f
mediatorial neutrality and approved the Governor's refusal to furnish
troops under the existing circumstances.[33] This, however, did not mean
that the legislature was in sympathy with the efforts of the Governor to
support the Southern cause. Writing to Gen. Scott, John J. Crittenden
explained it thus:

"The position of Kentucky and the relation she occupies toward the
government of the Union is not, I fear, understood at Washington. It
ought to be well understood. Very important consequences may depend
upon it and upon her proper treatment. Unfortunately for us our
Governor does not sympathize with Kentucky in respect to secession.
His opinions and feelings incline him strongly to the side of the
South. His answer to the requisition for troops was in terms hasty
and unbecoming and does not correspond with the usual and gentlemanly
courtesy. But while she regretted the language of his answer,
Kentucky acquiesced in his declining to furnish the troops called
for, and she did so not because she loved the Union less but she
feared that if she had parted with those troops and sent them to
serve in your ranks, she would have been overwhelmed by secessionists
at home, and severed from the Union. And it was to preserve
substantially and ultimately our connection with the Union that
induced us to acquiesce in the partial infraction of it by our
Governor's refusal of the troops required. This was the most
prevailing and general motive. To this may be added the strong
indisposition of our people to a civil war with the South, and the
apprehended consequences of a civil war within our state and among
our people.... I think Kentucky's excuse a good one and that under
all the circumstances of a complicated case she is rendering better
service in her present position than she could by becoming an active
party in the contest."[34]

The fact is that secession had little chance in Kentucky after public
opinion found expression. Neutrality early became the order of the day.
The elections of 1861 were significant in that they gave the people a
chance to express their will. It should be borne in mind that the
legislature of 1859 was elected when the question of union or disunion was
not before the people. Now in 1861 they had to elect members to the Border
State Convention, a new legislature, and congressmen to repres