Thanks Jim;

You are correct and it also points out what I was saying in my previous post. But, Cindy's question was about a program on the History Channel, which I have not seen, that indicated that major military stratigies in Kentucky were planned with the location of the Distilleries being a factor of concideration.

While, I do not believe that this was it fact what was happening, I was trying to point out that at a lower level of command, below that of commanding general, there may have been legitimate military reason for a commander to avoid the distillery sites, or in their advancing their troops to take them and secure the supply of whiskeys there.

These movements could have triggered equal counter movements from an oposition forces, such as in the case Gettysburg and the shoes, that made it appear that major movements were indeed planned around those distilleries from another perspective.

For example, I do not believe that Heth's troops went to Gettysburg to get shoes. There were no shoes there in the first place. At least not enough to outfit a full regiment let alone a Brigade, Division, or Corp. But it makes for a "good story" for the some historians to spread to point up how badly in need the poor confederates were.

The fact was that Union soldiers shoes wore out just as fast when on a march, if anyone who has ever worn any will tell you. I believe that there was more purpose to that movement by Robert E. lee, than simply that. BUT, how many time have you hear good historians and how many lesser History books say that Heth went to Gettysburg to find shoes and that's what started that battle?

The same with the whiskey distillerys in Kentucky. Which was the substance of Cindy question. Fighting to protect the Whiskey Distillerys of Kentucky make for a "good story" to imply that the confederate or yankee were a bunch of drunks fighting to get or protect the whiskey, depending on whose side you talk. And they may have been. Alcoholism was rampent in both the North and South long before the War.