Talk:Kentucky in the American Civil War

message: Hi, Stevietheman. What section headings do we need? I suggest chronological (as you might have guessed ;) CQ 16:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, for now, I suggest breaking it up into the individual years from 1861 to 1865, and perhaps "Pre-war" and "Post-war", like I did in Louisville in the Civil War.  We can always refine this at a later time. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, some content in Louisville in the Civil War could be reused here. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. There. I made sections 1861, 1862-1863, 1864-1865, and a Timeline section which will eventually become transcluded from Kentucky in the Civil War/Timeline which I removed from Timeline of Kentucky history CQ 17:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: I did a minor cleanup a few minutes ago and did not attempt to add any significant content. But here are some suggestions as you develop the article:
# List of prominent Kentucky people involved with the war, such as John C. Breckinridge
# List of Kentucky regiments (and the Orphan Brigade)
# Map of the state that shows where battles occurred
# List of memorials (battlefield parks, statues, museums, etc.)
# Discussion of how the Cumberland Gap was a potential invasion route to Eastern Tennessee, critical to the Union (which is why the Battle of Mill Springs was important)
# You may find :Image:ACW Corinth2Perryville.png of use.
Hal Jespersen 19:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for the assistance.  I added your suggestions to the todo list. Cheers! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes many thanks! I've reduced the article to Stub-class for a while. The American Civil War task force is now seeking recruits. Please consider joining. Thanks! • CQ 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestions 

message: Currently, the template  is showing at the bottom of major Civil War articles. Does anyone object to adding it to this one? Or, is it too early? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not. I'm looking at Missouri in the Civil War. It's also a Border state (Civil War). I started a template based on Template:Missouri in the Civil War — Template:Kentucky in the Civil War. The "See also" section now has links to other "[some adjacent state] in the Civil War" articles that I could find. Maybe WP:ACW can help to "homogenize" a bit of this sort of content and context. BTW. I'm going ahead with the "Timeline" idea per that project (but it's long range) so I moved Kentucky in the Civil War/Timeline to Timeline of Kentucky in the Civil War per Krill's recommendation. • CQ 23:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the template idea--it would help keep all the "Kentucky in the Civil War" events in perspective.  Re: states,  already lists all the states that have articles or categories of "[state] in the Civil War". I'm happy to see you take the lead on a lot of this. I will, of course, help out where I can. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Show American Civil War?

message: I added 3 abstracts, from 1862, 63, and 64 to give an idea of the strength, composition, and location of the Union Forces. At the bottom, I gave a year-by-year breakdown of the various units and their commanders. However, it could be cleaned up and formatted better, I'm not really the expert on wikicode and I used plain old HTML. Let me know any questions, comments, suggestions, complaints, and/or requests for further information, I have a copy of the OR as well as the Order of Battle books used to generate this information. MrPrada 07:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union OOBs and abstracts which I added 

message: Also, I was VERY suprised after I read this to see that Brig. Gen. Eleazer A. Paine is missing from the article. Burbridge's actions were outrageous, yes, but he was never convicted of anything. Paine, and a congressmen, both went to jail for illegally taxing the citizens of the Western District(which I believe included just the Columbus area, I think Lousville and Paducah were in Ewing's command, and the rest of the state fell under Hobson). Anyway, I think the following should be addressed:
*Add a major section on Eleazer A. Paine and his actions
*Expand 1864-1865 and the information about Burbridge(a lot of it is over in Lousville in the Civil war, but it pertains more to this article)
*Add a section about Granger's Army of Kentucky, explain the Command and Control Relationship between the Granger and Nelson in 1862
*Explain the command and control relationship between Parke/Foster/Burnside (Department of Ohio), the IX Corps, XXIII Corps and the Kentucky Districts in 1863
*Eliminate all of the red links, and add references up top
Once that is completed I think this would be a fantastic FA candidate, and Project Civil War Task Force could definetly use more of those. MrPrada 07:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  E.A. Paine and the District of Western Ky 

message: Also, for FA-status, the article really needs to hilight Sherman's removal in 1861 amidst allegations of insanity. The articles on Hugh Ewing and Lorenzo Thomas get into it a bit and hilight some of the background information. It is probably one of the most interesting incidents of the history of Kentucky in the Civil War, and should feature prominently in the article. MrPrada 09:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William T. Sherman 

message: Even though this infobox shows Kentucky as a border state, the infobox's presence may be misleading to many readers.  Kentucky was never officially a confederate state. This needs to be ameliorated somehow. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends.  To the CSA, it was official.  We could place it in the Confederate government of Kentucky article.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 20:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I was just looking, and the other three border states have the infobox.  Plus, should this article ever make FA, it needs an infobox like this.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 20:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs an infobox, but perhaps one for border states.  And perhaps that one could be shown on this and the other three instead of the Confederate infobox. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just created a userbox for the bad guys, and placed it on the individual pages.  As for as border, I probably need to.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 21:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Kentucky officially never was part of the Confederacy.  Frankfort was seized temporarily, very temporarily.  Just because some breakaway citizens formed an alternative government in Bowling Green doesn't mean it was an official declaration. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

text: If Kentucky was deemed a "rebel state" and all the other things that followed from that, as you state, are there references for this material and how should it be incorporated into the article? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confederate states infobox

message: OK, maybe this is addressed elsewhere and I didn't see it.  But aside from Lincoln's assessment, why are we stating Kentucky was a border state of "key importance"?  Firstly, Lincoln was a politician, not a military man (prior to becoming C-in-C of course), and therefore does not represent an expert opinion.  He could have just been expressing a heartfelt desire not to lose his birth state.  People cared about such odd things back then.
In fact, the entire "above the fold" section of this article 'seems' to me to be a collection of statements designed to support the "key importance" statement without, you know, actually *supporting* it with sources.
The sort of things I would be looking for in a state of "key importance" would be things that drastically affected the overall course of the war and helped determine the winner.  For instance, Virginia was obviously of key importance - not only for being a major battleground and occupying territory between the opposing capitals, but for the might-have-beens of its secession alone.  Had mighty Virginia not seceded, it wouldn't have taken Robert E. Lee along with it - and he was a large part of the reason the CSA held on as long as it did.
Or how about Tennessee?  The long and bitter battles of Tennessee were critical to the course of the war.  With Chattanooga fell the CSA's last hope of protecting the Deep South from invasion.  It opened the door to Sherman's devastating march and the burning of Atlanta.  Tennessee was clearly of key importance.
I'm just not seeing it for Kentucky.  They had horses, and important people were born there, and their people were highly divided.  But being from the midwest, I've driven through Kentucky a lot, and it's a lot of flat open nothingness, geographically, so I doubt it was an important transportation bottleneck.  One can't even say that winning Kentucky was critical to Lincoln's reelection since he lost the state but still won.  If it had gone over entirely to the CSA is anyone seriously suggesting a might-have-been involving an invasion of Indiana?  :P  If it had ever been firmly in Unionist hands would it truly have been that big a help?  Where is the key importance in this state?
I'm not trying to offend any Kentuckians who might be reading this.  I'm just puzzled.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.165.92 (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete control of Kentucky by the CSA would mean that the Confederate could harass Ohio River trade, as well as increase the chances of invasion of Indiana and Ohio, plus increasing the liklihood that the other border states with slaves like Missouri and Delaware would also secede.  Plus, with Louisville and Lexington the CSA would have gain up to 90,000 additional soldiers.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 01:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Were there any border or Confederate states that weren't considered important? It seems to me that someone somewhere is always making the case for why this state or the other was very important to the Union or the Confederacy.  Well, maybe not Alabama. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key importance 

message: For non-American readers of this article, it would be really helpful to have a map of Kentucky to illustrate what is meant by a "border state" in the US Civil War. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably looking for this map from the main article on the American Civil War. The yellow territories are "border states" which did not secede, but were allowed to maintain slavery until the end of the war. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 09:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of those yellow states is Kentucky?  Serious question, from a non-American. That’s why a map of Kentucky itself in this article would be helpful. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Fair point. I may have to see if there's any good maps on Commons, but the article on Kentucky should fill you in for the moment. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is helpful, thanks!  Still think a map for this article would be a good addition. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: A map would be helpful