Great Jones - Shop now
$12.99 with 35 percent savings
Digital List Price: $19.99

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

Sold by Amazon.com Services LLC.
You've subscribed to ! We will preorder your items within 24 hours of when they become available. When new books are released, we'll charge your default payment method for the lowest price available during the pre-order period.
Update your device or payment method, cancel individual pre-orders or your subscription at
Your Memberships & Subscriptions
Kindle app logo image

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Follow the author

Dr. James W. Finck
Follow
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

Divided Loyalties: Kentucky's Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the Civil War Kindle Edition

by James W. Finck (Author), William C. Davis (Foreword) Format: Kindle Edition
4.3 out of 5 stars 13 ratings
On May 16, 1861, the Kentucky state legislature passed an ordinance declaring its neutrality, which the state’s governor, Beriah Magoffin, confirmed four days later. Kentucky’s declaration and ultimate support for the Union stood at odds with the state’s social and cultural heritage. After all, Kentucky was a slave state and enjoyed deep and meaningful connections to the new Confederacy. Much of what has been written to explain this curious choice concludes Kentucky harbored strong Unionist feelings. James Finck’s freshly written and deeply researched Divided Loyalties: Kentucky’s Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the Civil War shatters this conclusion. An in-depth study of the twelve months that decided Kentucky’s fate (November 1860 – November 1861), Divided Loyalties persuasively argues that the Commonwealth did not support neutrality out of its deep Unionist’s sentiment. In fact, it was Kentucky’s equally divided loyalties that brought about its decision to remain neutral. Both Unionists and Secessionists would come to support neutrality at different times when they felt their side would lose. Along the way, Dr. Finck examines the roles of the state legislature, the governor, other leading Kentuckians, and average citizens to understand how Kentuckians felt about the prospects of war and secession, and how bloodshed could be avoided. The finely styled prose is built upon a foundation of primary sources including letters, journals, newspapers, government documents, and published reports. By focusing exclusively on one state, one issue, and one year, Divided Loyalties provides a level of detail that will deeply interest both Kentuckians and Civil War enthusiasts alike. Kentucky’s final decision was the result of intrigue and betrayal within the Commonwealth while armies gathered around its borders waiting for any opportunity to invade. And it was within this heated environment that Kentuckians made the most important decision in their history.
Previous slide of product details
  1. Print length
    336 pages
  2. Language
    English
  3. Publisher
    Savas Beatie
  4. Publication date
    December 19, 2012
  5. File size
    5.5 MB
  6. Page Flip
    Enabled
  7. Word Wise
    Enabled
  8. Enhanced typesetting
    Enabled
Next slide of product details

Editorial Reviews

Review

“Kentucky during the secession crisis of 1860-61 has long been a rather confusing mystery difficult for historians to fully understand. Dr. Finck’s serious examination of the topic in Divided Loyalties unravels much of that mystery while at the same time providing a historical reinterpretation that challenges the traditional beliefs in the bluegrass state’s loyalties. What emerges is a far more complex and dynamic picture that more appropriately places Kentucky within the context of the upper-South.”
Dr. Scott Tarnowieckyi, History Professor, Weatherford College

“Divided Loyalties is about . . . survival. The crisis and the war that followed were everyone’s contest, and everyone’s tragedy, yet in Kentucky the choices were harder, and the stakes greater, as men and brothers faced the awful prospect of having to choose not against some distant enemy, but against family and friends. No matter what route to survival a Kentuckian chose, it was sure to put him on the road to a collision with the people most dear to him.”
William C. Davis, award-winning author of Jefferson Davis: The Man and the Hour and The Orphan Brigade: The Kentucky Confederates Who Couldn’t Go Home

About the Author

James Finck was raised in Virginia where he developed a love of the Civil War. He received his undergraduate degree in history at the College of William and Mary, a master’s degree at Virginia Tech, and his Ph.D. at the University of Arkansas. Dr. Finck taught history at the University of Texas―Pan American. He currently teaches American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He lives in Oklahoma with his wife and three young children.

Product details

  • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B00E8HPLEQ
  • Publisher ‏ : ‎ Savas Beatie (December 19, 2012)
  • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 19, 2012
  • Language ‏ : ‎ English
  • File size ‏ : ‎ 5.5 MB
  • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
  • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
  • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • Print length ‏ : ‎ 336 pages
  • Customer Reviews:
    4.3 out of 5 stars 13 ratings

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Dr. James W. Finck

Dr. James W. Finck

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

James Finck was raised in Virginia where he developed a love of early American history especially the Civil War. He received his undergraduate degree in history at the College of William and Mary, a master’s degree at Virginia Tech, and his Ph.D. at the University of Arkansas. Dr. Finck taught history at the University of Texas—Pan American. He currently teaches American history at the University of Arts and Sciences of Oklahoma. He lives in Oklahoma with his wife and three young children.

Customer reviews

4.3 out of 5 stars
13 global ratings

Review this product

Share your thoughts with other customers
Write a customer review

Top reviews from the United States

  • kentuckypreacher
    5.0 out of 5 stars or just an excellent account of political machinations and the struggles inherent in ...
    Reviewed in the United States on January 10, 2015
    Verified Purchase
    This is a MUST HAVE book. Understanding Kentucky's role at the onset, and in the first year, of the Civil War has been difficult: Kentucky had ties to both North and South, was greatly coveted by both North and South, sent troops to both sides, yet maintained in the earliest stage of this conflict a position of neutrality. Both Kentucky's politicians and citizens were deeply divided (that, in a state whose motto is "United We Stand"!). Having studied the Civil War, and Kentucky's part in it, for many years, I can confidently assert that Dr. Finck's book addresses an aspect of the conflagration that no one else has previously adequately explained. Thus, for anyone interested in the Civil War, Kentucky history, border states, or just an excellent account of political machinations and the struggles inherent in such, this is, indeed, a "must have" book that is enthusiastically recommended. It is obvious the zealous labor and careful critical analysis that has been put into this work.
    3 people found this helpful
    Helpful
     Report
  • Amazon Customer
    4.0 out of 5 stars OK
    Reviewed in the United States on December 6, 2018
    Verified Purchase
    GIFT
    Helpful
     Report
  • Militarybooks
    5.0 out of 5 stars An Interview with James Finck
    Reviewed in the United States on September 27, 2012
    Interview given courtesy of the publisher.

    SB: Why did you decide to write Divided Loyalties on this particular topic?

    JF: While I was researching another project I read a book that inspired me called Reluctant Confederates by Daniel Crofts which explains how slave states in the upper south tried to remain in the Union, but were basically forced south. While reading I kept asking myself about states like Kentucky -- it was a slave state, but was able to stay loyal to the Union. I was intrigued and upon further research I found that very little had been written about Kentucky's secession movement. The last major work on the subject was written in 1926. There are many books about Kentucky in the Civil War, but the secession struggle is just a minor part. I decided this was a book worth writing.

    SB: What makes Divided Loyalties different from other books written about Kentucky in the Civil War?

    JF: There are many books written about Kentucky in the Civil War; what makes Divided Loyalties different is that I focus on one year and one subject. My only concern was why a slave state with so many ties to the South would remain in the Union. As I said before, in the books that deal with Kentucky, secession is only mentioned in passing, maybe a chapter at most, and never enough detail to understand the full situation.

    SB: What kind of content can readers expect to find in Divided Loyalties?

    JF: Most of the book deals with the Kentucky secession movement, and how many people in Kentucky supported the South and believed that the state should secede and join the Confederacy. Kentucky was very much a divided state between those who wanted to secede and those who wanted to stay loyal.

    SB: What are some features of Divided Loyalties that you think readers will really enjoy?

    JF: I am hoping readers will enjoy the small details, the stories of some of the major players and how they influenced and were affected by the secession debates. Men like Governor Magoffin; Presidential nominee John C. Breckenridge; political leader of Kentucky John Crittenden; railroad magnet James Guthrie; and even a young woman named Josie Underwood who had her world turned upside down.

    SB: Why would readers not from Kentucky want to read Divided Loyalties?

    JF: Even though this book is about Kentucky, I believe it has a wide appeal to anyone interested in the Civil War. The book demonstrates the difficulties that states found themselves in when the war began, especially in the upper south. They had to choose between their nation and their section, it was a difficult time for everyone involved. Understanding Kentucky sheds light on the other border states, i.e., Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas, because it cannot be a foregone conclusion they would secede. If it was, why did Kentucky not follow? It would seem Kentucky had as much at stake with slavery and their southern rights as the others, yet remained loyal.

    SB: Would Divided Loyalties benefit researchers who wanted to know more about the state?

    JF: I believe anyone interested in Kentucky politics would greatly benefit from the book. There were three major elections held during the twelve months I covered, including the 1860 presidential election. I broke down all three elections by county giving charts and maps of voting practices in the state. As far as I know this is the only published source where all this data is collected.

    SB: Are there any new ideas about the secession movement that you found?

    JF: Yes, actually. I believe what I found completely reinterprets how people have always looked at Kentucky. Past historians have always just accepted that Kentucky was more loyal to the Union. What I argue is that they were much more loyal to the south than thought before, in fact, the strength of the pro-Union and pro-secession forces were equal in strength. States like Virginia called a convention to decide on secession, with the majority believing they would never secede. The voting backed this belief as pro-Union candidates dominated. In Kentucky, however, the Legislature blocked calling a convention, fearful that if a convention was called their state might leave the Union. Kentucky seemed to see a bigger threat of secession than Virginia. It was the Unionists who first came up with the idea of being neutral. If they thought it was a foregone conclusion that Kentucky would stay with the Union, then why did they support neutrality while the secessionists fought against it? It was only after the Union party won two important state elections, pushing neutrality, that the States Rights Party began calling for secession believing the Union party would carry them into the war fighting with the Union.

    SB: Thank you for your time, we appreciate it.

    JF: You're welcome.
    6 people found this helpful
    Helpful
     Report
  • Joe R.
    2.0 out of 5 stars Understatement of the Number of Ky.Union Enlistees to Sept 5, 1861
    Reviewed in the United States on October 2, 2013
    Verified Purchase
    Dr. Finck asserts that only 2,062 Kentuckians enlisted in the Union army before the Confederate invasion in early September 1861, while 6,311 men enlisted in the Confederate army. To support his assertion he includes a list of regiments and the number of men supposedly enlisted by company and month (pp. 180-86). Based on my sampling using the Report of the Adjutant General of the State of Kentucky, Union, vol 1. (Frankfort, 1866), the total for the Union enlistees (pp. 180-83) is woefully understated (perhaps by as much as two-thirds) and therefore does not support his assertion on page 180, "So before the end of neutrality, it seemed as if popular support was with the Confederacy as far as troop strength." I did not check the data for Confederates.

    Two examples of the many understatements follow. For the 3rd Kentucky Infantry he omits Company A completely. The numbers he presents for the other companies are too low. For example, he shows 13 enlistments in Company E in August, when there were actually 75 in total. He shows 22 enlistments in Company F in July; there were 95. Companies E, F and G of the 2nd Kentucky Cavalry are omitted from his table. Their members enlisted in July and August 1861.
    4 people found this helpful
    Helpful
     Report

Report an issue


Does this item contain inappropriate content?
Report
Do you believe that this item violates a copyright?
Report
Does this item contain quality or formatting issues?
Report