On May 20, 1861, Kentucky Governor Beriah Magoffin “solemnly forbid any movement upon the soil of Kentucky or the occupation of any port, post or place. . . until authorized by invitation or permission of the Legislative and Executive authorities of this State.”[1] Contrary to this alleged neutrality, Kentucky supported the Union cause during the American Civil War while at the same time adamantly defending the institution of slavery, arguing that it “is a state matter not to be tampered with by the federal government.”[2] Although Kentucky was the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln, the newly inaugurated president only received 1,365 votes from his home state in the 1860 election, and news of his victory caused serious anxiety for state legislators, 60.1% of which were slaveholders.[3] Interestingly enough, 64.29% of pro-neutrality legislators owned at least one slave and many were also wealthier than the opposition.[4]

​

Despite the state’s position on slavery, Kentucky was quite unique from its southern sisters, with enslaved people making up a minority of the population because hemp—which required fewer laborers to care for vast amounts of land—was the primary crop produced in the state.[5] Some historians even argue that “[t]he fundamental reason for the variance in the employment of enslaved people between Kentucky and the Lower South was climate.”[6] Kentucky lacked the tropical climate of the Lower South, so it had to rely on other products, and because hemp thrives under lower temperatures and has shorter growing seasons than cotton, it was the ideal cash crop for the state.[7] Likewise, hemp “did not exhaust the soil, it prevented erosion, needed no cultivation, produced an excellent return per acre, and enjoyed protection from foreign competition under the tariffs that the ‘Prince of Hemp’ [Henry Clay] helped craft.”[8] Due to the state’s highly fertile soil, virtually every county in Kentucky was suited for the industrial or household production of hemp, and the crop was primarily cultivated in or near Lexington.[9]

​

Even so, since the colonial period, slavery proved crucial in shaping the region’s social, economic, and political climate, with most support for the institution coming from the South. Even though there were fewer enslaved people in Kentucky when compared to most Southern and border states, James F. Hopkins—whose work is regarded as the standard on hemp in Kentucky—once suggested that “[w]ithout hemp, slavery might not have flourished in Kentucky, since other agricultural products of the state were not conducive to the extensive use of bondsmen.”[10] Moreover, “[h]emp that was manufactured into bagging for cotton bales was probably the most conductive crop for the employment of slave labor and, even then, very few slaves were needed to handle the amount of acreage that was necessary for a profit.”[11] Due to its utilization of enslaved labor, the cultivation of hemp likely influenced arguments over slavery, not to mention the state’s relationship with the South.

​

Prior to its criminalization with the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, Cannabis sativa L., better known as hemp, was a thriving industry for thousands of years, with the crop being utilized to produce sails, paper, linens, rope, oil, and much more.[12] During the late 1600s, decreasing tobacco prices encouraged the production of hemp throughout the American colonies.[13] In fact, some of the most important objects and documents in early United States history were produced with hemp-derived paper or fibers, such as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the first and second drafts of the Declaration of Independence, and the first American flags.[14] Despite being used throughout the country, the hemp market could not compete with the more profitable cotton crop, especially after the invention of the cotton gin, so most industrial hemp production in the United States was concentrated in the Kentucky bluegrass.[15] Even though Kentucky was also home to the production of grain and tobacco, hemp was at the forefront of trade in the years leading up to the Civil War, with Lexington at the center of production and Louisville as the chief distributor.[16] In fact, James C. Klotter—the Kentucky State Historian—declared hemp “the money crop” for the region since before the War of 1812.[17] However, Thomas D. Clark—a renowned professor and historian—took the argument for hemp one step further by arguing that “Kentucky never grew any one crop which was more influential in binding her to the cotton belt than was the cultivation and sale of hemp.”[18] Likewise, the Kentucky hemp industry provided the majority of bale rope and bagging supplies needed for the ever-thriving cotton industry in the South, thus further connecting the border state to the future Confederacy rather than the United States.[19]

​

On April 12, 1861, at 4:30 AM, General Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard began the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter, thus initiating the American Civil War.[20] A few days later, the United States placed a blockade on southern ports in response to Confederate secession. Shortly afterward, the Confederacy implemented a self-embargo on cotton, thus reducing the supply of cotton in the South and the need for hemp products.[21] In March 1862, almost one year into the war and a few months after Kentucky ended its declaration of neutrality, President Lincoln proposed to Congress the first draft for a compensated, gradual emancipation program in the United States, something of which many Kentuckians vehemently disapproved.[22] When addressing the border states of the dangers of rejecting his proposal for compensated emancipation, Lincoln claimed that “[i]f the war continues long, as it must if the object be not sooner attained, the institution in your States will be extinguished by mere friction and abrasion—by the mere incidents of the war. It will be gone, and you will have nothing valuable in lieu of it.”[23]

​

Looking back at history and Clark's assessments of the significance of hemp, it seemed more likely for the border state to join the Confederacy than remain in the United States, especially after Lincoln’s early emancipation efforts. Despite this, the border state would go on to pledge its loyalty to the Union. Many historians have looked into Kentucky's neutrality, the success of the hemp industry in the state, and the role of slavery in Kentucky separately. However, few scholars, if any, have attempted to find a connection between all three concepts. As a result, this study assesses Kentucky’s hemp industry, with an aim to explore if there is a correlation, perhaps even causation, between slave-aided hemp production and Kentucky’s decision to remain in the United States rather than join the Confederacy during the Civil War. The research expounds upon the role of Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and the state legislature in establishing hemp's political and economic influence in the region through an analysis of their primary documents. Likewise, the study examines the historiography of the Kentucky hemp industry, specifically the works of Kentucky historians Thomas Clark, James Hopkins, and James Klotter. Based on this analysis, the research challenges Clark's argument that hemp bound Kentucky to the Mississippi economy by arguing that the state severed its allegiance with the South because its economic interests no longer aligned with the Confederacy's political agenda.