ent Kentucky
at the special session called by President Lincoln. In all these
elections, Unionists won. Some historians like Smith and Shaler[35] seem
to think that the State had pledged itself to remain unconditionally
neutral, that these elections had no particular bearing on the situation
and that if a "sovereignty convention" had been called, secession would
have won. These writers do not seem to see that the people of Kentucky,
although nominally neutral, desired to remain with the Union. Doubtless a
better statement is that, although the election of 1861 showed that a
large majority of the people were in favor of the Union, the Union leaders
did not show so in the early part of the year and neutrality was adopted
not as an end but as a means that triumph over the enemies of the Union
might finally be assured.[36] We easily see now that there was not much
danger of secession, but the Unionists could not see it so well at that
time. Smith and Shaler doubtless exaggerate the situation, for what danger
of secession could there have been when the people had elected the Union
candidates for the Border State Convention to be convened at Frankfort on
May 27, when they sent nine Unionists out of the ten congressmen to
represent them in the special session of Congress, and when on the 5th of
the following August, after the battle of Bull Run, they elected to the
State Legislature 103 Unionists out of 141 members.[37] The calling of a
convention then would have made little difference, if the people had
chosen a majority of Unionists to represent them in other bodies. How can
one conclude then that they would have elected seceders to represent them
in a "sovereignty convention"? Hodge states that the sympathizers with the
Confederacy did not contest to any considerable extent the elections of
August, 1861, and consequently the supporters of the Federal Government
were in the ascendency in the next legislature. He seems to indicate that
the Unionists used fraud, but the records show that the Secessionists,
regarding it as a lost cause, in many cases withdrew their candidates.
Evidently these elections showed not only that secession was impossible
but that neutrality could not last.[38]

After this sentiment began to change. Men boldly took decisive positions.
The unwieldy neutrality party then divided into three parts: those who
went to the Confederate lines to aid the Southern cause; those who openly
declared themselves in fav