Why did Kentucky fight on the side of the north?

[chimp3]

Two thirds of Kentuckians fought for the North. One third for the south. The state government declared itself neutral. Now I see a lot of mixed race families.

[TheRealJoeFish]

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."

- Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, The Cornerstone Speech, March 21, 1861

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Two thirds of Kentuckians fought for the North. One third for the south. The state government declared itself neutral. Now I see a lot of mixed race families.

Mine is a mixed race marriage. I'm Irish, she's not.

[Jackalope]

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."

- Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, The Cornerstone Speech, March 21, 1861

What an utterly vile thing to say, but it does betray those that claim race and slavery weren't at issue, apologist claims notwithstanding.

[Jackalope]

Two thirds of Kentuckians fought for the North. One third for the south. The state government declared itself neutral. Now I see a lot of mixed race families.

Mine is a mixed race marriage. I'm Irish, she's not.

I was married to an Irish woman.

WAS.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The war was clearly about slavery. The Confederate Constitution forbade its states the ability to outlaw slavery, and required them to honor the "property rights" of slaveholders from other CSA states.

Revisionism aside, it wasn't about states' rights, because the CSA denied its own states the right to decide for themselves.

As to why Kentucky declared for the North, I'd imagine it has economic as well as political roots.

[Minimalist]

Great point.

From what I understand, the North didn't give a crap about the black people. They just made the no slave rule so that the South would be dependent on them. I don't think any of the Union soldiers who went to war and gave their life for the cause cared one bit about black people. It was all about politics and power, not about slaves.

Yes, but oversimplified.

Had the north and south wanted to fight about slavery they could have done so anytime after the Missouri Compromise of 1820.  The fact that it took another 40 years says that there was something else going on.  There were a significant minority in the north known as abolitionists and a few in the south who did care, passionately.  They were largely kept out of power.  Yet, South Carolina seceded on 12-20-1860 and less than 4 months later Ft. Sumter was fired on.  So I tend to agree with your basic point that whites were willing to argue about slavery but that is a far cry from armies of 80,000 to 100,000 men shooting muskets and cannons at each other.  The trigger point for the war was rebellion, but there were significant other issues, not the least of which was the South's (correct) perception that the rapidly industrializing north was passing it by.

Again, a union recruiting poster from 1861.



and another,



I don't see a single word about "slavery" there.... nor do I hear anything about it in this song from Porter's Division, Army of the Potomac in 1861.





A southern tune....  they talk about their "rights" but note that those are unspecified.






The Bonnie Blue Flag was originally written in the winter of 1861 when the first 7 southern states seceded.  Later it was amended as succeeding states joined the confederacy.

[chimp3]

The property (in Kentucky) I own and live on has a well. The well was dug by slaves in1808. The man that owned the property was a slave owner. His family was not. His family disowned him and changed their name. The family cemetery kitty corner to my spot reflects this change. Until 1808 it was one name then the name was shortened to disassociate from the slave holders. Nearby is a monument to Jefferson Davis. 

The Civil War was surely over slavery. William Tappan Thompson designed the Confederate Flag as a symbol of white supremacy.(His words).

[CapnAwesome]

Great point.

From what I understand, the North didn't give a crap about the black people. They just made the no slave rule so that the South would be dependent on them. I don't think any of the Union soldiers who went to war and gave their life for the cause cared one bit about black people. It was all about politics and power, not about slaves.

While it is true to say that Lincoln was more concerned with holding that nation together than slavery, or that the north's response was not only about slavery, the north did not come up with the no slave rule so the south would be dependent, nor is it true to say, as a blanket statement "the North" didn't give a crap about black people.  Both of these statements are patently false.

The irony is that we think the South went to war over states rights, but that is bull.  It succeeded in order to protect slavery.  

So what you have is some states outlawing slavery, the abolitionist movement.  This happened before the succession, and was indeed begun by people arguing that owning other people was wrong.  It spread. The fear that abolition would become a national position caused the southern states to succeed.  Now, did the north say no to the succession only because of slavery?  No.  They said no to hold the union together.  But the war absolutely was about slavery.  The states who succeeded desired to protect the institution of slavery. 

The cause of the war:  The south wanted to protect the institution of slavery, which was falling out of popularity, and the north fought to keep the south as part of the union.  

---

If the civil war was all about slavery, or slavery was the primary issue, why did Kentucky (a slave state) fight on the side of the north? Why did they in general, even regardless of that issue?

If you are going to present and argument, at least make it accurate.

Kentucky sent 35k troops to the confederacy

Yes, it also sent troops north, but Kentucky was clearly a split state.  To say the "fought on the side of the north" entirely misses that they also fought on the side of the south.

I'm not presenting an argument, I'm asking a question.

[Cecelia]

Slavery wasn't nearly as important to Kentucky was it was to the other Southern States. Revisionists don't want it to have been about slavery, much like Japanese nationalists didn't want citizens learning about their atrocities during world war 2. But the truth is that slavery was a major issue during the civil war, and denying is revising history to make it more suitable for those alive today.