New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-05-20
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES.

Mr.. III. j. Raymond, we regret to sec ad
here's TO his error respecting an alleged agree
ment between Gen. Geo. Is. Mcclellan and
Gen. Simon b. Buckner "by which the sub
stantial neutrality Of that State kentucky
was recognized and respected" He says;
"Mr Greeley is writing a history Of the Eebellion
we hope he will not In that work. ignore, or deny
the facts Of history simply because he was at the time
OF thor occurrence pursuing course inconsistent viii
them; and before he completes IT, we trust be will re-
fresh his memory at least upon points OF 30 much n0tO
riety rs Gen. McCleLan's arrangement with Gen
Buckner.
The following letter from the General [Bucknerl
addressed 10 the Governor of Kentucky, will probably
con, inco the Editor Of lHg 1mBr M that Mr. Ray
mOnd Lad sufficient authority for the statement IN ques
ton"
Nov it happens that Mr.. Greeley. in writing
the History in question: had weeks since, gone
very carefully over this ground and had salts
fled himself that Gen. Buckner's letter, which
Mr.. Raymond produces with such an air OF
triumph, was essentially false One need not
be writing History to become satisfied that the
Shareholders Rebellion is rooted and grounded
in deliberate, systematic, wholesale lying. And
Buckner is q doublc-dyed traitor and villain
false TO the State which honored and trusted
him, as well as to the country which nourished
this viper in her bosom. His letter in question
is dated louisville, KY, June 10th, 1861"
and sets forth that he entered into the asserted
arrangement with Gen. Mcclellan at Cincin
natl, two days before. Yet he does
not pretend TO have scrap of
memorandum or mutually signed writing re-
cording this most important arrangement"
and Gen. Mcclellan expressly denies It's eristenec.
This contradiction was given in a dispatch to a
Naval officer in Cincinnati, dated June %, 1861,
wherein he states that his interview with Gen.
Buckncr was strictly private and personal; that
it was granted at the urgent solicitation Of the
latter Chen proiessedly loyal, and that he gave
no pledge whatever that the forces of the United
States should not enter and occupy Kentucky.
He adds: II made no stipulation on the part of
the General Government, and regarded his
| Buckner's] voluntary promise TO drive out the
Confederate troops as the only result of the
interview" To this explicit contradic-
ton we are not aware that Buokner
ever made any response; but what II he did,
unless he produced some document, bearing
Gen. Me-. signature, which sustained his (B.'s)
original assertion1 He who can suppose that
any such arrangement as Buckner alleges
would not have been reduced to writing, or that
a purely oral agreement could have any effect
beyond the mutual understanding of the parties,
Is beyond the reach Of argument. In short, We
are quite sure, from the facts now before The
public that Mr. Raymond has MOI been
g writing iIistory"--at least, not a history of
The War for the Unon--and that he has hlh-
'r'o had but an imperfect apprehension or this
matter lie will Of course do as h. sees fl;
but we are sure he could net do better than toi
,crcci 'hc statement IN his book IL cannot +,
BIZ Justified