Dave,

Thomas Speed made a definitive survey of this question in his argument entitled, _The Union Cause In Kentucky_. He places the numbers at, if I recall correctly, 25,000 to 30,000 Kentuckians who joined Confederate regiments, and 80,000 to 100,000 Union men who joined Union regiments (these numbers are supported by the AG's Reports, though those records are seriously flawed). This set of numbers does not take into consideration the Kentuckians who joined Confederate regiments in Tennessee and Virginia, nor does it include Unionists from Kentucky who joined Federal regiments from Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia. Nor does this take into account the number of men from outside the state who would join Kentucky regiments. It is often stated that the Union number is too high as many of these men mustered out and rejoined other regiments later on, yet the same is true with the Confederate regiments, especially in the eastern mountains. As well, the number of State Guards, Home Guards, partisans, and guerrillas, is never factored into the equation. While it is believed that more secession-minded men joined these irregulars than Union men, the Unionists could not have been too far behind. Recently, I've discovered the existence of several independent Union companies in the area of Kentucky's eastern border. It may be assumed that Unionist irregulars existed in other parts of the state as well - beyond those documented in the usual sources. When all of these elements are considered, the numbers may be a bit low, but probably not much, yet the ratio of 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 Union to Confederate is probably fairly accurate. The breakdown of casualties I do not have on hand.

The answer to your question regarding "which way Kentucky 'really' went" during the war is, unfortunately, a bit more complicated than a pat and easily digested response. Early in the war, most people voted against secession and for preservation of the Union (Speed also provides specific numbers for this as well). Few, if any, people in the state voted for Lincoln and the radical ticket, though Breckinridge garnered a significant number of votes. This was also before the polls were manipulated by Union authorities. In other words, the elections early on were about as "free" as they could get. True abolitionists were very few and far between. However, as the war progressed and the Union authorities in the state increasingly began to mismanage affairs in the state, more and more citizens began to turn against them (the situation, if it were reversed, probably would have resulted in the same disaffection). To say that these people became outright secessionists is probably not accurate. They began to adopt the ideas of the Democratic party in the state. In fact, many Union soldiers became Democrats near the end of the war and after. Kentucky's reaction to Union efforts at late-war control of the state became quite extreme after the cessation of hostilites and the state was said to have "seceded" after the war was over. Many people point to one man, Stephen Gano Burbridge, as the cause of Kentucky's transformation from Unionism to post-war "secession" and the absolute hegemony of the Democratic party. This explanation is also too simplistic and ignores other portions of the historical record, particularly since Burbridge's predecessor, Jeremiah T. Boyle, and successor, John M. Palmer, were guilty of similarly Draconian policies.

I guess the simplest answer one might give is that Kentucky was strongly Unionist, especially at the beginning of the war, but about a third to two-fifths of the population was secessionist (at least at the polls). Presidential voting returns in 1860 gave 93,000 votes to Unionist candidates to 53,000 for secessionists. When blood and life were on the line (speaking of those who would enlist), the ratio gets wider. As the war progressed and Boyle, Burbridge, and Palmer each used strong-arm tactics to attempt to control the secessionist minority, the difference narrowed between the two camps, though Unionists still held a majority at the end of the war. The issue is as interesting to study as are the military circumstances of the state's history.

Robert M. Baker,

Dispatcher, Post 11 (London),
Kentucky State Police,
Historian for the 39th Kentucky Mounted Infantry, US Volunteers