Invasion of Kentucky: Battle of Richmond through Northern and Southern Eyes

    Kentucky was one of the most sought after states before and during the Civil War.  Each section of the country both realized the necessity of the borderland state and both sought to obtain it.  I got together several newspaper sources through microfilm and chose only two newspaper for which had prominence during this time, and both covered the Kentucky issue to the best of its ability.  The Battle of Richmond was spoken through little tidbits of information, but I was more curious to see how the Union and the Confederacy seen this battle, and the importance of Kentucky through their eyes.
   
    My Northern source was The New York Times.  Many headlines regarding Kentucky were mostly talking about J.H. Morgan, and his Confederate raiders raiding Kentucky, and the guerrilla warfare that was going on in the border state.  (As a side note, the Champ Ferguson book for Dr. Weise’s class is actually really interesting on the subject of guerrilla warfare and I encourage everyone to actually sit down and read it).  The tensions in Kentucky were rising before the Battle of Richmond actually ensued because of this guerrilla activity and raiding.  Brimming with these kinds of activities, newspapers such as The New York Times feared Kentucky was being absorbed by the rebellious Confederate armies.  Furthermore, a section of August 25th, 1862’s newspaper stated, “The War in Kentucky: Martial law called for Clarke and Madison, for home defense.  Rebellions on the rise.”  I thought this was actually really neat because I had no idea that any of this ever occurred. 
   
    I was also quite curious about Big Hill, KY.  On August 26th, 1862, Big Hill, Madison Co, KY was in the New York Times.  It stated, “Skirmish occurred yesterday afternoon between National troops under Gen. Metcalf and the rebels at Big Hill, Madison Co., KY.  After a brief engagement Gen. Metcalf’s forces withdrew to Richmond.” Afterwards, guerrilla activity continued to increase.  A Martial law bill was passed on August 28th, 1862.  Major Gen. Nelson- House passed this Draft Bill, but preferred voluntary enlistments.  The draft bill was a major issue regarding Kentucky.

    The Battle of Richmond occurred on August 29th and 30th.  I actually did not find anything on this in the newspaper.  Of course, news did not travel as fast as it does today and/or maybe it just was not significant enough to have any coverage.  On September 1st, 1862, however I did see a headline labeled, Disaster in Kentucky, and it went on to say, “Defeat of our forces under Gen. Mansan.  6 regiments engaged against a rebel force of 15,000 to 20,000.  Retreat of Our Forces to Lexington”.  This was the only thing written about the Battle of Richmond in the prominent New York paper.  The Northern papers mainly shunned Confederate states, unless there was a large battle in which many Union forces were lost. 

    Afterwards, I took the liberty to look at a Southern newspaper called, Charleston Daily Courier: Confederate States of America. This newspaper had lots of Southern pride in it and it was very Protestant oriented.  What also caught my eye was that the paper never really said, 'the North' or 'the Union', as much as it did say 'Yankee' and 'Yankee forces'.  Almost instantly I seen on May 10th, 1862, the Confederacy President, Jefferson Davis, had called for wanting the border states to go Confederate.  We talked about this type of stuff during class whenever the Confederate States of America started campaigning in the border states and stating all the reasons why they should join the South.  Furthermore, Morgan’s raids were again spoken about, and they were not as negatively brought up as the New York Times had done. 

    On the day of the battle, I actually found something on it, which was completely different from the Northern paper which did not write about it much until September 1st.  The Charleston Daily Courier: Confederate States of America, wrote (this is just paraphrase in my own words the specific points of the excerpt), “Glorious achievement that thrill the heart of the South!  Richmond no longer threatened and Washington in danger!” The South was already planned on winning the war.  They took a lot of pride and honor into what they did and were doing, unlike the NY Times where it was a bit more on a broader base.  In the eyes of many Southerners, they felt honor and the need to protect their lifestyles; that is the sense that I got while reading this newspaper.

    Overall, this war, in general, was seen in different way through different eyes.  But the idea of what they were reading gave them a sense of what they needed to know was going on.  This only, to me, reiterates that everyone has their own perspective, and that everyone fights for what they believe in.  I chose the Battle of Richmond because well, it is Richmond.  The point is is that the coverage of this war, or all the battles in general, were covered from their own points of view.  There is no right or wrong answer in the feelings felt by these people during this time because it was a very unstable world then. I respect what they said and how they felt because if America was to ever get into another civil war again, I think the thoughts and feelings would be the same, i.e. pride, honor, and hope.

                                                                   Bibliography

The New York Times. July-Dec. 1862 Vol. XI, No. 3406-3413

Charleston Daily Courier (Confederate States of America).  May 10th, 1862-Nov. 29th, 1862. No. IX.