Is this true? (Independence, Union, Jackson: house, purchase, authority)

[missymomof3]

I was looking up the info that tomocox was talking about about the Civil War and came across this. Does anyone know anything about it?

Do_you_praise_lincoln

[Off Topic]

Like with most of these wacko's, there is a germ of truth there. But it's greatly exaggerated to make a political point. (Quoting that article: "The truth has always been an enemy of the Empire and an ally of Dixie!" and "God bless Dixie!" Far be it from me to question the motives of the "Southern Independence Party of Kentucky" but it's not very difficult to ascertain this guys bias!)

First of all, Kentucky sent many more soldiers to the Union than the Confederacy. So it terms of shedding blood, we were Union. You cannot say it's a myth that we "leaned" towards the Union when more Kentuckians were dying for the Union than for the Confederacy.

Kentucky did initially attempt to stay neutral in a manner of speaking. This was in the very, very early part of the war when things were just shaking out. The governor of Kentucky at the time was a southern sympathizer and refused Lincoln's request for troops. And initially our legislature passed articles of neutrality. But Kentucky never passed any declaration of secession.

In the summer of 1861, just 2 months after the governors rejection of Lincoln, there was an election. The Union candidates won 9 out of 10 congressional offices. Later that year the Unionists swept the state elections, giving the Unionists a 76–24 advantage in the House and 27–11 in the Senate. That pretty well shows how the populace of Kentucky "leaned." The pro-southern governor eventually resigned.

During a time when the south moved an army into Kentucky, there was a "shadow" Confederate government established. It collapsed after the Confederates were pushed out of Kentucky. It never had any real power in Kentucky, even inside the battle lines of the Confederates. It certainly had no authority whatsoever past the front lines of the southern soldiers.

The Civil War has produced thousands of these kinds of retroactive revisionists, trying to twist or cherry-pick the facts to make a political point. There were many southern sympathizers in Kentucky, especially in the far south-west portion of Kentucky; but most Kentuckians in most of Kentucky were solidly Union.

[missymomof3]

Thank you for your response!

[tomocox]

Wacko? If you find that my reply was incorrect, please point out what is incorrect, but there is no need to act indignant. I would also like to understand what "political point" you feel I was making. I did nothing but explain in simple terms exactly what you went correctly into with greater detail

[missymomof3]

tom I think he was responding to the article I posted?

[K. Dunn]

Yeah Tomocox;

That you can tell that comment was directed at the writer of that piece, not you. Chill.

[tomocox]

I am fine... I had overlooked the link, until after my response was past editing. I am sorry that I took offense. Bad hair day for a bald man.

[Davart]

Originally Posted by Off Topic

The Civil War has produced thousands of these kinds of retroactive revisionists, trying to twist or cherry-pick the facts to make a political point. There were many southern sympathizers in Kentucky, especially in the far south-west portion of Kentucky

Being from far south western Kentucky I'd be interested to know where this information comes from. Granted the Jackson Purchase region was about the only area that was truly southern in views, what was the cherry picking?

[Off Topic]

Originally Posted by missymomof3

tom I think he was responding to the article I posted?

Correct. No offense meant to tom and none taken from his response.

[Off Topic]

Originally Posted by Davart

Being from far south western Kentucky I'd be interested to know where this information comes from. Granted the Jackson Purchase region was about the only area that was truly southern in views, what was the cherry picking?

I was making a general statement about revisionists like Joe Gresham who take a few facts, omit tons of contrary facts, and then use it to make a political statement. They hit my sore point in that many of them try to persuade people the the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. Being a history buff with the Civil War as my favorite area of history, these guys really get my goat.

As to cherry picking, Gresham portrays the "secession" session of the legislature as the will of the people. But he neglects to mention that the duly elected legislature was still in session in Franfort, that these secession legislators meet in behind Confederate lines and fled Kentucky when the southern troops retreated. Nor did he mention the two 1861 elections in Kentucky that both went overwhelming for unionists candidates. I could go on and on, but those are just two glaring examples. (Referring to his fellow citizens from the north as the "enemy" is another example of his extremism - I don't think "wacko" is too strong a word for him at all.)

As to my sources, much of it just came from my reading, but I did a quick fact check on Wikipedia. Here are two articles that discuss the situation much more fully than he or I did.

Kentucky in the American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This one mentions the situation in the Jackson Purchase area:

Confederate government of Kentucky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But there are literally thousands of books written by unbiased historians who would confirm what I've said. There is a good reason guys like Gresham are out on the fringe.