Talk:Confederate government of Kentucky/Archive 1

List of 68 Counties???

I am trying to find which counties were included in those 68 counties and will appreciate if someone would kindly guide me to a source where I can see a list of those counties or would be generous enough to list them outright. Again, I will greatly appreciate it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.43.115 (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger with Russellville Convention

It seems like a good idea to merge Russellville Convention into this article. The Russellville Convention article is a stub, and most of the information has already been included in this article.

Bethel College

While there was a Bethel College in Hopkinsville[1], I think it is more likely that the convention moved to the Bethel College that was in Russellville at the time. I don't have access to the reference to see if it mentions the city. Griffinity 04:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't mention the city. Originally, I had thought it was talking about the Bethel College in Tennessee. Wonder how we could find out for sure? Acdixon 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems you are right. I contacted Dr. Lowell H. Harrison via a librarian at Western Kentucky University, and he confirms that the meeting was moved to the institution in Russellville. Thanks for the heads-up! I've corrected the text. Acdixon 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Albert Sydney Johnston

I have found references that spell his middle name Sidney here and Sydney here and here. Annie Catron 17:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. I was just going with the spelling in his Wikipedia article. I'm not actually sure which is correct. Acdixon 17:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave it with the Wikipedia article. I've been delved into my family ancestry, and I've noticed there are many variations on names, and it seems that spelling of names wasn't as important in the past. For example, many censuses show multiple variations on given names, whereas the surname is almost always correct. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Background

The following is a hurried, rough draft of how I would expand the background section and smooth out the transition to the next section. The message that my sources as well as Harrison (I obtained "Civil War in Kentucky" and "Kentucky's Governors" from the library) seem to make is that the main force in Kentucky was not really the Unionists or the Secessionists but the larger majority that was primarily concerned with peace and security. Over the course of half a year this position became more closely associated with Union and the secessionist minority was given no choice but acquiescence or secession by September 1861. Two of the references I use (Heck and Shortridge) are old journal articles and the other two (Catton and Nevins) are books that are part of multi-volume works on the war. I found your reference to the participation in the June elections was incorrect and have corrected it -- Harrison in "The Civil War in Kentucky" (page 11) does say that the vote was "over half the 1860 canvas", but he says the total votes cast were 125,000. However on page 4-5 the total votes cast in 1860 come to 138,000 which makes the actual percentage about 85%.

Background

Unionist traditions within Kentucky had remained strong throughout her brief history. The state had strong economic ties with Ohio River cities like Pittsburg and Cincinnati while at the same time sharing many cultural, social, and economic links with the South. Many slaveholders felt that the best protection for slavery was within the Union. The presidential election of 1860 reflected Kentucky’s mixed heritage when the state gave Bell 45% of the popular vote, Breckinridge 36%, Douglas 18%, and Lincoln less than 1%. Historian Allan Nevins read the results as strong opposition to both secession and coercion against the secessionists. The majority coalition of Bell and Douglas supporters was seen as a solid moderate Unionist position that opposed precipitate action by extremists on either side. (ref Nevins pg. 129-130) This moderate position, that followed the “great Henry Clay tradition of compromise and peaceful adjustment” and was exemplified by the efforts of Senator John J. Crittenden during the secession winter of 1860-61, would hold sway for the first half of 1861. (Catton pg. 366)

In response to the election of Abraham Lincoln, on December 9, 1860, Kentucky Governor Beriah Magoffin sent a circular letter to his fellow slave state governors advocating a constitutional amendment to outlaw Northern personal liberty laws, extend the Missouri Compromise Line to cover all new territories, grant free access to the Mississippi River, and provide the South with the power in the United States Senate “to protect itself from unconstitutional or oppressive legislation upon slavery. (ref Shortridge pg 285)

Magoffin next called a special session of the Kentucky General Assembly on December 27, 1860. At issue was Kentucky's response to the secession, and Magoffin asked legislators to call a convention of Kentuckians to decide the Commonwealth's course. When the legislature met on January 17, Magoffin attempted to set the tone by declaring:

We, the people of the United States are no longer one people, united and friendly. The ties of fraternal love and concord, which once bound us together, are sundered. Though the Union of the States may, by the abstract reasoning of a class, be construed to exist, it is really and practically, to an extent at least, fatally impaired. … Kentucky will not and ought not to submit to the principles and policy avowed by the Republican Party, but will resist to the death if necessary. (Shortridge pg 290)

The Louisville Morning Courier on January 25 articulated the position that the secessionists faced in the legislature, “Too much time has already been wasted. The historic moment once past, never returns. For us and for Kentucky, the time to act is NOW OR NEVER.” (ref Shortridge pg.290.) The Unionists, on the other hand, were unwilling to surrender the fate of the state to a convention that might “in a moment of excitement, adopt the extreme remedy of secession.”(ref Heck pg. 333) The legislature was roughly evenly divided between the Bell-Douglas factions and the Breckinridge faction, however the Unionist position carried when many in the Breckinridge group, opposing the calls for immediate secession, voted against the convention.(ref Shortridge pg. 290-291) The Assembly did, however, send six delegates to a February 4 Peace Conference in Washington, D.C., and asked Congress to call a national convention to consider potential resolutions to the secession crisis, including the Crittenden Compromise, authored by Kentuckian John J. Crittenden.

On April 2 Breckinridge addressed the Kentucky legislature and proposed a conference of the border slave states to discuss a resolution to the secession problem. The meeting was set for late May in Frankfort, and both the Unionists and the States Rights Party fielded a full slate of candidates for the election. However the attack on Fort Sumter changed the situation and the States Rights Party withdrew participation in the election, leading to a lopsided Unionist victory of 106,863 to 4,262. The Unionist vote exceeded the total votes cast in the presidential election (93,073) for Bell, Douglas, and Lincoln.(ref Shortridge pg. 293)

As a result of Fort Sumter, President Abraham Lincoln sent a telegram to Governor Magoffin requesting that the Commonwealth supply supply four regiments as its share of the overall request of 75,000 troops for the war. Magoffin, a Southern sympathizer, replied "President Lincoln, Washington, D.C. I will send not a man nor a dollar for the wicked purpose of subduing my sister Southern states. B. Magoffin"

Magoffin’s policy was to establish armed neutrality that would reject both secession and coercion. Magoffin originally tried, on his own authority, to borrow from Kentucky banks a half a million dollars for the arming of the state, but his efforts fell far short and all his efforts accomplished was apprehension among Unionists that the governor was attempting to bypass the legislature in order to create a pro-Confederacy military force.(Shortridge pg 296) Both houses of the General Assembly met on May 7 and passed declarations of neutrality in the war, a position officially declared by Governor Magoffin on May 20, 1861:

I hereby notify and warn all other States, separate or united, especially the United and Confederate States, that I solemnly forbid any movement upon Kentucky soil, or occupation of any part or place therein, for any purpose whatever, until authorized by invitation or permission of the legislative and executive authorities. I especially forbid all citizens of Kentucky, whether in the State guard or otherwise, from making any hostile demonstration against any of the aforesaid sovereignties; to be obedient to the orders of lawful authorities; to remain quietly and peaceably at home when off of military duty, and refrain from all words and acts likely to provoke a collision, and so otherwise to conduct themselves that the deplorable calamity of invasion may be averted; but, in the meantime, to make prompt and efficient preparation to assume the paramount and supreme law of self-defence, and strictly of self-defence alone.(refCatton pg. 367.)

The legislature rejected his renewed calls for a state convention and for arming the state guard. (Shortridge pg. 297)

In a special congressional election held June 20, 1861, Unionist candidates won nine of Kentucky's ten congressional seats. Confederate sympathizers won only the Jackson Purchase region, which was economically linked to Tennessee by the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers. Believing defeat at the polls was “certain”, many Southern Rightists had boycotted the election; of the 125,000 votes cast, Unionists captured close to 90,000. Southern sympathizers were dealt a further blow in the August 5 election for state legislators. This election resulted in veto-proof Unionist majorities of 76–24 in the House and 27–11 in the Senate.

Historian Wilson Porter Shortridge made the following analysis of the election results:

These elections demonstrated that a majority of the people of Kentucky were opposed to secession, but they could not be interpreted as an approval of the war policy of the Lincoln administration, as was quite generally done at the north at that time. Perhaps the best explanation at that time was that the people of Kentucky desired peace and thought that the election of the union candidates was the best way to get it.(Shortridge pg. 297)

The state continued its official policy of neutrality. Inspector General Simon B. Buckner, commander of the State Guard, reached an agreement with Union General George B. McClellan and Tennessee Governor Isham Harris so that both sides would respect Kentucky neutrality. Both Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln found it in their own interests to accept the official status quo for the present. However both sides within the state were making efforts to arm themselves. The State Home Guard was being organized and equipped by the Governor and was widely viewed as a pro-Confederate unit. Pro-Union home guards were also being prepared throughout the state and armed by the national government.(ref Catton pg. 368-370)

With actual secession no longer considered to be a viable option, the pro-Confederate forces became the strongest supporters for neutrality, although Unionists simply dismissed this as a front for their true secessionist agenda. Unionists, on the other hand, struggled to find a way to move the large, moderate middle to a “definite and unqualified stand with the Washington government.” The maneuvering between the two finally reached a decisive point on September 3 when Confederate forces were ordered from Tennessee to the Kentucky towns of Hickman and Columbus, and Union forces responded by occupying Paducah.(Shortridge pg. 298-300)

Governor Magoffin had already been struggling with the Unionist legislature. Most of Magoffin's vetoes to protect southern interests were overridden in the General Assembly. On September 11 the legislature passed a resolution instructing Magoffin to order the Confederate forces (but not the Union forces) to leave the state. The Governor vetoed it and the General Assembly overrode its veto. The process was repeated the next week when the assembly officially requested the assistance of the Union, and asked the governor to call out the state militia to join the Federal forces.(ref Shortridge pg. 300)

Formation

A pro-Confederate peace meeting, with John Breckinridge scheduled as a speaker, was scheduled for September 21. Fearing this would lead to actual military resistance, troops were dispatched from Camp Dick Robinson to disband the meeting and arrest Breckinridge.(refHeck pg. 343) Breckinridge, as well as many other state leaders identified with the secessionists, including future state governors under the Confederacy, Richard Hawes and George Johnson, fled the state and eventually served as the nucleus for a group that would create a shadow government for Kentucky. In his October 8, 1861 "Address to the People of Kentucky," Breckinridge declared "The United States no longer exists. The Union is dissolved."

References

Compromise attempt

Background

Unionist traditions within Kentucky had remained strong throughout her brief history. The state had strong economic ties with Ohio River cities like Pittsburg and Cincinnati while at the same time sharing many cultural, social, and economic links with the South. Many slaveholders felt that the best protection for slavery was within the Union. The presidential election of 1860 reflected Kentucky’s mixed heritage when the state gave Bell 45% of the popular vote, Breckinridge 36%, Douglas 18%, and Lincoln less than 1%. Historian Allan Nevins read the results as strong opposition to both secession and coercion against the secessionists. The majority coalition of Bell and Douglas supporters was seen as a solid moderate Unionist position that opposed precipitate action by extremists on either side. (ref Nevins pg. 129-130)

File:BreckTT.jpg

John Breckinridge represented the states rights position in Kentucky and nationally

In response to the secession of South Carolina from the United States, Kentucky Governor Beriah Magoffin called a special session of the Kentucky General Assembly on December 27, 1860. At issue was Kentucky's response to the secession, and Magoffin asked legislators to call a convention of Kentuckians to decide the Commonwealth's course. The Louisville Morning Courier on January 25 articulated the position that the secessionists faced in the legislature, “Too much time has already been wasted. The historic moment once past, never returns. For us and for Kentucky, the time to act is NOW OR NEVER.” (ref Shortridge pg.290.) The Unionists, on the other hand, were unwilling to surrender the fate of the state to a convention that might “in a moment of excitement, adopt the extreme remedy of secession.”(ref Heck pg. 333) The Unionist position carried when many of the states rights legislators, opposing the idea of immediate secession, voted against the convention.(ref Shortridge pg. 290-291) The Assembly did, however, send six delegates to a February 4 Peace Conference in Washington, D.C., and asked Congress to call a national convention to consider potential resolutions to the secession crisis, including the Crittenden Compromise, authored by Kentuckian John J. Crittenden.

As a result of the firing on Fort Sumter, President Abraham Lincoln sent a telegram to Governor Magoffin requesting that the Commonwealth supply supply four regiments as its share of the overall request of 75,000 troops for the war. Magoffin, a Southern sympathizer, replied "President Lincoln, Washington, D.C. I will send not a man nor a dollar for the wicked purpose of subduing my sister Southern states. B. Magoffin" Both houses of the General Assembly met on May 7 and passed declarations of neutrality in the war, a position officially declared by Governor Magoffin on May 20, 1861.

In a special congressional election held June 20, 1861, Unionist candidates won nine of Kentucky's ten congressional seats. Confederate sympathizers won only the Jackson Purchase region, which was economically linked to Tennessee by the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers. Believing defeat at the polls was certain, many Southern Rightists had boycotted the election; of the 125,000 votes cast, Unionists captured close to 90,000. Southern sympathizers were dealt a further blow in the August 5 election for state legislators. This election resulted in veto-proof Unionist majorities of 76–24 in the House and 27–11 in the Senate.

Historian Wilson Porter Shortridge made the following analysis of the election results:

These elections demonstrated that a majority of the people of Kentucky were opposed to secession, but they could not be interpreted as an approval of the war policy of the Lincoln administration, as was quite generally done at the north at that time. Perhaps the best explanation at that time was that the people of Kentucky desired peace and thought that the election of the union candidates was the best way to get it.(Shortridge pg. 297)

With actual secession no longer considered to be a viable option, the pro-Confederate forces became the strongest supporters for neutrality, although Unionists simply dismissed this as a front for their true secessionist agenda. Unionists, on the other hand, struggled to find a way to move the large, moderate middle to a “definite and unqualified stand with the Washington government.” The maneuvering between the two finally reached a decisive point on September 3 when Confederate forces were ordered from Tennessee to the Kentucky towns of Hickman and Columbus, and Union forces responded by occupying Paducah.(Shortridge pg. 298-300)

Formation

A pro-Confederate peace meeting, with John Breckinridge scheduled as a speaker, was scheduled for September 21. Fearing this would lead to actual military resistance, troops were dispatched from Camp Dick Robinson to disband the meeting and arrest Breckinridge.(refHeck pg. 343) Breckinridge, as well as many other state leaders identified with the secessionists, fled the state. These leaders eventually served as the nucleus for a group that would create a shadow government for Kentucky. In his October 8, 1861 "Address to the People of Kentucky," Breckinridge declared "The United States no longer exists. The Union is dissolved."

On October 29, 1861, 63 delegates representing 34 counties met at Russellville, Kentucky to discuss the formation of a Confederate government for the Commonwealth, believing the Unionist government in Frankfort did not represent the will of the majority of Kentucky's citizens. Trigg County's Henry Burnett was elected chairman of the proceedings. Scott County farmer George W. Johnson chaired the committee that authored the convention's final report, and introduced some of its key resolutions. The report called for a sovereignty convention to sever ties with the Federal government. Both Breckinridge and Johnson served on the Committee of Ten that made arrangements for the convention.

Response to Compromise Effort and Further Suggestions

Here is the bibliographical information from my suggestion:

Allan Nevins, “The War for the Union: The Improvised War 1861-1862”, (1959) SBN 684-10426-1, Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Bruce Catton, “The Coming Fury”, (1961), Doubleday and Company, Garden City, New York.

Frank H. Heck, “John C. Breckinridge in the Crisis of 1860-1861”, The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 21, No. 3, (August 1955).

William Porter Shortridge, “Kentucky Neutrality in 1861”, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 9, No.4 (March 1923).

Here’s my current problem. My original objections to the article were that specific statements alluding to the reasons for secession were in the article without discussing the accuracy of the observations or alternative POVs. My suggested remedy was a background section that provided this information. I did not think you addressed this adequately in your attempt to provide a background section and your latest proposed expansion still leaves us far apart. Ironically, while I think your changes have all significantly improved the article, I also find that the improvements raise a lot of additional issues.

There was another way you could have responded to meet my initial objections. You could have totally eliminated this paragraph:

“On November 26, 1861, Governor Johnson issued an address to the citizens of the Commonwealth blaming abolitionists for the breakup of the United States.[7] He asserted his belief that the Union and Confederacy were forces of equal strength, and that the only solution to the war was a free trade agreement between the two sovereign nations.[7] He further announced his willingness to resign as provisional governor if the Kentucky General Assembly, which was overwhelmingly Unionist, would agree to cooperate with elected governor Beriah Magoffin, a Southern sympathizer.[7] Magoffin himself denounced the Russellville Convention and the provisional government, stressing the need to abide by the will of the majority of the Commonwealth's citizens.”

I still fail to see the issue with this paragraph. Magoffin supported the Confederate position and the General Assembly supported the Union position. This is sufficient to inform the reader (who is presumably interested in the state's Confederate government) as to why the two clashed. If they want more information, it is available in Magoffin's article. Acdixon 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And eliminate this sentence:

“The origin of the movement to create a Confederate government for Kentucky remains unknown. The inspiration may have been derived from the actions of Missouri Confederates in forming a shadow government for their state.”

Done; I've replaced the first two paragraphs of the Formation section with the paragraphs in my compromise attempt above. There is now no mention of uncertainty regarding the formation of the government. Acdixon 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And eliminate this phrase:

“… believing the Unionist government in Frankfort did not represent the will of the majority of Kentucky's citizens.”

I have reworded this to use Harrison's term ("deluded"), as you point out below. Ironically, I did not use that word originally in order to avoid POV concerns. Acdixon 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

With these eliminated (unless I missed something else) you will have totally eliminated the “why questions” (the can of worms that those sections open) and will have an article that limits itself to describing what the secessionists did, what type of government they created, and what that government accomplished. There would be no need for a background section. I suppose you can still do that now.

Absent that, here is my response to your proposed compromise. It seems to me that an integral part of an article addressing the Confederate government of Kentucky is to describe who formed it, why they formed it, and who supported it. You deleted from my proposal information that contributes to that understanding, leaving an article that departs from NPOV. Specifically:

1. You deleted the section regarding Magoffin’s letter. The section demonstrates that a specific motivation for the CA sympathizers was the issue of slavery – three out of the four proposals by Magoffin relate directly to slavery. Without the information provided here, the reader asking why there was a movement for a secession convention is left in the dark.

I disagree. I believe the larger issue here was states' rights. Slavery was just the mechanism for manifesting the issue. Magoffin was opposed to coercion. His letter seems to have been intended to stave off the immediate concerns over slavery, but even if his compromise had been accepted, the states' rights issue would have remained. Acdixon 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You may personally disagree, but historians disagree. For example, from Harrison's "Civil War in Kentucky, "He [Lincoln]was a native of Kentucky, but his 'house divided' speech speech had alarmed many slaveholders who would not accept the curtailment of slavery expansion that he and his party demanded." (pg. 4) and "The election of a sectional president by a sectional party committed tto halting the expansion of slavery was, to them, a call for action." (pg. 5) Tom (North Shoreman) 12:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added this information as one of several attempts by Kentuckians to stave off the coming conflict. Acdixon 14:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

2. You include colorful and specific language from Magoffin on his reason for denying Lincoln’s troop requests. However you delete the section from his January 17 address that refers to additional reasons that explain secessionist motivations (i.e. “Kentucky will not and ought not to submit to the principles and policy avowed by the Republican Party, but will resist to the death if necessary.”)

3. Elsewhere in the article (this has been discussed on the FA discussion page) you write that the secessionists believed that the existing government did not represent the will of the people of the state. (What Harrison wrote in “Kentucky Governors” was “George Johnson and other Kentucky Confederates DELUDED themselves into believing that the government in Frankfort did not represent the wishes of the majority of the state’s citizens” – the “deluded” part was left out and probably should be included) You have deleted the section that describes the May vote for the delegates to the Frankfort Convention and the impressive vote total against secessionists – a POV necessary to provide balance.

As mentioned above, I have changed to Harrison's wording. As to the Frankfort Convention, the article already mentions two lopsided victories for Unionists at the polls. I don't see why this additional defeat is necessary to balance POV concerns. Acdixon 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary because of the lopsided nature of the votes and the fact that it is another instance that contributes to the overall picture of the feelings of the majority of Kentuckians. You are shooting for an FA rating and including these results adds to the comprehensiveness of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This adds little if anything to a comprehensive understanding of the Confederate government. That they were self-constituted, in the minority, and lacking in legitimacy can be well understood from the existing information. Adding yet another lopsided election defeat just belabors the point and further expands a Background section that is becoming too long already. Acdixon 14:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Elsewhere in the article (also discussed on the FA discussion page) you included a statement that the legislature was not cooperating with the governor as justification by Johnson for secession. You have deleted a section referring to Magoffin’s attempt to bypass the legislature in order to raise troops that (allegedly) would be pro-CSA. Without specific information regarding the nature of the disagreements the reader is left wondering what the issues were. Readers are left without the information to evaluate whether or not Johnson and the secessionists had a valid point or not.

5. You delete an additional section relating to the implementation of neutrality by Buckner and problems with it, again focusing on the military aspects. While this section is not crucial by itself, it does provide valuable information with respect to several other sections that you deleted.

I still maintain that this has little if anything to do with the formation or activity of the government itself. It belongs in Kentucky in the American Civil War. Acdixon 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

6. You delete the paragraph regarding the governor’s and the legislature’s reaction to the Polk “invasion”. This is the event that directly led to the secessionists taking their actions to form a new government. It is also a very important example of the non-cooperation of the legislature with the government alluded to by Johnson.

I can see your point here. Would you say that the pro-Confederate peace meeting headed by Breckinridge was a response to the legislature's actions? Acdixon 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In the FA discussion you mentioned that you thought the “Background” section was too long in comparison to the actual article on the government itself. While I would normally, like you, question such a disparity, this is an unusual situation. The fact is, as you recognize, that the Kentucky CSA government spent very little time actually governing. I think an article on the CSA government itself would be similarly skewed if the war had ended, as some thought it would, after 120 days or so. The political debates, compromises, and changes relating to the decision by some to form a new government occurred, as it usually does, before the government was created. Unlike the situation in Virginia, for example, the Kentucky convention had only one side represented so you have to look elsewhere for the substance of the debate.

Having said that, there is information and details omitted from the main body of the work that you could include and, in my opinion, should include in order to meet the “comprehensive” requirement (“It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.”) of a FA article. I imagine it could add 8-10 paragraphs just based on what I have in my home library. Examples:

1. In the lede you write, “…General Braxton Bragg attempted to install the provisional government as the permanent authority in the Commonwealth. However, Union General Don Carlos Buell ambushed the inauguration ceremony …” You say basically the same thing in the body under “Richard Hawes as Governor”. There is much more that can be said about the decisions leading up to this “ambush”. In Noe’s “Perryville: This Grand Havoc of Battle” Noe starts on page 124 with, “With the major battle for control of Kentucky seemingly about to occur west of Frankfort, Bragg abruptly turned to other matters and quickly made a stupendously illogical decision.” The reason for this decision, of course, relates to the importance of establishing a CSA state government on the soil of Kentucky and Noe has information that could be incorporated into your article.

2. Noe also has very useful information on the details of the inauguration ceremony itself that would be relevant to your article.

3. You mention Bragg’s desire to implement conscription. Noe has additional details on page 104.

1–3 sound pretty relevant to the article, but I don't have access to that book, rural libraries being what they are. I can try to get it on interlibrary loan at some point, but if you have specific additions you'd like to contribute, please do. Acdixon 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be glad to add it at some point, but I am reluctant to do it now with so much up in the air. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

4. The overall issue of military enlistment by Kentuckians during the war, like the voting information prior to the war, is an indicator of popular support (or lack thereof) for Kentucky’s secessionist government. Freehling’s book “The South vs. the South” has useful information (i.e. twice as many Kentuckians enlisted with the Union rather than the CSA yet 71% of eligible white males fought for neither side) that could be used to expand your mention of CSA recruitment problems.

5. You write, “The legislative council voted to endorse Bragg's plan, and on August 27, Governor Hawes was dispatched to Richmond to favorably recommend it to President Davis. Davis was non-committal, but Bragg proceeded, nonetheless.” William Cooper Jr. in “Jefferson Davis, American” has a different take. On page 400 he writes of the Kentucky invasion, “Eager to reverse that circumstance, Davis emphasized to Bragg and Smith the importance of popular support by Kentuckians for the Confederate Army.” He then describes specifics on the political goals of the invasion that can be incorporated into the article.

6. You mention very little about Kentucky’s congressional delegation. It is my recollection that part of the general influence of congressmen from occupied states was a tendency to reinforce a “no compromise” attitude towards the war. Noe (page 26) makes reference to a “Kentucky bloc” in Richmond of Confederate expatriates that “refused to allow anyone to give up the dream of a Confederate Kentucky. He provides no further details but does refer to a work by Thomas Connelly and Archer Jones (“The Politics of Command”) who elaborate on this subject (I don’t have that book).

My idea was to focus on the state government, but this probably would be a good addition if, again, I could get a hold of the book(s). Acdixon 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can also at some point add this. I located two other sources that have references to this. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

7. You provide numbers for the counties represented at the secession convention but don’t really provide geographical information concerning where the secessionist drew their supporters (other than the Jackson Purchase reference elsewhere). Freehling describes a Kentucky “black belt” covering ¼ of the state that included the Blue Grass region running from Lexington to Bowling Green. It would seem like there should be more information out there on the geographical concentration of secessionist leaning folks (i.e. county voting records). Tom (North Shoreman) 15:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have sufficiently addressed your three major concerns:

1. The nature of Magoffin's disagreements with the legislature have been elaborated upon in enough detail for the reader to have his or her most basic questions answered. If they want a more in-depth view, they can see Kentucky in the American Civil War and Beriah Magoffin.
2. The fact that the Confederate government was acting without the sanction of the majority of Kentuckians is clear from the results of three separate elections (complete with commentary by historians) and the reluctance of Kentuckians to volunteer for Confederate military service. A balancing POV that the Commonwealth's economic interests, spirit of compromise, and tradition of Unionism contributed to the strong Union sympathy has been provided.
3. Language about the uncertainty of the origin of the idea to create a Confederate government has been replaced with analysis of the political landscape that led someone at some time to propose the idea.

Perhaps there is more that could be written about various topics in the article (including the facts you bring up from Noe above), but I believe everything that has to be written for the article to meet the comprehensiveness requirement has been written. Acdixon 14:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your most recent additions help, but still do not address the slavery issue adequately. You still have as the primary reason for the Governor calling for the legislature as the secession of South Carolina, when there is a clear quote available showing that the reason was the election of Lincoln. You added the circular letter, but not in its proper chronological order which was in early December -- before South Carolina had seceded. If you have gone as far as you intend to, let me know and I will write a brief note on the FA discussion page to modify my previous objections. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The botched chronology was just an oversight on my part; I've corrected it and added the date of the letter. I've also removed the reference to secession being the motivation for Magoffin's special session. However, it does seem from what I've read that the primary purpose of the session was deciding whether or not to call a sovereignty convention. The fact that Magoffin expressed strong opposition to Lincoln and his party in his opening remarks – I'm assuming that's the "clear quote" you're referring to – may indicate his personal beliefs, but the hallmark of his administration was to abide by the will of the people, even when it disagreed with his own. This leads me to believe that he wanted the sovereignty convention to ascertain the will of the people, although he may have used the platform of his opening remarks to try and sway the assembly and the people to his way of thinking. Perhaps there is more in the remarks omitted by the ellipsis that would discount my belief.

Regardless, please do update your feelings on the FA nom page to show that we are still working on this article. I'm afraid it will be prematurely closed otherwise. Acdixon 14:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Special election?

An odd but unexplained detail: why did Kentucky hold a special election for all of its Congressional representatives in mid-1861? Wouldn't there have just been an election the previous November? --Jfruh (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The central star? Main Page versus this page....

Shouldn't the excerpt from Confederate government of Kentucky that appears on the Wikipedia Main Page be an excerpt from this page?

The current Main Page says the following:

Kentucky was represented by the central star on the Confederate battle flag.

No such assertion appears on this page. I don't see any recent edits that added or deleted this statement. Here are the versions at the moment: [2] [3]

I'd like to know if this statement is true, but there are no footnotes on the Main Page. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hacker has defiled the page, can someone please restore it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.154.36 (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the info based on the source cited. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"provisional government" or "shadow government" a better term?

Provisional government: "A provisional government is an emergency or interim government set up when a political void has been created by the collapse of a previous administration or regime. A provisional government holds power until elections can be held or a permanent government can otherwise be established."

Shadow government: "A shadow government is a "government-in-waiting" that remains in waiting with the intention of taking control of a government in response to some event."

Based on these two definitions, I think the term "shadow government" is much more accurate and "shadow" should be used instead of "provisional" throughout this article. (Currently "provisional" is used most everywhere and "shadow" is used right at the beginning, in the definition.) Tempshill (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As author of a good bit of this article, I would say that the sources used as references seem to prefer "provisional" to "shadow," although both are used. From the Confederate viewpoint, the government was provisional; the succession of Kentucky (which they recognized as valid) had created a political void, and they were filling it until elections could be held. From a practical standpoint, the government could not exert its desired influence until the elected government had been deposed. In this sense, it was also a shadow government. I don't see either as being inaccurate. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the victors write history, then, "shadow" is more accurate. Without knowing anything about the sources you're referring to, I'd guess that the they use "provisional" because either (a) the authors are sympathetic, or (b) the authors think "shadow" has an unwarranted negative connotation. What do you think? I'd prefer the use of "shadow"; "provisional" was jarring to me as I read through the article (and so I was jarred a lot). I don't think the negative connotation is significant (if it exists); it's simply accurate, as I see it. Tempshill (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources are both modern and authored by well-respected historians (Harrison is among the elite in the field of Kentucky history IMO.) I find it hard to believe that they all preferred "provisional" to "shadow" because they were sympathetic to the Confederacy. I believe Wikipedia should reflect the tenor of already published works on the subject, provided that they meet the criteria for WP:RS, which these do. Inasmuch as I contend that both terms are accurate, I would like to see more comments from other Wikipedians on the subject before making any kind of change. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm leery of weighing in on this debate, since it touches a sensitive topic in U.S. history (whether or not the CSA was legitimate), but I support Tempshill. The Kentuckian government didn't actually collapse, so technically there was no void to fill. Brutannica (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as Kentucky was admitted to the Confederacy and needed a government recognized by the Confederacy, there was a void to fill. The state had representation in both the USA and CSA national legislatures and, at least in some measure, had two state governments, one of them being a provisional Confederate state government. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll state that I think that either term can be used and that I don't have a problem with which one. I also think that it should be either one term or the other, but not both. I personally would tend to lean toward "provisional", simply because I've never heard the term Shadow government prior to reading it here. Either way, it's a good article, you guys did a good job. Sf46 (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in the interest of neutrality, the wording should be changed to provisional instead of shadow government. The imagery that the term shadow portrays is dark and negative, and this is counter to the principles of neutrality as expressed in WP:NPOV, more specifically, Impartial Tone. I understand that we can find references (at least one) that refer to the Confederate government of Kentucky as a "shadow government" but since most of the references use the more neutral "provisional government", I think it to be a better fit for Wikipedia. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 22:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kentucky "Shadow Government"

Kentucky Confederate government was never known as a "shadow government"

There's one instance here on page 452, but as seen in the above discussion, provisional seems to be more common. Both are accurate in their own way. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am okay with replacing the term "shadow governemnt" with provisional government. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 21:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Southern Sympathizers in Kentucky?

During the Civil War, Kentucky was (and still is) geographically a Southeastern State of the USA. It was during the war considered in military terms a "Border State" having troops fighting for both Union and Confederate Armies. 75,000 Union and Est. 50,000 Confederate. Must remember that 14,000 of the Union total were Home Guard Units and did not leave the state--Mostly were a police action with little or no fighting involved.

The term used in this article- should not be Southern Sympathizers, but Confederate Sympathizers. Even the Union troops from kentucky considered themselves as Southern Unionist.

The term "Shadow Government" is a misleading phrase. The Confederate Government recognized Kentucky as a Confederate State, just as it did the other 12 states. Kentucky receieved the same position as the other Confederate States. Abraham Lincoln and the Federal Government did not recognize the Confederacy and never removed their stars from the US Flag. This article using the term Shadow Government looks as iff this was a group of guys in a bar who decided that they would form their own government with no backing. There were 68 counties from KY that voted to leave the Union---Men were elected to Confederate positions, not only in the state but within the Confederate Government. There was NO Shadow Government in Kentucky. That is a bit of a slap in the face to the men and women of Kentucky who gave their all for the Lost Cause.

There are many items concerning this article that are worded in correct--Alot of good facts, but it seems that the writer pitched his own views in as very critical points, which makes the article something that should not be considered true to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypreston2010 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your point about "Southern sympathizer" versus "Confederate sympathizer" is well taken and has been corrected. Regarding "shadow government" versus "provisional government", you can see that this was debated twice on the talk page. This article has gone through an extensive featured article review, but if you have more specific issues, please discuss them here. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that both correct terms and phrases should be considered in presenting factual documentation. To my knowledge, I have never saw the term written by anyone, especially by those historians of the era, using the term "Shadow Government". The term Shadow gives off a complete negative view, The Confederate Government of Kentucky was an official body that was recognized by the Confederate States of America--It received no less that Georgia or Alabama or any of the other 11 Confederate States. Your phrasing suggest that a group of people got together and created a club, endorsed by nobody---What people fail to Understand about KY during the war, is that it was a state of occupation by the Federals. If it had been free to do as other states could---I think the Confederate Government would have remained in the state and eventually become a driving force for KY to offically leave the Union. Lincoln spoke of this very thing several times. Kentucky has Congressmen and Senators in the Confederacy. I see where others have a problem with your "Shadow" term..... I think it is very misleading. If you refer to KY as a Shadow Confederate Government, then it could be said about the entire government. The Federals recognized none of the Confederate Government. Also, when Governer George Johnson was killed at Shiloh---He was treated as a government official by the Federals--taken aboard a boat and his body given safe conduct. They refered to him as the Confederate Governor. In a book published by the State of KY in the 1980s, called Kentucky Governors--They include the two Confederate Governors. No, If these men were and still are recognized as Kentucky Governors of the Confederate States, then there is no "Shadow". I am hoping that in the KY Hall of Governors, the Portraits of Johnson and Hawes will be added. They would be, but finding portraits has been a task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypreston2010 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I favor the use of "provisional" versus "shadow", as you can see in the discussions above. However, per Wikipedia convention, I have followed the WP:CONSENSUS reached in those discussions. You will need to engage the other editors involved in the discussion if you want to see the term changed. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Andypreston2010, I am also in favor of "provisional" versus "shadow". As Acdixon has pointed out, the article in question is of featured article quality and thus, changes to the article should not be taken lightly, as care must be given to ensure that the article's quality does not suffer. However, I believe the change to be minimal in nature and also believe that the change will not have a profound impact on the quality of the article. We should give this discussion a little bit of time to see if anyone has objections. If none are brought fourth, I am okay with the change. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Kentucky in the WBTS

During the Civil War, Kentucky was geographically a Southern State and militarily a Border State with soliders serving both the Union and Confederate Armies.

Kentucky furnished 75,000 soldiers to the Union and an Est. 50,000 to the Confederacy. 14,000 of the Union total included the Home Guard who were more or less military police that did not leave the state. The number of Confederates from Kentucky is complicated becuase many Kentuckians served in other state units, because Neutrality prevented enlistment or formations of state troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypreston2010 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed on this link to Facebook that others are making comments. I am not sure who to contact in reference to the other Editors, but I hope svhool children do not use this in their reports when doing projects on the subject. The article is factual, but the wording in some cases is far fetched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypreston2010 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC) I have read that all of the editors of this article agree that "Provisional" is a better term than "Shadow Government" With that being said, I have NEVER read the term Shadow Government in reference to Kentucky Confederates--This is a NEW TERM MADE UP BY THE EDITORS and the creators of this website should take note of these made up phrases that are simply not true. I could make up all kinds of phrases for the American Revolution...NO I could not, becuase tha would be totally WRONG! Now, the editors agree, but refuse to change it...... This article needs to be removed and done over by Kentuckian Historians such as Kent Masterson Brown. I want to lobby that Kentuckians, especially the SCV with over 500 members in the state be made aware of this article and write in protest to the creators of this website. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypreston2010 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I agree totally with the above response from Mr. Preston. These two writers either has no idea of the facts or they are plain and simple making it all up. This article has received several high ratings---I will say, great writings and stories, but they have fabricated wording and phrases. This article should be reported, especially after reading several of teh comments from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhenry46 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jollerky (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Report this article to the website creators!

I agree totally with the recent response of Mr. Preston. These two writers either has no idea of the facts or they are making it up. This article has received several high ratings---Supposed to be one of the best. Oh, I agree--But there is much wrong with it. They have fabricated wording and phrases. This article should be reported and removed from the site. It looks as if others feel the same way and these two writers make no attempt to even correct one word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhenry46 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You may feel free to report the article to the web site's creator via his talk page. Good luck with that. Your time might be better spent familiarizing yourself with how Wikipedia works, however. Quoting from one of Wikipedia's core tenants, WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I have seen the terms "provisional" and "shadow" used with regard to this government, though as I pointed out above, I saw "provisional" much more often and favor its use. Others, however, disagreed and believe "shadow" should be used. When we have disagreements on Wikipedia, we seek WP:CONSENSUS. We do not accuse editors of being ignorant or deliberately making things up, as you have done above. The consensus was to use both terms, though you'll notice that "provisional" appears 18 times versus 3 for "shadow", which is probably pretty close to the ratio I observed in the sources used to compose the article.

As for your accusation that "these two writers make no attempt to even correct one word", you should notice that two weeks ago, I agreed with and Andypreston regarding the use of "southern sympathizer" versus "Confederate sympathizer" and changed it in the article. But it seems you aren't nearly as interested in that as you are your Quixotic campaign to have the article deleted wholesale because it doesn't fit your version of The Truth.

If you are interested in participating constructively in a new discussion about using "shadow" versus "provisional" and abiding by whatever the outcome of that discussion turns out to be, I'll gladly invite the other involved editors back to the table and we'll have such a debate. If you are interested in insisting on a dichotomy between using your wording in all cases or seeing the article deleted, let me invite you to spend your time elsewhere. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Editor or Editors,

I am the past-historian of the Kentucky Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans. Mr. Acdixon, please tell me exactly where you have heard or documented the term "Shadow Government"? I do not think these good people making comments are accusing you of anything. They seem to want the truth presented. Jollerky (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The bishop of the Old South (p. 170) and Failed Neutrality are two that I found without difficulty. The former is published by Mercer University Press and the latter by the Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives, hence both seem to meet the definition of reliable sources. Again, the contention is not that "shadow" should be the preferred term (you'll see that The Bishop of the Old South uses both "shadow" and "provisional") but that it is an acceptable term which can be included to satisfy the consensus reached above. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources mention by the editor does hold true-I read each of them. But, I do agree that Kentucky's Confederate Government was known during the time of the war as "Provisional". The editor reserves the right to write as he/she wishes based on the research and information discovered. We as Kentuckians, reserve the right to know and understand that this body of men deemed themselves as "Provisional". There is a large/vast difference between the term "Shadow" and "Provisional". The KY CSA Government was an active group, recognized by the National Government of the Confederate States of America. The term "Shadow" does not give credit to the sacrifices these Kentuckians made 150 years ago---In short, it makes anyone in Kentucky who supported the Confederacy just a gang sitting on the side lines cheering. It was much more---The Union Soldiers of Ky were actually little known after the war, but the Confederates took over local to state government. These editors may be from another state, I am not sure--But if these article upsets you, then I suggest do you on page and title it different. I would leave this alone, because it will not be changed. Thank You

Well, yes, this particular editor is from Kentucky. About an hour from both Russellville, the site of the formation of the Confederate state government, and Bowling Green, the capital of the Confederate state government; hence my interest in the topic to begin with. And believe me, I'm perfectly aware of how the ex-Confederates were elevated in state government following the war, having also written the bulk of the articles on such noted Confederates and Confederate sympathizers as Governors John Y. Brown, Simon Bolivar Buckner, James B. McCreary, John W. Stevenson, and Luke Pryor Blackburn. While I would prefer "provisional" throughout, other editors provide defensible reasons for wanting "shadow" used as well, and both terms are used in reliable sources. Hence, we reached a compromise to use "shadow", but to use "provisional" more often. That's how Wikipedia works. While that may seem to give less credit to those involved than some of us feel is due, Wikipedia isn't in the business of "giving credit"; we are in the business of reporting what reliable sources say about a subject. (BTW, that the individuals involved called themselves "provisional" is of little import. The Branch Davidians called David Koresh the Messiah, a term which seems to have been, shall we say, less than accurate.) I appreciate, and to some extent agree with, your contentions. If I were writing a Google Knol on the subject, I'd use "provisional" throughout. But Wikipedia relies on consensus where something like Knol or a private publication does not. It is this principle, not the principle of respect for the sincere individuals who formed the Confederate government of Kentucky, that is most in play here. I hope you understand this. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

ENTRY THAT READS: The Confederate government of Kentucky was a shadow government established for the Commonwealth of Kentucky by a self-constituted group of Confederate sympathizers during the American Civil War. The shadow government never replaced the elected government in Frankfort. SHOULD BE CHANGED TO : The Confederate government of Kentucky was a Confederate Provisional ( NOT SHADOW) government established for the Commonwealth of Kentucky by a self-constituted group of Confederate sympathizers during the American Civil War. The Provisional government never replaced the elected government in Frankfort. KENTUCKY WAS NOT KNOWN BY THE STATE OF KY as "Shadow". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipconrad11 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

SHADOW GOVERNMENT entry is wrong.

The references from the sources Mr. Dixon mentions in this article is not true to the facts. They are taken out of context. Kentucky's Confederate Government was recognized very much! The term SHADOW is simply wrong in the content of this article. One thing that hits me wrong, is the fact after the war many of these so-called Shadow people were elected to Kentucky Government positions. Their terms as Confederate Kentucky government officals are listed in their bios and accepted. Both Kentucky Confederate Governors are now listed as Governors...There was never a removal of their titles. This article may have won awards, but much of it is false and the writer or writers will not even consider taking the Shadow word out of the text or compromise--That tells me that it was written with "making it sound good" and forgeting many facts. donitakelly@consultant.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.172.54.168 (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It was never the official government of Kentucky, even if recognized by the Confederacy. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to listen to you explain how I took information from the sources out of context. If you can show how the reliable, published sources cited above meant "provisional" when they said "shadow", I'm all ears. Otherwise, please see the numerous and seemingly interminable discussions above about how my personal preference is for "provisional" but consensus dictates a mixture of "provisional" and "shadow". I tire of repeating myself. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Kentucky was the 13th Confederate State..The state government was not a "Shadow"

The word Shadow Government is a term not used when defining Kentucky's Confederate History. I have read all of the responses from so many people with the same comment. I would think with all of that, it needs to be changed to Neutrality. This is very misleading to anyone who would read this. Several Northern States had what I would call a Shadow Government, But Kentucky was an official Confederate state, recognized by the Confederate Government. The state government continued on the move. Thanks (50.96.241.54 (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)) 7/17/11 joller@infionline.net

Well, you are the editor, change it. Any person with all of these comments, should have some bearing on a compromise or simple change. I hope school children do not do reports based on this verbage. andypreston72.172.55.104 (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Other writer of this article approves the change from Shadow to Provisional

HiB2Bornot2B said in the above article that he was ok in changing it. Why the other writer will not change it, I do not know.

Other writer of this article approves the change from Shadow to Provisional

HiB2Bornot2B said in the above article that he was ok in changing it. Why the other writer will not change it, I do not know.Madisonhenry46 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because we are the primary authors of the article does not mean we own it. Our two opinions do not represent consensus. Looking at your contribution history, you seem to lack a basic understanding of how Wikipedia operates (to wit, your comments about reporting things "to the creators of this web site"). I implore you to familiarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OWN, WP:RS, and WP:V before you continue your quixotic crusades on this talk page and Talk:Louisville, Kentucky. The fact is, I largely agree with both your contentions – that the CGoK should be called "provisional" rather than "shadow" and that Kentucky (and cities therein) should be regarded as "southern". Trying to convince me that you are justified in holding those beliefs is pointless. This is about how Wikipedia as a whole works, and you still seem to be failing to grasp that.

At some point, I'd be willing to consider opening an RFC on the matter to see if consensus has changed, but until I can see that you have some understanding of how Wikipedia works and why I am hesitant about making this change, I don't think it's worth the effort. I suspect it will turn into a circular conversation the way the discussions here have, will be closed as "no consensus to change", and will be a huge waste of everyone's time. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The article states "Shadow" Government instead of the official term "Provisional". One entry quotes the writing of Confederate General Leonidas Polk remark calling the word "Shadow" in reference to Kentucky Confederate Government. This is not an official or factual definition, it is one man and his word. I have never read any so called "Shadow" word when defining Kentucky's CS Government in the war. Another page on this site titled "Kentucky in the American Civil War" uses "Shadow" in the same reference, apparently taking it from this page. So it is clear people are usinging this word "Shadow" for their own works. One must read the history of Gen. Polk and his feelings for Kentucky after his defeat and lack of recruits in the sate to understand the word "Shadow". The Kentucky Encylopedia Editors, Page 222. John Kleber, Lowell Harrison and James Klotter list Kentucky as a Provisional Confederate State Government. Now one of those men was a Kentucky State Historian. The Civil War In Kentucky Page 20-22 by Lowell H. Harrison clearly points out the Provisional term. The Confederate Military History: Kentucky Vol. X1 1899 Beginning at Page 51. These three books are official and info taken from records dated of that period. The term Shadow does not appear in any shape or form. I also have many other sources on the subject.

I have read all the post and comments concerning this article and I must say. Not understanding how Wikipedia allows this to continue. The writers on this article, (especially Mr. ADixon who has made some comments that I consider alarming.) simply do not want to change this. My problem is that other writers are using Shadow Government to defind Kentucky during the Civil War, which is wrong. Mr. Dixon ask for facts and references and I gave three which go beyond the point of the definition. I find it hard to beleive that this article was written by a mass of people, it flows to good. People may have contributed to this, but there had to be an editor. I have no problem with any of the comments--Alot of good points noted. Ollerj (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a difficult time believing that you read all of the related discussion.

• First, you say that "provisional" is the "offical" term. If there were an "official term", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Who would sanction an "official term" for a long-dead entity anyway?
• Second, you argue that the passage from "The Bishop of the Old South" should be discounted because it represents the biased views of General Leonidas Polk. You will note, however, that the book is about Polk, not by him. The book is actually by Glenn Robins, who is identified as a History professor at Georgia Southwestern State University. There is no indication in the book preview that the term is quoted from Polk; it is instead used by the author, Robins. Any attempt to discredit this source based on Polk's views is fallacious.
• Third, you say "I have never read any so called "Shadow" word when defining Kentucky's CS Government in the war." As pointed out immediately above, that's because you aren't looking for it. It is used in that source and another that I cited up-page, published by the Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives. Both are reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia policy.
• Next, you point out "Another page on this site titled "Kentucky in the American Civil War" uses "Shadow" in the same reference, apparently taking it from this page." I note that the same article also uses "provisional". In fact, it uses "provisional" more often than "shadow" by a count of 3-to-2. Both terms are used in the article because both terms are used in the variety of reliable sources on the subject. Probably, the content was based on content from this article, and probably the decision to use both terms in that article was made based on the WP:CONSENSUS reached in this article's FA nomination. So Wikipedia has internal consistency; imagine that! As for your contention that "it is clear people are usinging this word "Shadow" for their own works", I say "bologna." All you've shown is that some Wikipedia articles use content from other Wikipedia articles, which surprises no one except maybe you. Even if you can find an instance of someone using the term somewhere other than Wikipedia, you'd have a difficult time showing that it was actually based on the usage here and not Robins' or the KDLA's cited above.
• After that, you go into a discussion of how The Kentucky Encyclopedia, Harrison's The Civil War in Kentucky, and a Confederate military history use the term "provisional". I have never denied that. In fact, if you look up-page at my discussion with Tempshill, you'll notice that I am the one pointing this out! (Again, there is no way you carefully read all the related discussion about this.) My reluctance to change every instance of "shadow" is based on the fact that "shadow" is also used in reliable sources, not because "provisional" is not used. Since both are used and there is no evidence that one is clearly preferred over the other, the consensus decision was to use both.
• You say, "Mr. Dixon ask for facts and references". Not so. We have an abundance of references on both sides. What I asked for was adherance to Wikipedia policies, but none of the editors involved have pointed to a single policy that is being violated here. Given that the complaining editors have done little if anything on Wikipedia besides argue about this and whether or not Louisville is southern or midwestern, I'm not surprised that they don't know Wikipedia policy. They haven't ever tried to practice it in an actual article, and despite my incessant pleas for someone to actually read and understand the policies to see where I'm coming from, there is zero evidence that anyone has even made an effort to do so. Again, my personal preference is to use "provisional" throughout, but unless there is a formal expression of a change in the consensus reached years ago (i.e. an RFC that closes with consensus to change), doing so would actually violate a Wikipedia policy (to wit, WP:CONSENSUS). I have been clear about this from the get-go, but no one is listening.
• You then say, "I find it hard to beleive that this article was written by a mass of people, it flows to good." Who said it was? I have repeatedly identified myself as the primary author of the article, although North Shoreman is responsible for large portions of the Background section, as you can see from our extended discussion up-page. What I said was that being the primary author doesn't mean I own the article (see WP:OWN) and can change it however I want even though consensus has already been reached on this matter.
• Quoting you above, "I have read all the post and comments concerning this article and I must say. Not understanding how Wikipedia allows this to continue." Of course you don't understand it, because you haven't read Wikipedia's policies. You've never written an article or had one reviewed by any of the established processes here. I have. I do. I live with the policies pretty much every day. If you had this experience, you would understand.
• Finally, there is this: "The writers on this article, (especially Mr. ADixon who has made some comments that I consider alarming.) simply do not want to change this." As I have said on more occasions than I care to count, I would like to see this changed personally, but the consensus and the presence of reliable sources that use "shadow" as opposed to "provisional" prevent it. And I would love to know what comments you find alarming.

Would the next editor who wants to take issue with me on this please humor me by attempting to justify his/her comments using Wikipedia policy? Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Confederate government of Kentucky: "provisional" or "shadow"?

Should the Confederate government of Kentucky be referred to as a "provisional" government, a "shadow" government, or a mixture of both? Reliable sources can be found for both "provisional" (see [4] [5] [6] and [7]) and "shadow" (see [8] [9] and [10]). The article passed a featured article review in 2007 using a mixture of both terms. It remains featured and continues to use both terms despite several requests by new users on the article's talk page to eliminate "shadow" and use "provisional" exclusively. Although these requestors have cited no Wikipedia policies to defend their requests, I am nonetheless opening this RFP to see if consensus has changed or if the compromise consensus reached years ago still holds. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Use all per what the sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Use both according to their use by reliable sources. (If the source calls them "Goddamned seceshes" it's probably weak on WP:NPOV.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Use both - we don't need to decide on our own "standard" term - follow the sources. Begoon ^talk 12:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Use both In the case of so many conflicting sources. Brad (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Should the Confederate government of Kentucky be referred to as a "provisional" government, a "shadow" government, or a mixture of both? Reliable sources can be found for both "provisional" (see [4] [5] [6] and [7]) and "shadow" Acdixon Use all per what the sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Use both according to their use by reliable sources. (If the source calls them "Goddamned seceshes" it's probably weak on WP:NPOV.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Use both - we don't need to decide on our own "standard" term - follow the sources. Begoon talk 12:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Use both In the case of so many conflicting sources. Brad (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC) The problem is that the article is not using BOTH. It should read Provisonal along with Shadow. The reference made are not from an official source. It is historically known today as PROVISONAL I have never read Shadow in historical references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhenry46 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

THE ABOVE ENTRY MAKES NO SENSE--IT SHOULD BE BOTH????

The above points out it should be both, based on references. I personally have never saw historical data from Kentucky officials records calling it SHADOW. BUT........Both are not used in the article. Only SHADOW is used in the opening. It should say Provisional first, because that is what they use today and then. The Confederate Governors are clearly marked in the new Governor's Display of portraits as "Provisional". It seems Mr. Dixon will not make a compromise of even using BOTH, but then says BOTH should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhenry46 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Enough! Give it up. You are now dealing in misrepresentation of the facts. The article does use both terms, both in the lead and the body of the article. If you can't use your browser's "find" function and see that, then I can't help you. "Shadow" appears first, and perhaps that is what you are upset about, and if so, say that instead of falsely painting me as someone who is not abiding by consensus. You are the one who is ignoring consensus. Your continued protestations finally prompted me to open a formal RFC to ensure that consensus remained in favor of the article's current wording. That RFC was open for a month, and your input was conspicuously absent. What was clear was a consensus in favor of the article EXACTLY as it is. No one proposed any other alternative at all. Your continued insistence on change and implications that somehow I am the problem are rising to the level of disruption. I urge you to cease this crusade. You've had chance after chance to make your case and you have convinced no one. Please find another area of Wikipedia to improve and quit wasting everyone's time here by beating this dead horse. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

SHADOW GOVERNMENT is not the correct term.

'The term Shadow government refer to:

An opposition government in a parliamentary system. A term for plans for an emergency government that takes over in the event of a disaster. A conspiracy theory of a secret government.

THOSE above TERMS WERE NOT THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT OF KENTUCKY.

Provisional governments are generally unelected and tend to arise in association with or in the aftermath of civil or foreign wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhenry46 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)