Did the CSA have the correct strategy in Kentucky?

Did Bragg and Smith have the right approach to Kentucky?

  • While the Union would have one, yes they had the right approach

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • Bragg and Smith were idiots. They should have tried other strategies in Kentucky.

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • There are other strategies that are equally smart. Either way would be good.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I can't say for sure.

    Votes: 1 33.3%

  • Total voters
    3

EmperorTigerstar

Ad Honorem
Jun 2013
6,398
USA
Bragg's invasion of Kentucky during the American Civil War always interested me. Bragg along with Kirby Smith planned for an invasion of Kentucky to not only attempt to bring Kentucky into the Confederacy but to potentially distract Union forces to help ease things for Lee's invasion of Maryland (which as Antietam showed, it didn't). Now, the Battle of Perryville on October 8th, 1862 was the final battle of the Kentucky campaign in which Bragg tactically won over Union forces by driving them back over a mile but the losses basically forced him to give up their hold on Central Kentucky and for both leaders to evacuate Kentucky. Now, before the Battle of Perryville, Smith for a while threatened Cincinatti and other towns on the Ohio River and perhaps a capture of Cincinatti as opposed to focusing on Perryville may have resulted in different things. But REGARDLESS of whether the Union was going to inevitable or not drive the CSA forces out of Kentucky, did Bragg and Smith have the right strategy in Kentucky by focusing on central Kentucky and abandoning threatening Cincinatti and the Ohio in theory if they had a chance at all to win control of the state?

Edit: PLEASE ignore the horrible typo I made in the poll. It should be "won" not "one". xD
 
Jun 2014
177
Cal Poly
I'm not well informed on the campaign, but it would seem that focusing on Cincinnati would have been a better option. A thrust like that into Union territory certainly could have tipped the political scales in the CSA's favor. Losing in the South is one thing. But getting your ass kicked on your turf and having your citizens suffer? Not gonna make the politicians happy
 

EmperorTigerstar

Ad Honorem
Jun 2013
6,398
USA
I'm not well informed on the campaign, but it would seem that focusing on Cincinnati would have been a better option. A thrust like that into Union territory certainly could have tipped the political scales in the CSA's favor. Losing in the South is one thing. But getting your ass kicked on your turf and having your citizens suffer? Not gonna make the politicians happy
Cincinnati was pretty well defended. There could have been quite the bloody battle. But yes, capturing the city would make the campaigns in the area change and maybe Kentucky would eventually become a temporary stronghold with the exception of Louisville which would be in Union hands.