"Be it resolved, by the senate and house of representatives, that this state and the citizens thereof

should take no part in the Civil war now being waged, except as mediators and friends to the belligerent parties, and that Kentucky should, during the contest, occupy the position of strict neutrality."

The Union members of the house sustained the report, showing that they had not yet abandoned the hope of preventing civil war. But the senate would have none of it. Captain Thomas Speed in the "Union Cause in Kentucky" says: "With these resolutions, there was no concurrence by the senate, and therefore they only reflect the mind of one body." Admirable a man as was Captain Speed, he was afflicted with the incapacity of

all the men who have written from the Union side in Kentucky, to see that there was another side of the great question then pending, and that there were men of prominence in Kentucky who were sympathizers with the south and who gave assurance of that sympathy later with their lives.

While the senate with its Unionist majority, small but effective, would not agree to the resolutions of the house, it yet felt it necessary to make a declaration of its position, declaring that Kentucky would not sever its connection with the National government, nor would she take up arms for either of the belligerent parties, at the same time offering the services of the state as a mediator "to bring about a just and honorable peace."

Lov

There is something pathetic about these efforts of Kentucky to avert civil war. ing the Union of the republic as she did and having an affection for the southern states equally strong, the state could behold a conflict between the sections with no feelings other than of the most poignant regret and though her efforts to bring about peace are viewed in the light of after events almost with levity, there was nothing in those efforts. in 1861 which did not breathe the most serious intent.

The two houses of the general assembly,

each in its own way, had asserted the principle of neutrality and of mediation, to neither of which the two belligerents paid any special attention. May 20, 1861, the governor issued his proclamation warning all other states, whether separate or united, and especially the United States and the Confederate States, to abstain from any movement upon the soil of Kentucky, or the military occupation of any place whatever within her lawful boundary, until authorized by invitation or permission of the legislative and executive authorities. This neutral position, he explained, was assumed in the hope that Kentucky might soon have an opportunity to become a successful mediator between the two belligerents.

Thus Kentucky stood as a buffer between the seceding southern states and those which remained loyal to the Union. The two houses of the general assembly, each in its own way, and the governor by his proclamation, stood pledged to the impossible idea of neutrality, with one section of the Union in arms against the other section, which was rapidly arming against it. However alluring may have seemed the prospect in 1861, it appears today to have been the nearest grasping at straws where there were really no straws. There was war, only war, and Kentucky, to her ultimate sorrow, speedily disovered this and paid for the knowledge in the blood of thousands of her sons.

Again let McElroy be heard: "With a legislature which had been chosen in 1859, before the question of secession had become dominant, the discreet policy to be followed by the friends of the Union, was a waiting policy, in view of their firm faith in the loyalty of the voting population of the state and the policy of armed neutrality for the purpose of mediation, made it unnecessary for the state to face at once the question of joining the Confederacy, or adhering to the Union. It represents, therefore, a victory for the Union cause in Kentucky. What this meant to the

Union cause in the nation is only speculation, but Lincoln, himself, as his most authoritative biographers tell us, had 'from the beginning, felt that Kentucky would be a turning weight in the scale of war' and it is safe to say that had she gone over to the ranks of secession she might have carried with her a force which would have greatly increased the seriousness of the problem which confronted the National government. 'If Kentucky had gone when Virginia went,' says General Buckner, 'it seems probable that Missouri and Maryland would both have followed her,' in which event, as General Franklin once expressed it, 'the war might have gone to the Lakes instead of to the Gulf.'"

The legislature which had been in session for nearly eighteen months, adjourned sine die May 24, 1861, having fixed upon the first Monday in September as the day on which the legislature to be chosen on the first Monday in August should meet. Ordinarily, in those days, the legislature met on the first Monday in December following its election, but these were extraordinary days and custom gave way to the exigencies of the moment. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the situation which had confronted them and the wide divergence of views, the members of this general assembly are said to have retained among themselves the most kindly and generous relations. One of their number who was later to become a member of the Confederate congress and a brigadier general in the army of the new government, a most generous and courtly gentleman, said afterwards: "When the final session closed, as its members parted and clasped hands in adieu, they bade each other God speed-well knowing that commissions in the Federal army were already signed for many, and that for many more Confederate soldiers were waiting as leaders; knowing too, that when they met again to argue the question it would be at the assize of blood." Can any read this and wonder

that Kentucky pleaded for peace; that again and again she offered to mediate between the contending factions of a distracted country? Neutrality was impossible; to tender it along with mediation may have seemed to both the north and the south as absurd, but it was not so deemed by Kentucky; the good old state shuddered at the thought that her stalwart young sons were to meet on the "battle's perilous edge" and give up their lives in support of the belief they cherished.

The hour had struck, and now men took their position, father against son; brother against brother. Surely never more cruel war than this has been fought since that "War of the Roses," when our English progenitors met each other in battle array. Collins, in his "Outline History of Kentucky" says: "Topographical position, or peculiarity of property, seemed to have no influence in the decision. The planters of the tobacco region cultivating their fields exclusively by slave labor, turned their backs upon their plantations and went to range themselves in the Federal army; while from the northern border, entirely denuded of its slave population, men who had never owned a slave and whose most valuable possessions lay in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, committed their families to God's keeping and rode away into the southern lines."

Garrett Davis, a senator from Kentucky, in a letter to General McClellan, presents another view, saying: "The sympathy for the south and the inclination to secession among our people, is much stronger in the southwestern corner of the state than it is in any other part, and as you proceed toward the upper section of the Ohio river and our Virginia line, it gradually becomes weaker until it is almost wholly lost."

Collins was correct in his differentiation of the men who joined the two armies, but incorrect in other respects. Mr. Davis' statement to General McClellan was a far more

correct definition of the sentiment of the people; for in the section of the state to which he refers, there were certain counties so pronounced in their sentiment of loyalty to the south, as to be called "the Little Confederacies." But it should not be understood that all the people in these or any other counties stood firm in support of the Confederacy or of the Union. The fact is that every county furnished men to each army, though certain sections, notably the mountains, were very loyal to the Union, while in other sections the majority of young men entering the service chose to follow the flag of the young Confederacy.

There was less of bitterness than would naturally be expected when the parting of the ways came to our distracted state. Boys who were playmates at school, parted with hearty handshakes and went their several ways to enlist beneath the flag of their choice. Lifelong friends who held opposing views, separated with feelings of sadness and took up arms in the service of the Union or of the

Confederate states, as their sympathies demanded. It was, indeed, for Kentucky, a fratricidal conflict. Yet when it was ended, those who survived; those who had in the one army or the other, done so much to uphold the honor of the flag they had followed, came back to clasp in friendly manner the hands they had held in farewell when they had gone their several ways to follow the flag of their choice. Kentuckians know how to fight; they know too, when the fight is ended, and it was not unusual, after Appomattox, to find the "Yank" and the "Reb," if one may be pardoned for thus once referring to his former enemies and his comrades, conducting their business affairs together as partners, profoundly indifferent to the fact that but a few months before they had been classed as "enemies." And to the honor and the glory of Kentucky, the good feeling which then existed between her sons so recently in deadly conflict with each other, is maintained to this day, and no man asks where another served if he be an honorable gentleman today.

The Border Slave State Convention met at Frankfort three days after the adjournment of the legislature. There were seventeen delegates present, of whom twelve represented Kentucky. These twelve were all Union men, the ticket representing the State, or Southern Rights idea, having been withdrawn before the election by the State Central Committee. The deliberations of the convention, over which Mr. Crittenden presided, may be imagined without further statement. The resolutions adopted expressed continued faith in the already exploded idea of armed neutrality for the purpose of mediation, notwithstanding that the sons of Kentucky were even then flocking to the standards of the Union or of the Confederacy as their consciences dictated, and some of the members of the legislature which had just adjourned had already put on the uniform of the army in which they had determined to serve.

Notwithstanding this, the convention made a last sorrowful appeal to the seceded states to re-examine the question of the necessity for their withdrawal from the Union. "If you find it has been taken without due consideration, as we verily believe," said these resolutions, "then we pray you to return to your connection with us, that we may be in the future, as in the past, one great powerful nation."

This was pathetic; these old men pleading for the Union of their fathers already divided,

with the armies of the north and of the south confronting and ready to spring at the throats of each other; yet these men sought peace— peace for their distracted country; peace that would prevent their sons from rending each other, peace that would not array families against each other, but would give us back the old Union for which the fathers had fought and died. One can have no feeling other that that of profound respect for these men in council, however futile their effort proved to be. Many of those whose fortunes were cast with the Confederacy were descendants of men who had suffered with Washington at Valley Forge and triumphed with him at Yorktown, and who cherished a love for the flag of the Union, but whose sympathies were with their kindred, the people of the south; and when the supreme moment came they had gone with their own people. Many thousands of others, equally the descendants of Revolutionary sires, had found their duty in the other direction and were aligned beneath the flag of the Union. There is no disposition here to decide between them, though the writer of these words has elsewhere in this work, stated that his allegiance was to the south and that under its flag his service was rendered. But not today nor on any other day, since that war began, nor on the day on which it ended, has he hesitated to give to those Kentuckians who fought under another flag, the meed of praise

which is their honored due. In giving this honor, he considers that he speaks for every honorable Confederate soldier who, like him remained by his colors until they went down forever in defeat.

Going back, after this digression, to the question of Kentucky's mediating neutrality position, it may be stated that the Federal government now began to take notice of it, as was naturally to be expected. General Simon Bolivar Buckner, a Kentuckian, a graduate of West Point, who had won wounds, promotion and distinction in the war with Mexico, but who had retired from the army with an ample fortune, was the inspector general of the military forces of Kentucky. Early in June, 1861, General Buckner received from his former comrade-in-arms, . General George B. McClellan, an invitation to meet him in Cincinnati for a discussion of Kentucky's unique position of neutrality. Together with a friend, Samuel Gill, a Union man, then connected with the meager railroad service of Kentucky, General Buckner went to Cincinnati, where, says Gill, "we entered upon a free and unreserved expression of opinion in regard to many matters connected with the present political difficulties." The result of the discussion was an agreement upon the part of General McClellan, as to a definite policy with regard to Kentucky, an agreement which General Buckner regarded as binding upon the Federal government. It will, of course, be understood that General Buckner had not then taken service with the Confederacy, but acted solely in behalf of the state of Kentucky.

Again acknowledgement is made to McElroy's "Kentucky in the Nation's History" for the following report to the governor by General Buckner in relation to this interview with General McClellan :

"HEADQUARTERS KENTUCKY STATE GUARD

"Louisville, Ky., June 10, 1861. "Sir: On the 8th instant at Cincinnati, I entered

into an agreement with Major General G. B. McClellan, Commander of the United States troops in the States north of the Ohio River, to the following effect:

"The authorities of the State of Kentucky are to protect the United States property within the limits of the State; to enforce the laws of the United

States in accordance with the interpretations of the United States Courts as far as the law may be applicable to Kentucky, and to enforce, with all the

power of the State, our obligations of neutrality as against the Southern States as long as the position we have assumed shall be respected by the United States.

"Gen. McClellan stipulates that the territory of Kentucky shall be respected on the part of the United States, even though the Southern States should occupy it; but in the latter case, he will call upon the authorities of Kentucky to remove the Southern forces from our territory. Should Kentucky fail to accomplish this object in a reasonable time, Gen. McClellan claims the same right of occupancy given to the Southern forces. I have stipulated in that case to advise him of the inability of Kentucky to comply with her obligations and to invite him to dislodge the Southern forces. He stipulates that if he is successful in doing so, he will withdraw his forces from the State, as soon as the Southern force shall have been removed.

"This, he assures me, is the policy which he will adopt towards Kentucky. Should the administration hereafter adopt a different policy, he is to give me timely notice of the fact. Should the State of Kentucky hereafter assume a different attitude, he is, in like manner, to be advised of the fact.

"The well-known character of Gen. McClellan is a sufficient guarantee for the fulfillment of every stipulation on his part.

"I am, sir, very respectfully
"Your obedient servant

"S. B. Buckner, Inspector General.
"To His Excellency, B. Magoffin.

This was a formal recognition by the Federal government through General McClellan, of the neutrality of Kentucky, but it was merely a rope of sand. In the midst of war the laws are silent, and an agreement made today with good intent, may, in the exigencies of war, be entirely diregarded tomorrow. Three days after the interview with General Buckner, the governor received from General