Two sports-takes that probably no one cares about.

First, I can’t believe Ohio State is being considered for the playoffs. I would much rather see a deserving 10-2 Clemson or even a 10-3 Utah. They at least won their conference. I would even rather see a one loss Southern Cal make the playoff. They at least played in their conference championship. I hate that Ohio State, the most overrated team in the past decade, can benefit from sitting at home while USC is penalized for playing in a conference game. The playoff should be the top four conference winners. No more of who deserves it. No one deserves anything. If you want in, then win your conference, period. If they keep talking about who deserves it, that it should be the best four teams no matter the record than I can make a good argument for Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and LSU being the four teams. Does anyone deny any of those four can beat any of the other teams in contention right now.

My second take is on my least favorite athlete, LeBron James This week he threw a tantrum because the media did not ask him about the Jerry Jones scandal this week but plagued him with questions about Kyrie Irving last month, alluding that the media was racist. Here is my answer to James. Why should they? Who are you that you think we care about your opinion on everything? If you are unfamiliar with the story here is the breakdown. The media asked James about Irving who is a basketball player, the same sport that James plays. It was about an event that occurred last month when Irving posted his support of an antisemitic movie. James and Irving know each other well having played on the same team and lastly, James claims to be a social justice warrior, unless its helping people from other nations who buy his shoes, and the media wondered why James was not condemning Irving. As for the Jerry Jones situation, it deals with football, which I am pretty sure is not James’ sport. It was about a photo that was taken 65 years ago when as a 14-year-old boy he attended a rally to stop the Little Rock Nine from attending Central High School. It also involved a man who James is not familiar with. They never played together or run in the same circles. I don’t care if James wants to share his opinion, I certainly do, I just don’t understand why James feels he should be asked about the situation. Is he upset he was not asked about the social justice issues in Iran right now, probably not. By the way I am not saying the Jones is not a story, it is, if for nothing else we can use it to teach about nine incredibly brave teens who risked their lives to challenge segregation. I am just saying the story is not about James.

 

Two sports-takes that probably no one cares about. 

First, I can’t believe Ohio State is being considered for the playoffs. I would much rather see a deserving 10-2 Clemson or even a 10-3 Utah. They at least won their conference. I would even rather see a one loss Southern Cal make the playoff. They at least played in their conference championship. I hate that Ohio State, the most overrated team in the past decade, can benefit from sitting at home while USC is penalized for playing in a conference game. The playoff should be the top four conference winners. No more of who deserves it. No one deserves anything. If you want in, then win your conference, period. If they keep talking about who deserves it, that it should be the best four teams no matter the record than I can make a good argument for Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and LSU being the four teams. Does anyone deny any of those four can beat any of the other teams in contention right now.

My second take is on my least favorite athlete, LeBron James This week he threw a tantrum because the media did not ask him about the Jerry Jones scandal this week but plagued him with questions about Kyrie Irving last month, alluding that the media was racist. Here is my answer to James. Why should they? Who are you that you think we care about your opinion on everything? If you are unfamiliar with the story here is the breakdown. The media asked James about Irving who is a basketball player, the same sport that James plays. It was about an event that occurred last month when Irving posted his support of an antisemitic movie. James and Irving know each other well having played on the same team and lastly, James claims to be a social justice warrior, unless its helping people from other nations who buy his shoes, and the media wondered why James was not condemning Irving. As for the Jerry Jones situation, it deals with football, which I am pretty sure is not James’ sport. It was about a photo that was taken 65 years ago when as a 14-year-old boy he attended a rally to stop the Little Rock Nine from attending Central High School. It also involved a man who James is not familiar with. They never played together or run in the same circles. I don’t care if James wants to share his opinion, I certainly do, I just don’t understand why James feels he should be asked about the situation. Is he upset he was not asked about the social justice issues in Iran right now, probably not. By the way I am not saying the Jones is not a story, it is, if for nothing else we can use it to teach about nine incredibly brave teens who risked their lives to challenge segregation. I am just saying the story is not about James.

Political Trends

 

An article came out this week from conservative writer George Will in the Washington Post that called for President Joe Biden and V.P. Kamala Harris not to run in the next presidential election. Will, who has opposed Trump from the beginning, basically said that the Republicans might make the mistake of running a man who has proven to be unqualified for the highest office and the Democrats need to protect the nation and not follow suit. Will, who voted for Biden in 2020, believes Biden is too old as seen in recent gaffs. It seems odd to not nominate a sitting president and Americans have become used to most of our presidents serving a full eight years. Only once in the 20^th or 21^st centuries has a party not nominated a sitting president and over the past forty-two years only two presidents have served only one term. Yet there was a time in our history when this was quite common. A time when the nation experienced a string of subpar presidents and went for twenty-four years without having a two-term president or even nominating a sitting president.

Looking back at presidents, you can see times when parties had long runs in power. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans basically held power from 1800 to 1828, a twenty-eight-year run. The Republicans then held the White House, with only two interruptions from 1860 to 1932, a seventy-two-year run. Democrats came back with their own run and only one interruption from 1932 to 1968, a thirty-six-year run. It gets harder to tell after that. There could be a mini-run of Republicans from 1968 to 2008, a forty- year run with two interruptions, or maybe Clinton started a Democratic run in 1992 till today, a thirty-year run with two interruptions. The other possibility is that we are mimicking the one time we skipped when there were no runs. The parties went back and forth. The time between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, 1836 to 1860, when only one sitting president was renominated and there were no two-term presidents.

This time period started off with the one president that was renominated. Martin Van Buren won as a Democratic in 1836 but his presidency fell into shambles the following year with the Panic of 1837, one of the largest depressions in American history. The same holds true in 1837 as it does today. Americans vote first with their wallets. Van Buren did get the Democratic nod in 1840, but Americans blamed him for their economic woes and voted in the Whig, William Henry Harrison, good old Tippecanoe and his VP Tyler too. Speaking of woes, Harrison gave a long-winded inaugural speech in the cold, got sick and died a month later. It was no longer "Tyler too," but now Tyler alone. He really was alone. He had been a Democrat his entire life but had switched to the Whigs to run on and balance the ticket. He was never supposed to be president and was shunned by both parties. When his term ended, he threw a party and announced to the crowd, “They cannot say now that I am a president without a party.” Clearly the Whigs had no interest in him running for a second term.

In 1844 both parties ran new candidates. The Whigs ran their founder and champion Henry Clay, while the Democrats ran an up-and-comer who most reminded them of Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk. Being from Tennessee, Polk even borrowed Jackson’s nickname and was known as “Young Hickory.” Polk was responsible for arguably the most controversial war in American history, the Mexican War, one that divided the nation along section lines. His presidency was so stressful that he decided to not run again for health reason. It was a good thing, too, or else he would have been the second president to die in office as he did pass about a year after he left the White House.

In 1848 both parties ran completely new candidates once again. Whigs went with their favorite tactic of running a war hero, and after the Mexican War there was none bigger than Zachary Taylor. Democrats, trying to continue to keep the ghost of Jackson alive, ran his Secretary of War, Lewis Cass. Even Jackson’s spirt could not help Cass, who lost to the very charismatic and popular Taylor. However, the Whigs retained their bad luck when, as with their last president, Taylor died, leaving the Whigs with the not as charismatic or popular Millard Filmore.

Not impressed with the Filmore presidency (no, I am not making these names up, they really were all presidents), the Whigs continued their trend and nominated the second most famous general of the Mexican War, Winfield Scott in 1852. The Democrats also ran a new name with Franklin Pierce, who won the day.  Pierce got caught up in the Bleeding Kansas debacle and might as well have been radioactive in the 1856 election, the way the Democratic Party threw him under the bus. The party picked the least controversial candidate they could find, and it turned out to be possibly the worst American president, James Buchanan. As there was no Whig party to speak of, two other parties ran candidates. The Know Nothings, trying to get Whig votes, dug up and ran the corps of Filmore, while the brand-new Republican party ran John C. Freemont. The Republicans had enough Whigs in the party to nominate a military hero. No surprise Buchanan won, being from really the only major party in the race although he would go on to do nothing but watch the nation crumble into Civil War.

Then, of course, there is the 1860 election, where again neither major party ran the same candidate. Democrats ran Stephen Douglas, while the Republicans took a shot at a newcomer and nominated Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln ended the run of new candidates when in 1864 he ran and won a second term. It's hard to imagine the turnover in the presidents as it was between 1836 and 1860, yet we can understand the back-and-forth. We have seen the presidency switch parties after each president since George H.W. Bush in 1988.

What we can learn from this is that, if the pattern holds and if Biden decides not to run, the Republicans will take over. We can also see this as a warning. The years between 1836 and 1860 are some of the most turbulent years in our history. It was during those years that things were becoming so divisive that it led to Civil War. I can’t say whether it was poor leadership that led to war or that even the best of our presidents could not have held us together during those years. However, I am leaning on the side of poor leadership. That means it's up to us now to choose leaders who can properly steer our ship of state and honestly try to unite us instead of playing politics. I am not saying that this is easy. Clearly, the last two presidents have failed, and I have no idea what candidate can truly bridge the divide. All I know is I hope we can find one soon and not suffer the same fate as they did the last time we saw this trend.

Dr. James Finck is a Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma and Chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium. To receive daily historical posts, follow Historically Speaking at Historicallyspeaking.blog or on Facebook.

 

 

 

Hadestown

With the traveling Broadway production Hadestown currently crossing the nation, I thought I would make a few comments about the show. Most of all I loved it, amazing production on all levels. Hadestown is a retelling of the Greek myths of Hades and Persephone as well as Orpheus and Eurydice. Instead of being all Greek columns the play is a modern adaption set in what seemed like a 1920s or 30s New Orleans flophouse or bar which would fit easily on the set of Streetcar. The style of the music is a perfect accompaniment to the setting with  the style of Dixieland, jazz, and a good dose of blues all wrapped up in a Broadway sound. The music was nothing short of amazing with incredible harmonies from the muses and rich almost haunting melodies. Many of the song were playful, with plenty of trombone, but also songs like, “All I’ve Ever Know” were as romantic and powerful as any song on Broadway.

I would say Hadestown was music driven, especially the first act, the way a play like Phantom is where the music is stronger than the story. The opposite is a play like Come from Away which the story is stronger than the music. The set is very modern in that the orchestra is on stage and often interacts with the characters. The set is also minimal and is not really important to the show. There is only a slight change when going from the bar to Hadestown and the only special effect is the rotating turntable on stage that has become common with many recent plays.

I was familiar with Hades and Persephone, the tale about two gods, Hades the god of the underworld and Persephone goddess of seasons, who fell in love, but Persephone’s mother Demeter goddess of Agriculture could not bare being without her daughter. A deal was struck that Persephone would spend half the year with Hades and half the year with her mother. Hence spring and summer she spent with her mother and fall and winter with Hades. I was not familiar with the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Without giving too much away Orpheus was the son of Apollo and the muse of poetry. He had the gift of song and could charm all things living and even inanimate objects with his voice. He fell in love with Eurydice, a tree nymph. The play goes astray from the myth. In the myth Eurydice is bitten by a snake on her wedding day and dies while in the play she makes a choice to go to Hades. Either way Orpheus must save her from the underworld.

Starting with the act one finale, a powerful song entitled “Why We Build the Wall” the play does shift some towards the storyline and takes on a political tone. I do not have issues with political undertones in works of art. I assign novels each semester to my history classes with the caveat that any great piece of literature worth reading has a message or moral for the reader. My issue is that in our current environment of political correctness all the messages from songs, TV, movies, and Broadway only have messages from one side. Hadestown is no different. In one of the most intense songs of the show Hades is in his realm singing to the people under his control. The song is a call and response song where Hades sings, “Why do we build this wall,” and is answered by the chorus “We build the wall to keep us free.” Hades then asks, “How does the wall keep us free?” and they answer, “The wall keeps out the enemy.” Hades asks why are they the enemy and the answer is “Because they want what we have got.” In the production I watched Hades was played by a tall dark haired man with an absolutely amazing baritone voice, but he might as well be played by a blond with slightly orange skin and a tie too long.

While the play does seem to take the standard Broadway liberal side, what is interesting is it was written in 2006, years before anyone other than the Simpsons could have predicted the Trump presidency or his signature slogan of “Build That Wall”. Also, it is interesting that if Hades is serving as the antagonist then his convincing of Eurydice to come to Hadestown as her only option for survival can only be seen as a rejection of big government. Recognizing she is starving because she can’t find food in the winter Hades tries to convince Eurydice to leave her love by singing:

“Hey, little songbird, let me guess:
He's some kind of poet and he's penniless?
Give him your hand, he'll give you his hand-to-mouth
He'll write you a poem when the power's out
Hey, why not fly south for the winter?

Hey, little songbird, look all around you
See how the vipers and vultures surround you
They'll take you down, they'll pick you clean
If you stick around such a desperate scene
See, people get mean when the chips are down”

 

Hades convinces Eurydice that she will only be safe in Hadestown where he can take care of her. Of course, once she decides to leave the world, she is imprisoned like the rest who came to see Hadestown as their only protection.

My advice is this, no matter your political leaning, see the show. Know that there are some political messages, but don’t let that distract you from a stunning musical. Turn off your political brain and focus on the other messages, rekindling relationships that have struggled, or the power of love and beauty. I thought Hades internal struggle of mercy verses control is timeless both in politics and well as in relationships and definitely in parenting. Then there is the final message of trust. How much do we trust those we love especially with our own human weaknesses. Yes, I get tired of always having to be the ones giving in to the left for art, but to let that stand in your way of this show would be unfortunate enough to be a Greek tragedy.

 

Savasbeatie.com

Dear readers

I wanted to let you know that my book, Divided Loyalitieswill soon be published] by Savas Beatie LLC, an independent publishing house that has produced many original and award-winning titles over the years. Savas Beatie puts out an outstanding informational e-newsletter each month, Libri Novus.

I would appreciate your support of both my publisher and my book if you would kindly visit www.savasbeatie.com and sign up for the e-letter. There is a sign-up box on the left hand side of the homepage where you can enter your email address. Each newsletter includes interviews, excerpts, book news, and much more. And of course, if you know someone else who appreciates cutting-edge original military and general history titles, please feel free to pass along these links to them as well.

Thanks for your support!

James Finck

Chapter 1 Excerpt from Divided Loyalties

Chapter 1: Kentucky’s Political System: 1840 to 1860

In November of 1860, Kentucky, like the rest of the nation, gathered at the polls to elect a new president of the United States. However, this election differed from previous ones in that the very survival of the nation was as stake. Many Southerners saw the possible election of Abraham Lincoln as the ultimate betrayal of their rights and a justification for secession. Unlike the major parties during the antebellum period, the Democrats, Whigs, and Know Nothings, Lincoln and the Republican Party represented only the Northern half of the country. Southerners worried that Lincoln’s sectional views and his party’s free-soil tendencies could threaten the future of slavery. When Illinois Republicans nominated Lincoln as their candidate for the Senate in 1858, he had accepted their nomination with his now famous “House Divided Speech.” In his speech, Lincoln professed his belief that the nation could not survive half slave and half free, leading Southerners to believe that Lincoln intended to attack slavery once he took office. The platform adopted by the Republicans in 1860 even rejected the Dred Scot decision and called for the outlawing of slavery in new territories.1

1 Avery Craven, The Coming of the Civil War (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957),
391, 417; David Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (New York: Harper & Row Publishers,
1976), 336-339.

Kentucky, like many other slave states, had strong concerns about the election of Lincoln. Though Lincoln was a native son of Kentucky, his sectionalism and free-soil ideology were not accepted by the majority of the population. Slavery had been an institution in Kentucky since statehood. In the 1830s, Kentucky had one of the highest ratios of slaves to whites at 24 percent, and the number of slaves within the state grew further over the next thirty years. However, with the large influx of white immigrants, the percentage of slaves fell to 19, with a total slave population of 225,483 by 1860.2

Most Kentuckians in 1860 did not own slaves, and a small population within the state believed slavery to be morally wrong. However, for most people, whether one owned slaves was purely a question of expense. A slave in antebellum Kentucky cost an average wage earner about two years’ salary. Even with the high expense, 28 percent of Kentucky families did own slaves. This was a very high number compared to the rest of the South, with only Virginia and Georgia having a higher percentage of slave owners. The difference between Kentucky and the cotton states was the number of slaves a family owned. Only five families in Kentucky owned more than 100 slaves; most owned around five or six. The number of slaves in Kentucky was smaller mainly due to the fact that the state’s agriculture was not as labor-intensive. The shift in Kentucky’s economy away from labor-intensive crops led to the profitable business of selling Kentucky’s surplus slaves to the cotton states.3

With families owning fewer slaves but more families owning them, slavery
tied the state to the rest of the South. The slave trade from Kentucky south only strengthened the bond. With the prominence of slavery and the importance of the slave economy, Kentuckians had no interest in supporting Lincoln or the Republican Party.

While most Kentuckians generally disagreed with Lincoln, they also disagreed with the argument that Lincoln’s election was grounds for secession. The Louisville Daily Journal declared itself full of sorrow and anxiety over Lincoln’s possible election and prayed he would not be successful. However, the paper did not believe in abandoning the Union in its time of crisis, and insisted a legally elected president should be supported. It also maintained that the Congress, being controlled by the South, would be too strong to allow
Lincoln to harm slavery in any way. The Journal saw no reason to fear a Republican president. Even one of Kentucky’s most famous and respected Kentucky’s Political System: 1840-1860 3 statesmen, John J. Crittenden, tried to cool passions raised by the chances of Abraham Lincoln’s election. Crittenden delivered a speech in August of 1860 in which he questioned what would happen if Lincoln won while the South still controlled the Congress and the courts. Crittenden did not agree with Lincoln’s politics, but he knew him and believed him to be a good and decent man—and one smart enough to marry a Kentucky girl. Crittenden’s one complaint was not with Lincoln himself but with the Republican Party. Crittenden feared that Lincoln had to follow the ideology of the Republican Party, leading to more sectional agitation for the country; but this factor alone, he said, did not justify secession.4

2 For the history of slavery in Kentucky, see Harold Tallant, Evil Necessity: Slavery and Political
Culture in Antebellum Kentucky (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003); Lowell H.
Harrison, The Civil War in Kentucky (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1975), 1;
Lowell H. Harrison and James C. Klotter, A New History of Kentucky (Lexington: University
Press of Kentucky, 1997), 167-168; William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at
Bay, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 2:132, 199.
3 Harrison, Civil War in Kentucky, 1; Barbara Fields, Freedom: A Documentary History of
Emancipation 1861-1867, Series I, 9 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 1:
493-194; Harrison and Klotter, A New History of Kentucky, 167-168.
4 Louisville Daily Journal, October 8, 1860; John J. Crittenden, The Union, the Constitution, and the
laws: speech of the Hon. John J. Crittenden, at Mozart Hall, on the evening of August 2d, 1860 (Louisville:
Bradley & Gilbert, 1860), 6.

Interview for Divided Loyalities

An Interview with James Finck, author of Divided Loyalties: Kentucky’s Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the Civil War.

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 sentiment. James Finck recently discussed his upcoming book with publisher Savas Beatie LLC.

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.

(All copyright laws apply to this interview. However, this interview may be posted digitally on the Internet or printed for use in newspapers, newsletters, magazines, and other similar uses, provided it appears in its entirety and that notice of its use is provided in advance to sarahs@savasbeatie.com. We allow partial edited use, with advance permission. Please inquire. Include our website www.savasbeatie.com and email address sales@savasbeatie.com with use. Thank you.)

New Cover

My editor has changed the cover of the book, what do you think?  I am hoping that it will still be released this summer.  One major change is that William C. Davis has written a forward.  He is an amazing historian and his name alone will help sell this book.

Divided Loyalities

As I said last time, this should be an interesting summer.  My Chickasha book is being released on June 11, but shortly after will be my book about the Secession Crisis in Kentucky during the Civil War.  I am excited about this release; I have been working on this project for several years now.  I am including the back cover content to spark your curiosity.  The title of the book is Divided Loyalties: Kentu cky's Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the  Civil War.  


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 stand 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 to November 1861), Divided Loyalties argues persuasively 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.

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 Arts and Sciences of Oklahoma. He lives in Oklahoma with his wife and three young children.

I will keep everyone update when the book actually is released.  The book is being published by Savas Beatie publishers, you can link to thier website here.

Exciting Book News

This should be an exciting summer on the publishing front; I have my first two books being published. The first one out is called Chickasha, and as the title suggests it is about Chickasha, OK. My second book is called Divided Loyalties: Kentucky’s Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the Civil War.

As I said, Chickasha will be released first; I believe its release date is still scheduled for June 11th. The book is being published by Arcadia Press and is part of their Images of America series http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/. It is photographic history of Chickasha from its beginnings in 1892 through about the Great Depression. It is broken down into six chapters: Chapter 1: Transportation and Auxiliaries; Chapter 2: Business; Chapter 3: Culture; Chapter 4: Religious Life; Chapter 5: Education; and finally Chapter 6: the University of Arts and Sciences of Oklahoma.

The Grady County Historical Society is planning on having a kickoff party and book signing some day in June. I will keep everyone posted as to the date.