Couldn’t let this go, sorry. In case I was not clear enough, I felt that I should elaborate on the point I was trying to make. #1.I may have misspoken re:The purpose of my post as to my lack of interest in the political aspect of the War vs. the Military side of it. I am interested in so far as a change in the one could've had a major impact on the other. #2.The politics of the War, as well as the politics influencing the present-day study of the War. i.e., what I consider some of the less-than-righteous motivations of the political classes on both sides, North and South. The North:("Radical" Republicans,etc.) Aside from an obvious aim at the possible economic exploitation of a defeated South, a major goal, in my opinion, was to amass enormous political power and influence, gaining perpetual majorities via the institution of black suffrage while at the same time disenfranchising white Southern males and further marginalizing the opponents of their policies in every way possible.While there were definitely some 'True Believer' abolitionists, such as Wade and Stevens, much of it was also a cynical grab for political power grab which also helped pave the way for exploitation (or a "Hostile Takeover" if you will) by a certain clique of Northeastern Industrialists and New England baking interests, whose operations would be further accelerated during Reconstruction under the Grant Administration. The South:(Most of the so-called 'firebrand' secessionists and the like) Among their obvious aims were the preservation of slavery and it's possible future expansion into the Western territories. The problem, as I see it, is that too often popular myth is passed off as history, and with those myths being overly simplistic, it is not the whole story, nor even most of it. Worse still, the officers and men of both sides are painted/tarred with the same brush as the few largely responsible for the damnable mess, with all Northern politicians, soldiers, and their commanders being hailed as these great moralistic, near-holy Crusaders, while all Southern troops are vilified and condemned as brutally racist slave-drivers whose only goal in life was to keep their fellow human beings in chains. Thus both sides are taught to us as caricatures, which is both ridiculous and insulting. Yet, we are expected to buy this non-sense as being actual history, which it is not, and as such it dishonors and disgraces all. I am not an intrinsically biased Southern partisan, but Abraham Lincoln was not quite the saint, nor Jeff Davis quite the monster, presumably you as well, claim them to be. From your tone, I took you to be in this camp of simplistic generalities, from the way you seemed to take issue with our speaking of the "loss" or "gain" of KY. If you are not, I apologize. But our modern sensibilities and the popular political views of the time should not dictate how we discuss, study, or write about our history, as it seems to for far too many people. The sentiments in the state were divided (fairly evenly among native-born Kentuckians), and whether one likes it or not, Kentuckians whose ancestors fought in their tens of thousands for the South have every bit as much of a right to be proud of their service as those whose ancestors fought for the North. Nothing about that War, nor our own time, is simple-black and white, with one side deserving absolute condemnation and the other total admiration. We were discussing the military situation, but if you wish to speak about KY's politics at the time, I'm sure we'd be glad to do that on another post as well*. Again, I had family on both sides of the conflict am I am unabashedly and equally proud of them all, but as I said, the political leaders on both sides, in my opinion, were abominable, and absolutely unworthy of the sacrifices of the brave and determined soldiers who suffered in the ranks of both armies. I am sorry, but I am tired of people criticizing or taking issue with we who are not ashamed of our ancestors who fought for the South, and I resent this attitude among certain “enlightened” folks who demonize our long-dead kin, and then take issue with us who will not go along with them in their condemnation of our people. Enough is enough, am I wrong? Or are we all supposed to join in, accept and agree without complaint with this new “PC” view of our history and even join in as these educated, allegedly “enlightened” (and why not say it-Liberal ideologues, or in truth, illiberal folks, tolerant only of those whose views mirror there own), while they “whet their twisted political knives upon the bones” of our long-dead Fathers? I’d appreciate it very much if everyone, be they liberal Socialist/Democrats or the hard-right Conservatives would leave aside their modern, popular political beliefs, dogmas, & agendas completely out of the study, the teaching, and the writing of American History. Objective TRUTH, not personal beliefs should guide our studied, nothing more, nothing less. Forlorn hope, I know, but it would be nice. Hope not to have offended, but I had to get this off my chest. Would anyone else, (Alan Pitts, R. Osborne, etc.) care to read this and reply, I’d be grateful, as I’d like to know if I’m right or wrong on this, and what you folks think of it.