagher and Manning’s arguments align on certain aspects of slavery: both argue that in order for the Union to successfully win the war, slavery needed to be abolished. Gallagher argues that many northerners realized that in order to end the war and to rid nation of conflict and threat to the Union, slavery would need to be abolished. He argues, “Without slavery and the various issues related to its expansion, most white northerners could envision no serious internal threat to their beloved union.” Similarly, Manning also argues that there was a threat to the union because of slavery, whether Northerners liked it or not: “In 1861, a large and growing number of ordinary soldiers believed that a war endangering the Union had come about because of slavery. White Southerners’ willingness to destroy the Union over slavery made the war about slavery whether an individual Union soldier wanted it that way or not.” Therefore, Manning’s argument states that there is a need for the end of slavery in order to preserve the Union.

The bloodiest war in American history, led by Abraham Lincoln for the north, and Jefferson Davis for the south, both presidents, but two different sides. Both garner for peace, yet one is willing to start a war, while the other is willing to accept it. This essay will compare and contrast the political, economical, and social outlooks on Lincoln’s and Davis’ Inaugural addresses throughout the civil war between the North and South. Slavery, laws, and state rights drove the South to start a war, and Lincoln received the war with open arms. Both sides wanted peace, but their means of achieving it and their leaders’ choices and beliefs differed greatly while still holding similarities.

A border state, Kentucky attempted to remain neutral during the Civil War but was unsuccessful because of its strategic location and the divided loyalties of its citizens. Farmers who used the Ohio and Mississippi rivers for transporting their produce wanted access to both waterways and the international port of New Orleans. If the South separated itself from the North, this free access would be impeded. On the other hand, influential plantation owners and state rights advocates sided with the Confederacy. As a result, Kentuckians could be found in both Union and Confederate armies. What side was the State of Kentucky on and was she truly neutral in the beginning.

The election of Lincoln in November 1860 was the final trigger for secession.[74] Efforts at compromise, including the "Corwin Amendment" and the "Crittenden Compromise", failed. Southern leaders feared that Lincoln would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. The slave states, which had already become a minority in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly powerful North. Before Lincoln took office in March 1861, seven slave states had declared their secession and joined together to form the Confederacy.

Immediately after confirmation of the election of Abraham Lincoln as president, the legislature of South Carolina convened. In a unanimous vote on December 20, 1860, the state seceded from the Union. During the next two months ordinances of secession were adopted by the states of Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

In the later half of nineteenth century America, the new nation’s original ability to resolve conflict through means of peaceful compromise had vanished. Various spans of conflict such as Westward Expansion, the Market Revolution, Sectionalism, Mexican American War, the succession of the southern states and ultimately the failure of the Compromise of 1850 that made compromise between the North and the South unattainable. It was the uncompromising differences amongst the free and slave states over the power of the national government that created a divide that would result in divisional violence. From the industrialized North, the agricultural South, Jackson’s Presidency to Lincoln’s and the rise in America 's involvement in politics that followed, slavery was merely one pawn on the board during America’s transforming years that would later reveal itself to have been the vehicle for the Civil War.

In the early years of the 19th century, slavery was more than ever turning into a sectional concern, such that the nation had essentially become divided along regional lines. Based on economic or moral reasoning, people of the Northern states were increasingly in support of opposition to slavery, all the while Southerners became united to defend the institution of slavery. Brought on by profound changes including regional differences in the pattern of slavery in the upper and lower South, as well as the movement of abolitionism in the North, slavery in America had transformed from an issue of politics into a moral campaign during the period of 1815-1860, ultimately polarizing the North and the South to the point in which threats of a Southern disunion would mark the beginning of the Civil War in 1861 (Goldfield et. al, The American Journey, p. 281).

One of the most, if not the most, controversial and heated debates following the United States independence was regarding the institution of slavery. In the introduction to his book Half Slave and Half Free, Bruce Levine quotes Carl Schurzs’ observation as the “slave question not being a mere occasional quarrel between two sections of the country divided by a geographic line, but a great struggle between two antagonistic systems of social organization (p.15)”. The Nouthern states that allowed slavery benefited from the agricultural labor that those slaves provided. The Northern states that prohibited slavery did so for moral and pragmatic reasons; they felt it was morally wrong to deny another human any form of rights, and did not like the economic advantage it gave to the Southern states. With the use of slavery largely concentrated in the South, the movement against it came from the North and was led by abolitionists; those who were committed to bringing an end to the practice. In this course we have defined “Practice” as the conduct of policy, such as opinion, election, parties and law-making (Lecture). We define Policy as the goals of politics, those being sovereignty, defense, and a collective well-being (Lecture). The following analytical essay will examine antislavery sentiment and practices in the Northern states and the reaction of Southern states. Additionally how the pressures from both sides influenced the Policy of the United States following independence then