Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Confederate government of Kentucky

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Acdixon (talk | contribs) at 16:19, 1 August 2007 (→‎[[Confederate government of Kentucky]]: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Confederate government of Kentucky

Self-nom Created by me and featured on DYK on May 31, 2007. Expanded by User:HiB2Bornot2B and myself. We think it meets FA requirements. I hope to one day make this a featured topic with good article George W. Johnson (Civil War) and good article Richard Hawes. Acdixon 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The lead needs to be reworked and the tone of the prose is decidedly unencyclopedic and should be more authoritative based upon the cited sources. If there are conflicting reports/accounts/interpretations, describe them in another section.
"The origin of the movement to create a Confederate government for Kentucky remains unknown. The inspiration may have been derived... Whatever the case, it is known"
"...but had the foresight to provide that the government could meet"
"There is also some indication that Horatio F. Simrall..."
"For reasons unexplained by the delegates..."
"...operating capital was probably provided by..."
Madcoverboy 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the authoritative sources say. Lowell H. Harrison is probably the best authority on the Confederate government of Kentucky. He mentions specifically that the origin of the movement to create the government is unknown, that no one knows why Luke P. Blackburn was invited to accompany the delegates to Richmond, and that the majority of the operating capital for the government was probably provided by Eli Metcalfe Bruce. Robert Powell is the only one to mention Horatio F. Simrall, and he says "there is some indication that..." Understand that the records are very sparse on this government. They spent most of their time in exile, and according to Harrison, the legislative council kept no minutes after 1862. Acdixon 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still problems with NPOV language and passive tenses and otherwise unencyclopaedic diction, of which I attempted to correct the grossest examples. The article has improved, but I'm still going to oppose FAC status until it reads like an encylopaedia article instead of a novel or screenplay. Madcoverboy 15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If you are going to cite an entire paragraph to a single source, then you should put a singe inline refernce at the end of the paragraph rather than adding the same citation at the end of each of the sentences in that paragraph. Also, the points raised by Madcoverboy need to be adressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm happy now. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeI think the main problem with the substance of the article is that it doesn’t give a strong analysis of the events leading up to the creation of the shadow government. I also have a problem with, “The origin of the movement to create a Confederate government for Kentucky remains unknown.” It seems to me that the origins came during the secession winter and through the state elections in the spring or summer of 1861 when the state government, supported by the electorate made the decision not to even propose a secession convention. The issues that divided unionists and secessionists in Kentucky, I would think, should be described as this would certainly be a part of the “origin of the movement”. The fact that Bell carried the state in the presidential election should probably be mentioned as an indicator of the mood of the state and Breckinridge is mentioned only as the former Vice President when, in the context of the article, his role as the Southern Democratic nominee for president was probably more significant.
The article states, “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.” This is the perfect place to discuss the factual events that provide strong indications that the secessionists were a very distinct minority. The summer 1861 elections had Unionists capturing nine out of ten congressional seats and more than two-thirds of the seats in each house of the General assembly. It is very POV to mention the will of the people without addressing these election results.
There is a discussion of convention delegates but no mention of how they were selected. Since delegates to the other secession conventions in other states were elected, the article should explain the differences in the Kentucky selection process.
The discussion under “Activity” regarding Johnson and Magoffin is confusing without more background, including the neutrality policy adopted in May 1861 by the state. Tom (North Shoreman) 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the wording to "The origin of the idea to create a Confederate government for Kentucky remains unknown." Apparently, there is no record of who first proposed the idea, though clearly the 1861 elections provided the impetus. I have added a "Background" section to help frame the formation of the government a little better. I don't want to get too extensive with this section, however, for fear of veering off-topic. More reading is available in Kentucky in the Civil War. I don't know that I've come across any indication of how the secession delegates were chosen. Can you suggest a source? Acdixon 15:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your response on my talk page and am replying here. Your additional background section was helpful but you still do not discuss the implications of the 1860 presidential election and the fact that two-thirds of Kentuckians voted against their favorite son Breckinridge because he was identified with (possibly incorrectly) the fire-eaters of the party. You added "The majority of the General Assembly had Unionist sympathies, however, and declined the governor's request, fearing that the state's voters would favor secession", clearly suggesting that the people voted contrary to their beliefs in the election. I know the quote is footnoted, but how reliable is the source Jerlene Rose in making complex political analysis -- from what I can gather on the Internet she is primarily an artist.
Actually, Rose is the editor on that book. If I remember correctly (since I've already returned the book to the library), the actual chapter was written by Lowell H. Harrison, one of the state's premier historians. The point is not that the people necessarily voted contrary to their beliefs, but that the legislature desired to keep the question out of the hands of the citizens at all. Without a convention, Kentucky would have to remain part of the Union by default; if a convention was called, it opened the door to secession, no matter how likely or unlikely the possibility actually was. See Secession and the Union in Tennessee and Kentucky: A Comparitive Analysis Acdixon 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the June 20 Congressional elections you wrote, "Believing defeat at the polls was imminent, many Southern Rightists had boycotted the election; the total number of ballots cast was just over half the number that had been cast in the previous year's election." What you omit is the election in May in May for the Frankfort Convention in which the turnout was two-thirds of the presidential vote -- an election also boycotted by the Southern Rights Party. You also don't discuss what significance, if any, the voter turnout had. Are you suggesting that secessionists had more support than the election results suggest?
I'm not suggesting it, but Harrison seems to. Acdixon 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole idea behind the sentence "The origin of the idea to create a Confederate government for Kentucky remains unknown" needs to be, on my opinion, taken out of the article. The issues that led to the government were the political beliefs of the secessionists and the events that led the secessionist minority to feel the need to secede. I don't know if you have access to JSTOR but there is an excellent article by Frank Heck in the Journal of Southern history titled "John C. Breckinridge in the Crisis of 1860-1861" (August 1955) that describes these events. Also Allan Nevins in "The War for the Union: The Improvised War" (page 129-134)makes points concerning the strength of Unionist views that, in my opinion, need to be added to your article.
I do not have access to the resources you mention, but again, I'm quoting Harrison on this. (Kent Masterson Brown was the editor for The Civil War in Kentucky: Battle for the Bluegrass, but Harrison wrote the chapter "The Government of Confederate Kentucky.") If this one sentence is causing so much consternation, however, I can remove it and simply begin with the fact that Breckinridge and Johnson were instrumental in the movement. Acdixon 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for a fact that there was not an election for delegates to Russellville, but I doubt that there was one simply by virtue of the time available and the logistics. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although I can't quote a source one way or the other. Acdixon 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the "POV issue" mentioned in the second part of your opposition, I don't believe it to be a POV issue. The statement reads "believing the Unionist government in Frankfort did not represent the will of the majority of Kentucky's citizens." It doesn't discuss what the actual will of the citizens was, it merely states that the delegates believed that the will of the citizens wasn't being met. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 15:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. The article mentions what the delegates believed but does not discuss "what the actual will of the citizens was". By presenting only one part the issue and ignoring the other part the article fails to maintain a NPOV. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the article does show what the will of the people was via the discussion of the election results and the fact that the Confederate government never gained any significant measure of legitimacy. It would be similarly POV to insist that there was little support for secession in the state. Ultimately, it was not enough to wrest the state from the Union, but there was more than fringe support for the idea. Acdixon 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, with the addition of the Background section by Acdixon, I believe point four of your opposition has been satisfied. After reading the article in its entirety again, it seems rather clear to me. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph in question specifically states that "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." Nowhere in the article does he discuss exactly what were the specific issues in which the governor and legislature were not cooperating. In fact, there had been a dispute over the control of the state militia and the legislature was moving away from the neutrality policy by taking specific actions, especially after Polk violated Kentucky's neutrality. The legislature had demanded that the CSA withdraw its troops and overrode the governor's veto.In fact, as significant as this violation was, it is nowhere listed in the article. In an FA article I would expect more details. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I wanted to avoid delving into too much peripheral detail. It seems to me that the specific nature of the disagreements is better suited for Magoffin's article or the Kentucky in the American Civil War article. The subject of this article is the Confederate government itself. Mentioning how the Confederate government viewed Magoffin and vice-versa seems pertinent; details of Magoffin's relationship with the General Assembly, not so much. Acdixon 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will prepare a draft rewrite of mainly the "Background" section, post it on the discussion page for the article itself, and you can do with it what you will. At least it will show you how close or how far apart we are. Look for it sometime late tomorrow. Tom (North Shoreman) 23:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an excellent idea to me. I'm all for anything that improves the article. Acdixon 13:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just browsed your suggestion on the talk page, and there are some parts I like, particularly Shortridge's analysis of the election results. The main problem I have with your suggestion (and again, I have just skimmed it) is that adding it would make the background section 1,476 words, none of which even mention the Confederate government. The rest of the article would then be 1,851 words long (excluding tables, captions, and headings in both cases.) That, to me, is undue weight to the background section. Give me some time to digest your draft and incorporate parts of it into the article, and we'll see if we can't find some compromise here. Incidentally, I would like to borrow some of the rest of your prose for Kentucky in the American Civil War. More later. Acdixon 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the article's talk page now. I think what I have created from the existing text and your proposed text give sufficient exposition to the political situation in the Commonwealth without straying too far off topic or throwing the article out of balance. Could you please provide full citations (via the appropriate cite templates) for the sources you added so we can copy and paste whatever we eventually come up with into the main article? Acdixon 12:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted my comments on your proposed text on the discussion page -- we still seem to be far apart. I have also suggested a way you could go back to your original article and eliminate the POV issues that were raised without a background section -- although I think doing so would eliminate the necessary comprehensiveness of an FA article. 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 the reader needs to look before the convention to discover what the issues were that led to the creation of the government.Tom (North Shoreman) 15:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interested parties can see the ongoing compromise attempt at the article's talk pa ge. Acdixon 16:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned three sections I could have removed that would have satisfied you. I have eliminated one, changed the wording on one, and elaborated on one. I hope you will find these changes satisfactory and will now be able to support the article. Acdixon 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite the lead -- It's not an FA yet. I couldn't get past the lead, because it did not inform me properly. The lead should provide necessary context, notably pointing out the fact that Kentucky did not actually secede from the Union.--orlady 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article when completed per the above suggestions is a worthwhile and useful addition to the body of Civil War work within Wikipedia. Kentucky, as a border state, was politically important, as well as militarily strategic through the control of the Ohio River. This article when done should be an FA. 8th Ohio Volunteers 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Facinating and generally informative. I have some quibbles/confusions.
  • The first line of Background, Unionist traditions within Kentucky had remained strong throughout her brief history. is a confusing and jarring way to introduce the subject, and needs to be rewritten for clarity.
  • Historian Allan Nevins read the results as strong opposition to both secession and coercion against the secessionists. It took me a few goes to figure out what this meant, could it be clearer please?
  • Richard Hawes as governor I realise that this is about the government and not the war in general, but a little bit more about Bragg's progress in Kentucky would help those unfamilar with the history of kentucky in the war understand the context of the actions of the shadow government.
  • Another major blow was Davis' 1864 decision not to allow Hawes to spend $1 million that had been secretly appropriated in August of 1861 to help Kentucky maintain its neutrality. Davis reasoned that the money could not be spent for its intended purpose, since Kentucky was now a part of the Confederacy. Um, I though Kentucky was at this point in the Union? Surely if it was in the Confederacy it wouldn't be a shadow government. What did I miss?
Kentucky was part of the Union officially, but it was also considered part of the Confederacy, at least by some, and was official admitted into the Confederacy on December 10, 1861. Annie Catron 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is correct; nevertheless, I see how this is confusing and have made the point a bit more explicit. Acdixon 14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of my points may just be showing how much I don't know about Kentucky history, and maybe these points don't need to be adddressed, but I'd like an explanation before I support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, support. My problems have been addressed, although the last one still worries me slightly as it seems to suggest that Kentucky joined the Confederacy (as opposed to simply having disidents who joined on its behalf). But that is a minor point. Great work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like to see the part of further reading, although it is not a reqiurement for promoting to the FA status.Coloane 18:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to put in a Further Reading section. I've used every resource I could find on the government itself. BTW, if it's not a requirement for FA, why are you opposing? Acdixon 21:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a delusion in the Confederacy that all they had to do was send some liberators to Kentucky and they would be welcomed.

Following the Confederate invasion of Kentucky the legislature of that state which had wished to be neutral appealed to the Union for relief.

Grant was happy to help. . .Mark Lincoln 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"They spent most of their time in exile, and according to Harrison, the legislative council kept no minutes after 1862."

That is because they were null, void and without constituents.Mark Lincoln 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to clarify my position. I feel a 'featured article" should be on a subject of some substance or import and it is hard to classify the Confederate Government of Kentucky in that fashion. The treatment of Kentucky by firebrand secessionists reveals the level of self-delusion that motivated their actions. First it was believed that as the Kentucky legislature had refused to consider secession then an invasion would rally the state to the south. That invasion did exactly the opposite. That some self-appointed people had decided to declare themselves the government is just further proof. I see the Confederate government of Kentucky as an insignificant folly which reveals a deeper problem in Southern thinking.

But was it of any serious import? I think not. I found the article to be a fine piece of work. A great deal of effort and well documented.

My opinion against is based upon the merit of the subject, not the level of scholarship.Mark Lincoln 20:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not a valid reason to object. Please judge the article against the FA criteria. That the article in question is about a folly is not the issue (for all that it is true). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm not sure that I needed to post my support as I assisted with the article in question, but I might add that most of the work was actually done by Acdixon, and I believe it to fulfill the requisite FA criteria. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I originally opposed the article (and still do) many of my suggestions have been added to the article and it has moved much, much closer to a NPOV and is much more comprehensive. There still seems to be an aversion to clearly and strongly say what the sources say -- that the election of Lincoln and the slavery issues are the primary reason that Kentucky even considered secession. The caption on the Breckinridge photo, a prominent part of the article, mentions only states' rights. The article refers to Lincoln's "wicked purpose" in requesting 75,000 volunteers but still refuses to incorporate this statement "The election of a sectional president by a sectional party committed to halting the expansion of slavery was, to them, a call for action" into the article. The statement comes from a work and historian that are the main sources for the original article. As I discussed on the talk page of the article, there is additional information available on the CSA Congressional representation by Kentucky that is available that has not been incorporated into the article. I will be glad to do it at some point (I provided readily available sources), but my Wikipedia time is pretty much wrapped up on another project right now. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I have been very reasonable in working with this editor to bring the article to a place where he can support it. I do not think that issues regarding slavery and Lincoln's election have been skirted, and failure to elaborate on them further does not seem to me to violate NPOV. As I stated on the article's talk page, there are perhaps more facts that could be added to the article, but in my opinion (and those of at least four other editors above) there is nothing more that must be added to the article for it to satisfy the comprehensiveness requirement. The congressional delegation seems to be outside the scope of this article, and belongs more in an article on the Confederate Congress; the subject of this article is the state government. If I had access to the sources cited by North Shoreman, perhaps I would attempt to add details of Hawes' inauguration ceremony, etc. in a further attempt to garner his support. Unfortunately, I do not.
Also, I would ask that the closing admin disregard the oppositions raised by User:Coloane and User:Mark Lincoln, as neither are based on the featured article criteria. This would put the present vote at 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral. I realize this is not a majority vote, but opinion seems to be tending toward passing the article. Acdixon 19:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote; it's an attempt to achieve consensus. Please stop counting. I like this article; it's fairly well written. Love the pic of the house (taken by the nominator), but it's a pity it's so closely cropped. Tony 06:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I realize it's not a vote. The only reason I mention the numbers is to support my assertion that the POV and comprehensiveness concerns raised by North Shoreman do not seem to be supported by other reviewers. It seems the only way to achieve consensus with North Shoreman will be to add nearly every sentence and section he proposes, including adding some information from sources I do not have access to and he has stated he doesn't have time to add right now. That means I've gone about as far as I can in addressing his concerns, and I'm asking the closing admin to consider passing the article based on the extensive edits I have already made to address them.
BTW, I still have the original picture of the Clark House. The reason I cropped it so closely was because it is physically attached to other structures on both sides and I wanted to crop them out. I can upload the original and let you see if de-cropping helps the quality. I am certainly not a photographer; I just play one on Wikipedia. :) Acdixon 12:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding consensus - I would like to point out that North Shoreman's apparent insistance on including additional material seems unneccessary. The featured article criteria mentions an article of appropriate length for the topic, which I believe this article to be, "without going into unnecessary detail". Additionally, according to consensus guidelines, insisting on adding insignificant material has been judged a violation of consensus. I value North Shoreman's opinion, but I feel that the other editors who have reviewed this article according to the featured article criteria do not share his opinions, and I urge the closing admin to consider this when drawing a conclusion on the consensus. Thank you. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 15:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Below are the specific items I selected adding. Whether or not a particular editor has access to mainstream resources should not be a factor justifying the omission of significant facts. In all cases they either refer to an item already introduced by the original editor with virtually no detail (nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4), that contradicts the original editor with a reliable source (no. 5), or introduce significant issues directly related to the topic (i.e. item no. 6 Kentucky's Congressional delegation selected by the Kentucky CSA government, item no. 7 the demographics of who participated in the secession convention. My list of needed additions:
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.
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).
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) 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point in mentioning my lack of access to the resource is to inform the closing admin that if consensus cannot be achieved without adding the information from said resource, then the nomination can be closed as failed; I cannot add the information and you do not have time at present. If consensus can be achieved without that information, the opinions presently expressed seem to favor doing so. That said, let me pose the following responses to your suggested additions.
1. Bragg's logic was that establishing the Confederate government in Frankfort gave it a measure of legitimacy that would allow him to enforce the conscription act. Without having seen the source in question, I can't see that any further explanation pertinent to the Confederate government is needed.
2. The details of the ceremony might make an interesting addition to the article, but are not critical to understanding the government or its actions and thus do not represent a reason to fail the comprehensiveness requirement. From the sources I've seen, there were speeches by Humphrey Marshall, Braxton Bragg, and Richard Hawes, where they basically rehash the reasons for creation of the Confederate government and tell that they have come to liberate the Confederate sympathizers they had supposed were in the state. A ball was planned for later in the evening. The ball was never held due to Buell's attack. None of that seems particularly noteworthy.
3 and 4. The fact that wagonloads of weapons were left unissued and that Bragg felt the need to make a boneheaded attempt to install the government in Frankfort as a way to remedy the situation seems to say what needs to be said regarding lack of support for the Confederate cause in the state. There is no need to for additional information to stress the fact that the Confederate leaders were delusional about their support; the reader gets it by this point in the article.
5. Would it suffice to say that Davis was non-committal because of the lack of support for the Confederate Army in the state? Without seeing the information, I can't tell if Davis' reasoning is pertinent to the state Confederate government or not.
6. Again, this article is about the state government of Confederate Kentucky. A voting bloc in the Confederate Congress is more appropriately mentioned in an article about the Congress than here.
7. Between the reference to the Jackson Purchase region and its reasons for supporting the Confederates, the voting records that show Confederate candidates were unable to capture any of the other legislative seats at either the state or national levels, and the reference to the fact that the Confederate government's jurisdiction extended only as far as their battle lines, I feel that all that needs to be said regarding the geographic distribution of Confederate supporters has been said. Acdixon 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Confederate_government_of_Kentucky&oldid=148522117"