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 These twelve were all Union men, the ticket representing the State, or Southern Rights idea, having been withdrawn before the election by the State Central Committee.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

"G. B. MCCLELLAN, Adj. Gen., U. S. A. In reply, the governor notified General McClellan that he had sent General Buckner to Paducah, with orders to carry out the understanding with him. During the visit of General Buckner to Paducah, he, in company with certain citizens, again met General McClellan, and asked him to declare anew the meaning of the Cincinnati agreement. According to one of these civilian witnesses, Hon. E. I. Bullock, General McClellan declared that "Kentucky was to be left to take charge of her own. citizens, and positively stated that if any application was made to him for assistance for any citizens of Kentucky he would refer them to the judicial and military authorities of the state and extend no aid himself."

Soon after this incident in June, 1861, a special election for members of congress was held in the state, at which the following gentlemen were chosen Henry C. Burnett, James S. Jackson, Henry Grider, Aaron Harding, Charles A. Wickliffe, George W. Dunlap, Robert Mallory, John J. Crittenden, Wm. H. Wadsworth and John W. Menzies. Of these ten gentlemen, all were Union men, save Mr. Burnett, who was a States Rights man the term "Union men" being used here to differentiate the candidates, and not to inviduously reflect upon Mr. Burnett, who was doubtless as much a friend of the Union as his colleagues, but held views as to the rights of the states not held by the others. "The definite question before the people in

Kentucky," "was Union or Disunion." This is perhaps too broad a statement, though in some respects correct. However that may be, the Union majority was very decisive, amounting to 54,750.

Of the gentlemen elected to congress, Mr. Crittenden was the most prominent having, as senator from Kentucky and as attorney general of the United States, attracted the highest attention. Charles A. Wickliffe had been postmaster general of the United States and governor of Kentucky. Wm. H. Wadsworth, of Maysville, had been a schoolmate of General Grant, whose opportunity had come and who was about to emerge from obscurity into the bright light of military glory and subsequently the highest political position in the country. James S. Jackson, young, handsome and brave, was soon to end his career, falling at the head of his brigade of Federal troops at the desperate battle of Perryville, Kentucky, October 8, 1862. The others chosen at this election were not so widely known, but each was a substantial citizen and rendered able service to the cause of the Union. Mr. Mallory, who represented the Louisville district, remained in congress during the war and was not retired until the August election in 1865.

Recurring to the question of Kentucky neutrality, Governor Magoffin is found to have hoped that the action of General McClellan might lead President Lincoln to officially recognize the neutral position of the state. To that end, he sent General Buckner to Washington to see the president and explain to him the plan by which the state hoped to stem the tide of conflict between the southern states and the Federal government, and, if possible, secure his assent thereto.

Of all the prominent Confederates, General Buckner has been that one who has most strenuously declined to appear in print with relation to his official acts as a military man.

He has steadily insisted that his official reports to the Confederate government made while the events therein referred to were fresh in his mind, should be considered as his contributions to the history of the war. He has sought no post-bellum distinction, as so many others of far less distinction have done, but with that modesty which has always characterized him, has been content to leave to the consideration of the people, whom he has served with distinction in civil as in military positions, the final appraisement of the value. of those services.

But, in one instance, General Buckner has consented to recede from this position and again acknowledgement has to be made to that interesting, if sometimes mistaken historian, McElroy, for a report of one of the most important episodes of the early history of the war, so far as it refers to Kentucky.

It has been stated that the governor had directed General Buckner to proceed to Washington and confer with that other great Kentuckian, Mr. Lincoln, relative to the neutrality of the state. Of this visit, McElroy says: "On July 9th, accompanied by John J. Crittenden, General Buckner met the president, who he (General Buckner) says wrote and handed me the following paper. He accounted for the absence of his signature by saying that he did not intend to write a 'proclamation' but to give me a paper on which I could base my statements of his policy and which would be my evidence hereafter, if any difference should arise relative to that policy, and he appealed to Mr. Crittenden, who was present, to identify the paper in any way that he thought proper. This was done by the latter gentleman's subjoining his initials.

"In giving this document to the public General Buckner made this statement of his interpretation of its meaning: 'I learned when in Washington from some of the friends of the president that he was exceedingly tenderfooted on the meaning of certain terms. He

was not willing to "respect" the neutral position of Kentucky, for that would be to acknowledge her right to assume it; but he was entirely willing to "observe" it.' During the conversation he says: 'The president succeeded in impressing upon me the belief that "as long as there are roads around Kentucky" to reach the rebellion, it was his purpose to leave her unmolested, not yielding her right to the position she occupied but observing it as a matter of policy.''

General Buckner states of this manuscript that he later gave it to a friend for safe-keeping, who was soon afterwards called away to Arkansas and he was never afterwards able to secure it. But the article in question was not lost though the original cannot be presented. General Buckner furnished a copy of it to the Clarksville (Tenn.) Jeffersonian newspaper, in which paper it appeared in the issue of Friday, September 13, 1861, as follows:

"It is my duty as I conceive, to suppress an insurrection existing within the United States. I wish to do this with the least possible disturbance or annoyance to well-disposed people anywhere. So far, I have not sent an armed force into Kentucky, nor have I any present purpose to do so. I sincerely desire that no necessity for it may be presented, but I mean to say nothing which shall hereafter embarrass me in the performance of what may seem to be my duty.

"July 10, 1861.

'Witnessed, J. J. C.' (the initials of Mr. Critten

den)."

General Buckner says: "This memorandum was handed me by President Lincoln in the Eecutive Chamber, Washington, on the 10th of July, 1861, in the presence of Hon. J. J. Crittenden, who, at the instance of the president, witnessed it by marking it with his initials.”

The slender thread of neutrality which it was hoped might be used to hold together the Union was speedily to be snapped asunder. The election for members of the general assembly held a few weeks later, resulted in the