xt7pc824bw30 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7pc824bw30/data/mets.xml Speed, Thos. (Thomas), 1841-1906 1907  books b92e509s7419072009 English G.P. Putnam s Sons : New York ; London Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky --History --Civil War, 1861-1865. The Union cause in Kentucky, 1860-1865 text The Union cause in Kentucky, 1860-1865 1907 2009 true xt7pc824bw30 section xt7pc824bw30 

1 860-I865



Hbe fmtcfterboc&er fszcss 




Adjutant 12th Kentucky Infantry and Veteran Infantry Vols. 1861-65 Member of the American Historical Association Author of "The Wilderness Road," etc.


new  york  and london

XLbc IRnfcfterbocfeer press

   Copyright, 1907



Jibe "Rntcfcerbocfcec press IRcw Sort; 

Published by permission of the writer

Washington, d. c, October 27, 1904.

Dear Captain Speed :

I have just concluded my final examination of the several articles prepared by you under the general title of "The Union Cause in Kentucky." They are to be commended for the fairness and fulness with which the facts are stated, as well as for the genuine patriotic spirit pervading them all. The survivors of the struggle of 1861 in Kentucky, and equally their descendants, will wish these articles published in book form, and that the book shall go into every library in the country. And they will, I am sure, feel grateful to you for having, after patient investigation and great labor, brought together the facts connected with the defeat by the Kentucky Unionists of the attempt to ally our old State with the Southern Confederacy.

No more valuable services were performed in the struggle to preserve the Union than were performed by the Union men of Kentucky. I make this statement without the slightest doubt of its accuracy. The country at large never has had an adequate conception of the sacrifices made and the work done by the Union men of the Border Slave States. It is not too much to say that if the people of those States had been as favorable to secession as were the people of the Cotton States, it would, most probably, have been impossible to prevent 

A Foreword by Justice Harlan

the dissolution of the Union. No one, after reading what you have written   certainly no one familiar with the situation as it was at the commencement of the secession movement   will fail to recognize the truth of this view. And yet a strenuous effort was made, after the close of the war, to minimize the work of the Unionists of the Border States, and to create the impression that what they did was not worth remembering, nor of any particular value to the country. I confidently assert that, after the flag was fired on at Sumter, a large majority of the people of Kentucky were at all times for the maintenance of the Union and unalterably opposed to its I disruption by secession. Kentucky was the first-born of the Union, and, despite the strong ties of kinship and business between them and the friends of secession, a large majority of its people held steadily to the view that if the Union ship went down, our State must be the last to desert it. That was the spirit in which the Kentucky Unionists rallied to the standard of the country in 1861. While some did not approve, indeed openly disapproved, many things done in the course of the war which were supposed injuriously to affect the institution of slavery, the Kentucky Unionists, all of them, clung unfalteringly to the idea that the dissolution of the Union was not a remedy for any evil, and that, cost what it might in men and money, the national authority, as derived from the Constitution, must be reinstated over every foot of American soil. To say nothing of the colored men in Kentucky who were mustered into the service of the United States towards the close of the Civil War, it is safe to say that the white men in Kentucky who openly and actively sided with the Union cause, and wore the uniform of Union soldiers, outnumbered, at least twice (I think three times), those who openly and actively sided with the Confederate cause.

I observe that you call attention to certain statements 
   A Foreword by Justice Harlan


made after the war in a brief History of Kentucky as one of the American Commonwealths. Those statements were to the following effect: "The Confederacy received the youth and strength from the richest part of the Kentucky soil. The so-called Blue Grass soil sent the greater part of its men of the richer families into the Confederate army, while the Union troops, though from all parts of the State, came in greatest abundance from those who dwelt on thinner soils. . . . The Kentucky troops in the Confederate army being fewer in number, and from the richer part of the State, were, as a whole, a finer body of men than the Federal troops from the Commonwealth."

These statements are akin to those sometimes heard in 1861, that the secession movement in Kentucky had the approval of the "gentlemen" and holders of property in that Commonwealth; that, in the main, the Union cause had the support only of those who had no special social standing and were not identified with the State by ownership of property to any great extent. Those who then lived in Kentucky and had a knowledge of its history and people are aware how reckless were and are all such statements. The Union leaders in Kentucky whose names are given in your book, and many others who might be named, constituted a body of men of whom it may justly be stated that, in respect of social standing, family history, character, education, and intellectual power, they could be favorably compared with any like number of men living at any time in any State of the Union. Many of them were born or were reared in counties popularly known as Blue Grass counties, while the others were, as Lincoln was, born or reared on "thinner soils." But, whatever the nature of the soil on which they were born or reared, they were of noble nature, gentlemen in the best sense of that word, and of the highest social position.   No intimation to the 
   viii      A Foreword by Justice Harlan

contrary will be accepted as true or just by any one who knew Kentucky and the Kentucky people of 1861.

The same observations may be made in respect of the officers and soldiers who went into the Union army from Kentucky. A very large part   I will not say a majority    of the Kentucky Union officers and soldiers came from counties which, by reason of the richness of their soil, might be called Blue Grass counties   such as the counties of Jefferson, Shelby, Mason, Fleming, Fayette, Bourbon, Woodford, Scott, Harrison, Henry, Washington, Nelson, Marion, Jessamine, Mercer, Boyle, Clark^, Madison, Garrard, Warren, Logan, Christian, Barren, Todd, and Daviess. Undoubtedly the Confederate officers who went from Kentucky were men of high character and won distinction as commanders of troops. But they were of no higher character, certainly did not possess more skill, and did not win more renown than those who commanded Kentucky Union troops. The fact is, the Kentucky Union officers and soldiers and the Kentucky Confederate officers and soldiers were, as bodies of men, whether born on Blue Grass soil or on "thinner soils," the peers, in all respects, of the officers or soldiers of any army ever organized. As Kentuckians, we should be proud of the reputation both sides won in the Civil War for courage and fidelity to the cause each espoused.

You have attempted to bring out the truth and the whole truth as to the contest of 1861 in Kentucky. And you have succeeded most admirably. By all means, my dear Captain, put what you have said in book form.

Yours truly,

John M. Harlan.

Capt. Thomas Speed,

Louisville, Kentucky. 

IT is the purpose of the author of this book to give a 1 narrative of the struggle of the Union men in the State of Kentucky to hold their State in the Union, when other States were seceding and strenuous efforts were made to carry Kentucky into the Southern Confederacy ; also to show what services were rendered by the Union soldiers of Kentucky in the Civil War. It is due to the Kentucky Unionists that such a narrative should be prepared and published. They performed a great work in their day for the salvation and perpetuity of our national Union, which was not fully understood or appreciated by many even at the time, and no effort has ever been made to create a better understanding.

Histories of Kentucky have been written since the war, but in them injustice is done to the Kentucky Unionists both negatively and positively. They not only fail to recount matters richly deserving mention, but contain many misrepresentations.

It is a remarkable fact that after the Union was restored the Union men of Kentucky refrained from writing about the events of the past. They were satisfied with the result. That was enough. They did not desire to recall and dwell upon the experiences through which they had passed. Therefore the story of their services has remained untold except in so far as it is found embedded in the records of the war and scattered through many volumes, documents, and current publications of all descriptions, practically inaccessible to the general reader. 


Upon this point one of the most distinguished citizens of Kentucky has remarked that

" the manner in which the Kentucky Unionists relegated the war into the past, immediately upon its close, is nothing less than a phenomenon. Nothing like it can be found in any history. When the great fact that the Union was preserved became a certainty, all the Union element in Kentucky, which preponderated during the conflict, controlling the State and serving magnificently on the field, at once ceased to talk or think of the war, and became from that time voiceless. They have not only refrained from heralding their own services, but have also refrained from censure of those who antagonized them."

In a certain sense the history of the war was written as it progressed. Its true history is found in the documents of the period, and to these original sources of information all should go who desire to know the exact facts. But the documents of the period are not accessible to all, and to search for them requires far more time and labor than can be given by general readers. In order that the facts they contain may be popularly known, it is the province of the historian to gather them together and cause them to tell their story in readable form.

Much of the writing about the events of the Civil War rather ignores the record-facts, instead of using them. Many writers have endeavored to make history, rather than to compile it from authoritative sources. Impressions received from having lived through the war period, either of the writer himself or of individuals who narrate their impressions to him, are written down, instead of searching out what was written down at the time by the actors themselves. Thus erroneous views are often presented. Absolute accuracy is not to be expected in recounting the events of the past, but in telling the story of the Civil War, or any particular feature of it, the best material to be found is that which was written at the time.   It is common for individual participants to de- 


scribe orally the campaigns and battles through which they passed. In every such instance, if the movements were of any magnitude, the relator is certain to fall into error, unless he has studied the case as it is found in the records. No one person can know much of a large battle from what came within the range of his own vision, and he is apt to magnify what he actually saw, and to minimize what he did not see. But the reports of regimental commanders and brigade commanders and commanders of divisions and corps, together with the reports of the officers in chief command, will enable the reader to arrive at a clear and distinct idea of all that occurred.

It is the same with the conduct of civil affairs. The speeches and writings of public men-   recognized leaders and official characters   show their sentiments and positions far better than the statements of misinformed or biassed persons, who may recount impressions instead of facts. Many accounts have been written to sustain a theory, or in support of one side or the other of a controversy. Such writing may be graphic and the work of one who was a participant, but, unless it is based upon the record-facts, it is apt to be misleading.

A complete history of the events in the State of Kentucky, civil and military, might be written from the records. Such a history would give account of the good and the bad on both sides. So, also, the history of any feature of the war time in Kentucky might be written    as, for instance, the civil history, irrespective of the military, or vice versa; or an account might be given of the Federal troops alone, or of the Confederate troops alone, but in any such writing the truth is best found in the records of the period.

It is from documentary sources the present writer will draw the facts pertaining to the Union cause in Kentucky during the war. While he lived through that period and was a participant, to some extent, in many events con- 


nected with the war, it is not on that account that the history is proposed. What is here recorded is deduced from an examination of the record-sources of information.

The writer desires to emphasize the fact that such a treatise as this is really called for. Much has been written upon the other side. Various volumes stand upon the shelves of the libraries written from the opposite standpoint, which celebrate the services and exploits of those Kentuckians who went into the Confederacy, and miserably misrepresent the Kentucky Unionists, but no volume has been prepared to show what was, in truth, done and endured and accomplished by these Kentucky Unionists. It is true a volume has been published giving brief accounts of the Union regiments of Kentucky, but this touches but lightly the civil struggles of the war period.

In view, therefore, of the fact that the Southern side is already represented in the libraries, and that the Union side is not, it is believed that there is a demand for the present work.

The writer believes that the time has arrived when the history of the work and struggles of the Kentucky Unionists may be published without calling forth any complaint of "opening up old controversies." Surely, after the lapse of forty years, they may be written about without incurring the criticism of reviving any bitterness of the past.

The keynote cf this work will be that Kentucky was a Union State:, that the issue was thoroughly understood, and that tiie people of Kentucky manifested their intention to remain in the Union, and not to go into the Confederacy, by overwhelming majorities at the polls, at fair and impartial elections, untrammelled by any suggestion of military interference, for the elections occurred before any soldiers were in the State. Basing the conduct of the people upon this unquestioned fact, it will 


be shown that the Kentucky Unionists did that which it was their right to do, in adhering to the Union. When it is charged that the Union leaders of Kentucky "played a dark and deceitful game," it is proper that the true position should be stated according to the records. It is stated by one writer, as late as 1882, that:

" The history of no country, or no part or period of the late Civil War, presents a darker chapter than that which records the first six months of the war, and the means by which Kentucky was finally occupied by the Federal army, and, being thus bound, was claimed to be loyal, in the sense of sanctioning such a policy." {Memorial History of Louisville, Vol. 1, p. 196.)

When the struggle of the Union leaders of Kentucky is thus characterized, surely it is in order to present the facts which repel the charge, and justify their conduct. When it is gravely written, in accepted histories of Kentucky, that the "flower of the military material of Kentucky went into the Confederate army," surely it is in order to present the record-facts of the period which show that the most conspicuous "rush to arms" in Kentucky was to save the Union, and not to destroy it.

It is also proper, and in order, to present the record-facts which correct many misrepresentations upon other points found in treatises claiming to be historical. An adequate presentation of the case as it is found in the records of the period cannot fail to show that the people of Kentucky were true to the Union, and that they magnificently carried into practice the principles they most emphatically avowed at the polls; and the attempt will be made in this work to do justice to the splendid body of troops, which, under trying circumstances, sprang forth to aid in preventing the dismemberment of the Union, and the destruction of the American Republic.

Concerning the general subject of the Union cause in Kentucky the eloquent words penned by Gen. D. W. 


Lindsay in 1866, in his preface to the Adjutant-General's report, are here quoted :   

" It has been fashionable with some to reflect upon the loyalty of our State, but every true man must feel and cordially confess that Kentucky has, during the late war, under circumstances far more trying than those surrounding any other State in the Union, discharged her whole duty. She has, at all times and under all circumstances, promptly responded to the quotas assigned her, not with the mercenary, purchased by excessive State or local bounty, but with citizens prompted by patriotism to the defence of their government. In proof of this, the gallant record of our State, I would refer those doubting to the casualty statistics of this report, the record of battles in which Kentucky troops have borne an honorable part, and lastly to the seventy-nine stand of colors, those silent yet eloquent souvenirs of toil and danger, now displayed in the Capitol of the State, to remain as evidence of the bravery of her sons, and as an incentive to continued patriotism and sacrifice wherever duty calls. Many of these flags have been pierced by shot and shell and their folds stained with the blood of their bearers, but all bearing evidence of the duty which Kentucky troops were expected to, and did, perform. Certainly no one will rejoice more than your Excellency in the fact that there is not a blemish upon the escutcheon of a single organization from Kentucky."

The author is greatly indebted to Justice John M. Harlan of the Supreme Court for his painstaking reading of this book before publication, his numerous suggestions, and kindly aid in many particulars. Also to Gen. D. W. Lindsay of Frankfort, Ky., who served in the field, and also as Adjutant-General of Kentucky, and as such published his excellent and invaluable report, in which the names of ali the soldiers furnished by the State appear.

The author is also indebted to Hon. Walter Evans, Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, who served in the 25th Ken- 


tucky Infantry, and having represented his district in Congress, as well as in the Legislature, has a wide knowledge of the affairs of the State; to Col. R. M. Kelly, who served through the war and has written numerous accounts for the Loyal Legion Society, and for the Century War Book, and other publications; to Col. John H. Ward, a gallant officer from the "Green River Country" and deeply interested in everything pertaining to the history of Kentucky; and also to Hon. John W. Barr, retired United States District Judge, who, as Major of State Troops, was thoroughly informed as to the most of the events treated of in this work; also to Col. Andrew Cowan, who, though not a native of Kentucky, has resided in Louisville since the close of the war. He was Colonel of Artillery in the Army of the Potomac, and fought his guns in all the great battles in which that army was engaged from Bull Run to Appomattox. A man of great practical wisdom and intelligence, he has given the writer the kindly benefit of the judgment of a friend contemplating the story contained in this work from the standpoint of a disinterested soldier and critic; also to James F. Buckner, Dr. Wm. Bailey, Logan C. Murray, L. N. Dembitz, to all of whom the author acknowledges his indebtedness.

Louisville, Ky., November 26, 1904. 

Foreword.......... . v


Introduction ..........i

End of old Whig party in 1853. Know-nothing party. Opposition party. Election of Governor and Legislature in 1859. Union party and its leaders. Their services, and the feeling against them. Their object was to save the Union. Misrepresentations. Collins's History of Kentucky. Shaler's History of Kentucky. Z. F. Smith's History of Kentucky. All abound in gratuitous statements. Object of this work is to correct misrepresentations.   Some instances mentioned.


The Issue......... .     .     .     . 4i6

The issue formed in 1S60 between the Union and secessionists. Presidential election of i860. Discussion. Election of clerk of the Court of Appeals. Central position of Kentucky. Anxiety about Kentucky. The people chose the Union as against secession. They did not agree that a State had the right to secede. Secession a remedy for no evil. The South did that which made war inevitable.   Kentucky had the right to refuse to secede.


The Legislature..........46

The Legislature which sat in called session in the winter and spring of 1S60-61 was elected in 1859. Called to assemble on January 17, 1861. Dates of its sittings. More noted for what it did not do than for what it did. It did not call a convention according to the wishes of the Governor. Resolutions concerning National affairs passed the House but were not acted upon by the Senate. Neutrality resolution offered in lower House. Resolution for Peace Conference passed both Houses. Other resolutions. Militia law amended. Adjourned sine die April 4, but called again to meet May 5.    Secession opposition to this call. Resolu



tion approving Governor's refusal to furnish troops under existing circumstances passed lower House. Military Board established. State Guards and Home Guards required to swear fidelity to Constitution of the United States. Arms provided not to be used against either side, but only for State protection. Next Legislature to meet in September. Views as to work of Legislature. Means by which the Legislature was prevented from favoring secession. Fusion of the Bell-Everett party and the Douglas party   both being for the Union. The work of the leaders. Their discreet conduct.



To be understood only in the light of the time. The idea arose in January, 1861. Expressed in a resolution offered in the Legislature January 29, 1861. Possibility of averting war. Position of John C. Breckinridge. Addresses of Border State Convention. The true spirit of neutrality. Address of Col. R. T. Jacob. Governor Magoffin's proclamation. Difference between mediatorial and armed neutrality. Prime object of the Unionists was to save the Union. Appeal of Border State Convention and names of the signers. Expressions of Hon. Charles A. Wickliffe and Stephen A. Douglas, and Tennessee Unionists. Unionists unjustly censured. Expressions of Hon. John J. Crittenden. Lincoln felt that Kentucky " would be a turning weight in the scale of war."


Resolutions of the Union State Committee .... Explanation of expressions indorsing the Governor's refusal to send troops, and as to taking sides with the South. Names of members of the committee. Inflammatory utterances of the day. War for " subjugation," as the word was used, regarded as folly. Extracts from speeches and writers, showing what the Southern people meant by " subjugation." Such subjugation never contemplated by the United States, nor by the Kentucky Unionists, though they were determined to suppress rebellion. Crittenden resolution shows this. All turned on the meaning given to the word "subjugation." Same as to the word "coercion." Secession would destroy the Republic, and the war was unavoidable.


The Union Leaders.....

Due that their names be given. Voting of the people indicated strong leadership,   Those named, all prominent before the war. 



Names. All leaders of public sentiment. Many others were associated with them. Gratitude due them all for the present glory of the American Republic.


Elections in 1861..........87

Election of May 4, for delegates to Border State Convention. Congressional electional, June 20   nine of the ten elected being Union. August election for members of the Legislature. Union majority between fifty and sixty thousand. Details of vote in Louisville. All elections untrammelled, as there were no soldiers in the State. They show the Union sentiment of Kentucky. But secession leaders not satisfied. Position of Unionists right. Mention of those elections by historians.


The " Lincoln Guns ".........99

Account given by Rev. Daniel Stevenson. Lieut. Wm. Nelson's visit to Louisville. Has conference at Frankfort. The bringing and distribution of guns.   Justice Harlan's account.


Abandonment of Neutrality.......122

People in advance of leaders. The independence of Kentucky I not possible. The State Guard. Lieut. Wm. Nelson, and introduction of arms, Earlier " violation " of neutrality. Neutrality dated back to January. Violation in April by Confederates. Attitude of Confederate authorities, Confederate recruiting officers in Kentucky in April. March from the State of Confederate troops in April. Confederates on Tennessee border occupying gaps in mountains and camps in the State. Magoffin's request to Lincoln to remove troops from Camp Pick Robinson. Reply. Shaler's view. Confederate invasion September 3. The number who went south from Kentucky.


The Rally...........140

Erroneous statements as to Kentucky Unionists. Adjutant-General Thomas, General Sherman. General McCook. The injustice. Contradiction. More troops enlisted in Union regiments in summer and fall of 1861 than went south during the entire war. Early service. Camp Joe Holt. Camp Clay. Camp Dick Robinson. Prompt filling of the regiments. The sections of the State formed. Camp Calhoun. James F. Buckner's men. Greensburg. General mention of early service.   Organizations of 1862,  1863, 1864. 
   xx Contents


Batteries. Total number, including State troops. Comparison with numbers of Confederates. General officers. Shaler's views contradicted by[the historian of First Kentucky ("Orphan") Brigade.


Location of Union Sentiment.......158

General, all over the State. Invidious comparison by the historian Shaler. The Blue Grass section. The city of Louibville. Union Club. Hume Guards. Seven Union regiments from Louisville and vicinity. City Council. Louisville called City of Flags. Patriotic work of citizens. The first district. Second district. Hopkinsville. Bowling Green. The Green River Country.   Maysville district. ,


Force Against Force.........180

Plan to take Kentucky out of the Union by force. Dr. R. J. Breckinridge's account. Corroboration by General Humphrey Marshall and Garrett Davis. The defence of the State against the proposed uprising. The conspirators foiled. Appearance on the Kentucky stage of Generals Thomas, Sherman, and Grant. In the fall of 1861 the way was open for all to take sides. Error contradicted. Resistance in western and eastern parts of the State. Colonels Garrard and Wolford encounter Confederates at Camp Wild Cat.   Battle of Mill Spring.


Provisional Government........200

Secessionists beaten at the August election, 1861. Still insist on governing the State. Convention in the military camp at Russell-ville. The call by the Conference. Proceedings of the Convention Kentucky absolved from allegiance to the National Government. Committee appointed to get Kentucky admitted into the Confederacy. Form of government made for Kentucky. Power to make laws vested in a Governor and Council of Ten. Geo. W. Johnson made Governor, and ten councilmen appointed. Some "acts" of this legislative body. Kentucky received into the Confederacy. This was not secession, but revolution, according to Geo. W. Johnson. His bitter denunciation of the Union leaders. Governor Magoffin's opinion on the subject. Mention in the histories of Kentucky.


Bragg's Invasion of Kentucky..... 212

Correctly called invasion.   Conscription  to be made.   Also, a 


movement for supplies. Battle of Perryville. Retreat. Wagon train of supplies. Bragg's and Kirby Smith's addresses. Comments of historians. Rally of Unionists to defend Kentucky. Killing of General Nelson. Magoffin's resignation, and James F. Robinson made Governor. Robinson's proclamation. Eleven new Union regiments formed. Rally to defend Louisville. The small number recruited by General Bragg. His disappointment. Removal from Frankfort by Governor Robinson soon after he was made Governor. Inauguration of " Governor " Hawes and his removal during the ceremonies. Gen. George W. Morgan's retreat from Cumberland Gap.


Morgan's Raid..........225

Heads of chapters in General Duke's History, showing escapes, retreats, and defeats. Morgan's first raid, July, 1862. The second raid being in connection with Bragg's invasion. Battle with Home Guards at Augusta. Effort to shut off retreat of Gen. Geo. W. Morgan. Retreat out of the State by way of Hopkinsville. The third raid. Col. John M. Harlan defeats Morgan at Rolling Fork. Retreat out of the State, pursued by Kentucky troops. The fourth raid, July, 1863, extending to Indiana and Ohio. The pursuit and capture was by Kentucky regiments, and was more remarkable than the raid. Surrender to "militia captain." The fifth and last raid, June, 1864. Came through Pound Gap. Col. John Mason Brown's pursuit. Fight at Cynthiana. Morgan defeated. Comments on this raid. Mention of the Kentucky regiments engaged in protecting the State.


The Guerrilla Evil.........242

The officers in command in Kentucky. Burbridge. Retaliation. Kentucky overrun by raiding bands called guerrillas. Indiscriminate censure of Federal officers and Federal troops. Guerrilla warfare authorized by Confederate Government. Governor Bram-lette's proclamation. The terms "guerrillas" and "partisan rangers" used interchangeably. Their work identical. Confederate Congress authorized partisan rangers. Protection of State by Home Guards. Extracts from the records to show who the guerrillas were. So injurious were they the Confederate Congress repealed the act of authorization except as to those serving within the enemy's lines. Fourteen court houses in Kentucky burned by Confederates, and one by carelessness of Union soldiers. Mention of guerrillas in General Duke's History. Letter of General N. B. Forrest on the subject. Union soldiers were protecting the State against such outrages. 




Injustice done by questioning the loyalty of Kentucky. Claims that were made. Misrepresentations. Confederates loath to give up the idea that Kentucky would join them. Hallucination that the people of Kentucky did not know what they wanted. General Bragg's address. View of General Hodge, writing in Collin's Kentucky. Hallucination that individual rights must not be disturbed even in raging war. Injustice done to officers in command in Kentucky, while Morgan's exploits extolled. How the Confederacy treated persons not loyal to it. Davis's proclamation of banishment. Retaliation chargeable to both sides. " Military interference," at the polls. Hallucination that McCIellan could put down the rebellion better than Lincoln. Hallucination of Southern superiority.


Patriotism of Kentucky Unionists......2S8

Value of their services to the country. Protecting Government interests in Kentucky. Importance of railroad communication. Protection of Government supplies at Louisville. Kentucky Union soldiers the same as those from any other State. Reasons Ken-tuckians adhered to the Union. Preservation of the Union the