George D. Prentice and the Secession Crisis in Kentucky

Champion of the Union: George D. Prentice and the Secession Crisis in Kentucky

by James M. Prichard

rave concern over the brewing sectional conflict then threatening the G Union, cast an ominous shadow across the usual patriotic eulogies in the July 4, i860 issue of the Louisville Journal. Departing from a recount- ing of the struggles and triumphs of the founding fathers, George D. Pren- tice, the Journal's colorful and widely respected editor, reminded his fellow Kentuckians that but a few decades had elapsed since the nation was founded that July day in Philadelphia. "Surely," he reminded them, "heaven never meant so short a period for the long life and old age of our country." Although still in infancy, the United States had already "dazzled all the century growths of old races and dead histories in all that makes the greatness and glory of national life." Adding that "July 4th is the anniversary of the holy bond of the Union," he urged all to "keep this bond holy."1 During the critical times that followed, Prentice was to prove how sacred he regarded this "holy bond." Although heartily opposed to the election of Lincoln, Prentice felt the latter's victory in the presidential election of i860 far from warranted the breakup of the nation. Throughout the months that followed he and the Journal proved powerful allies to Kentucky's pro-Union element in their struggle with the state's secession party. Although he remained a bitter political foe of the newly elected president, Prentice was to figure prominently in the eventual triumph of Kentucky's pro-Union element which resulted in preserving that key border state for the Union and provided the Lincoln administration with a sub- stantial political victory during the dark days following Bull Run. A colorful individual possessing high literary skill, Prentice, on the eve of the Civil War, was at the zenith of a journalistic career that would span nearly forty years. A native of Connecticut, where he was born in 1802, Prentice, a promising young journalist, had come to Louisville in 1830 in order to pen a campaign biography of his idol, Henry Clay.2 Upon com- pletion of his work, Clay and his followers convinced the young writer to remain in Kentucky and accept the editorship of the soon to be established Louisville Journal—a. newspaper that they hoped would become the voice of the Whig party in the West. In the years that followed, Prentice's skill in attacking rival editors, usually displayed in a sharp, stinging, satirical George D. Prentice, a promising young journalist who had come from Connecticut to Louisville to write a biography of Henry Clay, decided to remain in Louisville and accepted the editorship of the Louisville Journal. manner, enhanced his reputation throughout the Ohio River Valley and the West. As more of his editorials were picked up and reprinted in the eastern press, Prentice soon became not only a well known figure throughout America but in Europe as well.3 The growing difficulties between the North and South over slavery became a matter of increasing concern to Prentice, who firmly believed that the Union was threatened not only by the ravings of Southern fire-eaters, but by the schemes of radical abolitionists as well. Throughout the furious political struggles of the fifties, he counseled moderation. The Journal supported the extension of slavery into the territories,4 and the editor maintained that it should only be abolished through the Constitutional process.5 Yet he did not believe the increasing opposition to the slave system warranted the break-up of the Union and he was quick to point out to militant-southerners that any sectional war in its defense would only end in the destruction of their precious institution.6 Prentice was keenly aware that a victory by the anti-slavery Republican Party in the presidential election of i860 would surely split the nation. Accordingly, he swung the full weight of his support behind the candidate of the Constitutional Union Party, John Bell of Tennessee. Formerly the Know-Nothing Party, which the editor had supported in previous contests, the Constitutional Unionists adopted a platform that completely avoided the slave issue, placing emphasis on the maintenance of the Union, the Constitution, and the enforcement of laws.7 Portraying the Constitutional Unionists as the only national party remaining in the country,8 Prentice felt that Bell was the candidate who had the best chance of defeating the Republicans due to the hopelessly divided condition of the Democrats.9 Aided by the country's conservative Demo- crats, the Constitutional Unionists, Prentice maintained, would prevent "the seeds of Lincoln Republicanism, Douglas' Squatter Sovereignty or Breckinridge dis-unionism" from taking root "in Kentucky soil."10 However, as November drew closer and Lincoln's chances of being elected increased, the editor, along with other moderates wrote to the Republican candidate in the hopes he might steal the secessionists thunder by modifying his stand on slavery.1! Lincoln, a former Whig himself, had always admired Prentice, the Journal having been a political primer in his youth.12 Yet in his reply, dated October 29, but not sent till after the November election, he refused to comply with the editor's request. Stating that any further comments he might make on the slavery issue would only be twisted by "bad men, both North and South," Lincoln added a personal sting to the refusal by reminding Prentice that the Journal, which often pictured him as "the worst man living," had done much to increase Southern apprehensions over the possibility of a Republican victory at the polls.13 Although undaunted in his support of Bell, Prentice, a week before the election, admitted that Lincoln was dangerously close to victory. 14 Fore- warning Kentuckians of just such a possibility, the editor wrote that should the conservatives of the nation be overwhelmed and "Lincoln be elected by a sectional vote, it is of the first importance that the Union men should close their ranks . . . and be ready to act as the best interests of the country may demand. We shall have to contend, in the border states, with the fanaticism of the North and the hot-headed, over zealous Secessionists of the South, and upon the calmness, discretion, and moderation of the conservative masses will depend the destiny of the country."15 The efforts of Prentice and his party bore fruit on November 6 as far as Kentucky was concerned. Bell, who carried the state with 66,016 votes, was followed by favored son John C. Breckinridge of the Southern Democrats with 52,836 and Stephen A. Douglas of the Northern Democrats with 25,644. Lincoln received less than 2,000 votes throughout the state.16 For the most part the state divided along traditional Whig-Democrat lines of previous elections.17 The division in the Democratic Party had been a powerful factor in the election, as well as the fact that Breckinridge, a popular figure in the state, had increasingly become associated with the dis-unionist elements of the Deep South.18 Bell's victory had also been a victory for the large, conservative pro-Union element whose views were whole-heartedly championed by Prentice in the pages of the Journal.^ The support of Prentice was no doubt another major factor in Bell's favor. The editor's backing proved decisive in Louisville where Bell received 4,896 votes to a total of 3,441 for Breckinridge and 1,112 for Douglas.20 It is interesting to note that of seven major Kentucky news- papers involved in the campaign, four supported Breckinridge, two (one of which was the Journal) supported Bell, while one backed Douglas. The fact that Prentice was able to overcome his journalistic opponents' weight in numbers shows not only editorial skill, but perhaps his influence on public opinion as well.21 Yet despite Bell's success in Kentucky, it would be a Republican who entered the White House in March. In a post-election editorial, Prentice wrote that the news of Lincoln's victory was a deplorable event that filled him with sorrow and anxiety. "Yet," he went on, "we do not on account of it despair of our country and least of all do we intend by reason of it to abandon her in any crisis the unhappy event may bring with it."22 Both during and after the election Prentice sought to play down the Lincoln "threat" in an effort to weaken the secessionist argument. Ridiculing any notions that Lincoln would attempt to subjugate Kentucky or any other Southern state,23 the editor went on to ask "Why should a nation that has calmly tolerated Van Buren, and Tyler and Pierce and Buchanan in the Presidential chair, fly fiercely into fragments on account of the election of Lincoln?"24

116 Abraham Lincoln John Bell

The efforts of Prentice on behalf of John Bell in the i860 election proved quite successful as Bell carried Kentucky followed by Breckinridge, Douglas, and Lincoln respectively.

John C. Breckinridge Stephen A. Douglas In order to calm Southern fears, he emphasized that Lincoln was harm- less, being subject to the restraints of Congress and the Supreme Court. Only a Cabinet of temperate views could possibly be confirmed. No "unconstitu- tional laws adverse to slavery" could be enacted "since both branches [of the Congress] are Anti-Republican." Any attempt at aggression on Lincoln's part would surely result in his impeachment.25 In the Deep South, where emotions were at a fever pitch, pleas for reason by men such as Prentice fell on deaf ears. On December 20, i860, South Carolina left the Union and the editor's initial reaction was to lash out at the Southern radicals as well as Lincoln. The former, he charged deliberately engineered Lincoln's election in order to precipitate a crisis,26 while the latter's "unconciliatory and defiant course . . . had rendered the advocates of patience and steadiness in the South all but powerless."2? Exhorting the rest of the South to stand firm and resist following South Carolina's example, the editor warned that secession meant Civil War with the most catastrophic results for the nation.2$ In a January 7, 1861 editorial entitled "Submission or Resistance!", Pren- tice outlined his views on what course Kentuckians should follow. The editor saw the crisis as needless and advised Kentucky and her neighbors to resist rushing headlong into a conflict spawned by radical Southerners and abolitionists. A firm stand on the part of Kentucky as well as the remaining states of the Union would preserve peace and "win the battle of the Constitution." Kentucky must not permit herself to submit, to be swayed by the excitement and enter a self-destructive war. To be drawn into the struggle on the side of the abolitionists or the secessionists would not be worth the price of losing what Prentice termed as her precious rights:

Of a portion of these rights she would be robbed by the aggressions of Abolitionists, of another portion she would be deprived by the policy of Southern Hotspurs, who ask her to follow their precipitate flight from the entrenchments of the Constitution and surrender the privileges, the power and the protection of a national government.

Prentice felt "the Abolitionists would have been thwarted" had it not been for the "treacherous flight of South Carolina at the very crisis of the struggle." The editor believed Kentucky would not follow that course. She and the rest of the nation would plant themselves firmly between both antagonists. "Let South Carolina desert the Union... Kentucky will not falter She will say to the Malcontents depart in peace."29 Within several days of the editorial the situation had steadily worsened. By the time of Prentice's January 31 communication with Lincoln, in which he requested an advance copy of the inaugural address, over six other Southern states had left the Union.30 On February 8, 1861, the same day the

118 Confederate Constitution was adopted at Montgomery, Alabama, he again wrote the President.

The portents, Mr. Lincoln, are dark and I know not what the future is to be. I trust to God, Kentucky may stay in the Union. I recognize no party now but the Union Party.31

With that he girded himself for yet another contest. Prentice's concern over Kentucky's future was well founded. The state legislature which had convened in January was evenly divided on the secession issue, and its proponents soon showed themselves to be well organized and vigorous in their efforts. In addition, both Governor Beriah Magoffin and Simon B. Buckner, the commander of the State Guard, were known to have Confederate sympathies. Faced with such a serious challenge, the Union men in the state began taking steps almost immediately.32 Among the first actions taken was the unification of all former Bell or Douglas followers into one effective party in January. Known as the Union State Central Committee, it included Prentice and other prominent pro- Union figures. Adopting a policy of neutrality, the Committee intended not only to crush the rising threat of secessionism, but also to prevent Kentucky from becoming a bloody battleground in the wake of both antagonists.33 Kentucky was a border state in every sense of the word. Tied geograph- ically and culturally to the South, she regarded her parent state of Virginia with much affection.34 However in the decades prior to i860, the increase in Ohio River traffic brought about by the rise in canal and railroad building, had forged strong economic ties with the North. Tobacco and other Kentucky products soon found lucrative markets as far north as New York. The Ohio, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Cumberland rivers, as well as the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, virtually made the state the crossroads between the North and South.ss To the members of the Committee the Confederacy had little to offer. In their opinion the economic ties with the North far outweighed any senti- mental ties with their southern neighbors. If Kentucky were to leave the Union she would invite economic disaster as well as bear the brunt of any Northern invasion.36 A civil war was equally undesirable. With the Upper South still in the Union, the Committee hoped a chance for avoiding conflict remained. Through a policy of neutrality, Kentucky might set an example for the rest of the Union. A coalition of such neutrals might prove strong enough to force the warring factions to negotiate. Prentice, the voice of the Party, expressed these views ably in the Journal:

And when the shock of war shall, if it must, come at some future day, let it

Goods transported on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad as well as the river traffic on the Ohio, Mississippi, Tennes- see, and Cumberland rivers made Ken- tucky the crossroads between the North and the South.

Simon B. Buckner, commander of the state guard, was known to have Con- federate sympathies. (Picture courtesy Kentucky Historical Society) Kentucky be found standing in armed neutrality beneath, the white flag of peace—an asylum for the victims of Civil War, and a sublime example to our erring countrymen . . . ^

Prentice's New England background had little, if any, influence on his pro-Union views. After thirty years in his adopted state, he considered himself a loyal Kentuckian and his concerns for the state were as real as any native son's. Conservative in temperament, he valued and respected the Constitution and resisted any change that might endanger it. The weak struggling Confederate government, created through fear of the Lincoln "bugbear," had little to offer in its place. The editor was involved in business ventures other than the Journal and no doubt he was appreciative of the economic advantages Kentucky shared with the North. During the course of one.editorial he noted: "Now if we want to pay an export duty on everything we send across the Ohio and upon everything we bring across it, we only have to precipitate ourselves into the Cotton States Confederacy."38 Prentice scoffed at fears of economic chaos if Kentucky failed to ally herself to the Confederacy. When the pro-Confederate Louisville Courier warned that adherence to the Union would cause grass to grow in the streets of Kentucky cities, Prentice answered, "Fetch up your horses and cows and oxen and sheep for the good grazing in prospect."39 Prentice also felt that secession would sound the death-knell of slavery. Higher taxes prompted by the necessity of keeping armed troops along the full length of the Ohio,40 coupled with the gradual depreciation of slave property were factors that would ultimately ruin Kentucky slave owners if the dis-Union spirit prevailed.41 If Kentucky were to join the Confederacy she would play into the hands of the abolitionists, whose dreams of destroying slavery regardless of the consequences would be realized by Northern bay- onets. To free Kentucky's slaves by force, during the midst of Civil War, might lead to a bloody race conflict as well. By remaining in the Union, Kentucky could rely on the Constitution as protection from such a fate.42 By the early spring of 1861, the Union party was beginning to gain the upper hand in its struggle with the state's secessionist faction. Yet success in Kentucky was overshadowed by failure elsewhere. By March the Critten- den Compromise had died in the Senate while the Washington Peace Con- ference had proven itself a failure. Then came Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteers in April.43 These were serious blows to any remaining chance for peace. The editor, as on previous occasions, directed his wrath at both sides. However, Lincoln was to receive the lion's share. To Prentice the clash at Sumter was an attempt by Southerners "to keep up the secession feelings"44 and he con- demned a Louisville meeting that called for a censure of the President and

121 Governor Beriah Magoffin, a Confederate sympathizer, refused to send troops to either warring faction and applauded the legislature's adoption of an official policy of neutrality in late May 1861. (Picture courtesy Kentucky Historical Society)

z&\4--

;-::?-w:-:

Using Louisville as his headquarters Prentice attempted to play down the Lincoln threat in an effort to weaken the secessionist argument which had increased greatly throughout the South after Lincoln's election. the approval of South Carolina's actions. "Now although we are opposed to Mr. Lincoln's administration as anybody, we don't approve . . . the bom- bardment of Sumter."45 Lincoln's subsequent call for volunteers on April 15 struck Prentice hard. The editor was furious at what he considered to be Lincoln's rashness:

If Mr. Lincoln contemplated this policy in the inaugural address, he is a guilty dissembler; if he has conceived it under the excitement raised in the seizure of Fort Sumter, he is a guilty hotspur. In either case, he is miserably unfit for the exalted position in which the enemies of the country have placed him.46

The call for volunteers proved to be the turning point for affairs in Ken- tucky. With the secession of Virginia and the Upper South, hopes for a coalition of neutral border states vanished and war was inevitable. However with the crucial elections for the state legislature approaching in August, both the Union and Secession elements continued to openly support neutrality in an effort to buy time. Thus each side publicly expressed approval of Governor Magoffin's refusal to send troops to either warring faction and applauded the legislature's adoption of an official policy of neutrality on May 29. However both factions were keenly aware that a fierce political struggle was forming behind the facade of good will.47 As the crucial election approached, Prentice urged Kentuckians that it was of "the very first importance" that men of "thorough and undoubted loyalty" should be elected to office. "A legislature," he warned, " if not com- posed of true material may be speedily converted into a disunion legislature by manipulators and demagogues and thus the will of the people be fatally thwarted."48 The resulting overwhelming victory of the Union men at the polls in August heralded the fall of Kentucky's pro-Confederate faction. Admitting they had been outmaneuvered, the secession element ceased to be a major threat. When Kentucky repealed the neutrality policy in September, it was firmly in the Union camp. The work of Prentice and the committee was done. Kentucky had been saved from secession.49 The majority of Kentuckians never had any real desire to leave the Union, and herein lay the key to the Committee's victory. Regarding the stand of Prentice and others, E. Merton Coulter would write, "Perhaps no party in the history of the state ever announced more clearly the general desires of the people . . . ."50 The strong pro-Union sentiment had always been there. All that was needed was a well organized leadership for the populace to rally around. This the Committee was able to provide.51 Although not solely responsible for saving Kentucky for the Union, as many of his admirers later asserted, Prentice still played a key role in de-

123 feating the state's secessionist elements. Coulter described the Journal as "one of the most powerful forces for the Union in the state,"52 a newspaper "without a peer in influence and leadership in Kentucky"53 and regarded Prentice's powerful support as "hard to overestimate."54 The Journal was the vehicle through which the Committee had molded public opinion into a practical weapon.55 Prentice had ably proved his worth by providing the crucial link between the Union men and the populace at large. The editor would continue to wield his pen in defense of the Union throughout the remainder of the conflict, despite the fact that he became increasingly dissatisfied with Lincoln's policies. Although a formidable and bitter political foe of the President, Prentice was an indispensible ally to the Union cause. Through his key role in thwarting the Secession crisis in Ken- tucky, Prentice provided Lincoln with one of the war's most significant political victories.

JAMES M. PRICHARD, a graduate student at Wright State University, received his Bachelor of Arts in history in 1976 from Wright State.

( 1) Louisville Journal, July 4, i860. Journal, November 4, 1863. (2) Betty C. Congleton, "George D. (6) Q. Randall, Lincoln the President Prentice: Nineteenth Century Southern (New York, 1945), II: 6. Editor, "Register of the Kentucky Histor- (7) Porter, "Southern Press." ical Society, 65 (April, 1967) pp. 94-119. (8) Louisville Journal, July 2, i860. (3) Ibid. Although there is general agree- (9) Ibid., July 6, i860. ment among historians in regarding (10) Jfctd., July 3, i860. Prentice as a prominent figure in the (11) Michael Davis, The Image of history of the Ohio Valley, with the possi- Lincoln in the South (Knoxville, Tenn., ble exception of a few articles, no major 1967), P- 15- study of his life has been published to (12) John G. Nicolay and John Hay, date. Even more importantly, his role as Abraham Lincoln: A History (New York, one of Kentucky's leading Unionists dur- igi7),p. 277. ing the Civil War, particularly in regard to (13) Image of Lincoln, pp. 15-16. his part in saving the state from secession, (14) Louisville Journal, October 31, i860. has yet to receive proper attention. (15) Ibid. (4) David Porter, "The Southern Press (16) Edward Conrad Smith, The Border- and the Presidential Election of i860," land in the Civil War (Freeport, N. Y., West Virginia History, 63 (October, 1969), p. 64. I97i),2-i5. (17) Ibid. (5) After the Emancipation Proclamation (18) E. Merton Coulter, The Civil War was announced, when the existence of and Readjustment in Kentucky (Glou- slavery in the border states was still in cester, Mass., 1966), pp. 21-23. question, Prentice wrote, "The Border (19) Ibid., p. 24. States claim the right under the Federal (20) Porter, "Southern Press." Constitution to dispose of slavery as of (21) Ibid. every other domestic interest by their own (22) Louisville Journal, November 8, free and voluntary action," Louisville i860.

124 (23) Ibid., November I, i860. 1861. (24) Ibid., November 6, i860. (39) Coulter, p. 10. (25) Randall, I: 208. (40) Louisville Journal, August 10, 1861. (26) Ibid. (41) Ibid., October 31, i860. (27) Porter, "Southern Press." (42) Robert Emmett McDowell, City of (28) Louisville Journal, December 24, Conflict: Louisville in the Civil War, i860. (Kingsport, Tenn., 1962), p. 24. (29) Ibid., January 7, 1861. (43) Randall, II: 6. (30) Richard N. Current, The Lincoln (44) Louisville Journal, April 16, 1861. Nobody Knows (New York, 1958), (45) Ibid. pp. 91-92. (46) Ibid., April 17, 1861. (31) Robert S. Harper, Lincoln and the (47) Clement A. Evens (ed.), Confed- Press (New York, 1951), p. 209. erate Military History, (Secaucus, N. J., (32) Ibid., pp. 210-11. !975 reprint) IX: 24-25. (Hereafter cited (33) C. Buell and R. Johnson, Battles and as CM. H.) Leaders of the Civil War (New York, (48) Louisville Journal, July 1, 1861. 1956 reprint), I: 373 (hereafter cited as (49) C. M. H.,IX: 24-25. B.L.). (50) Coulter, pp. 95-97- (34) Coulter, p. 28. (51) Ibid., p. 41. (35) Ibid., p. 8-9. (52) Ibid., p. 4. (36) Ibid., p. 10. (53) Ibid., p. 112. (37) Ibid., p. 17. (54) Ibid., p. 452. (38) Louisville Journal, January 28, (55) Ibid., p. 28.

Even though cartoons in some papers urged otherwise, Prentice, after South Carolina's secession, exhorted the rest of the South to remain firm and resist following South Carolina's example.

OUNG AMERICA RISING AT THE BALLOT-BOX AND STRANGLING THE SERPENTS DISUNION AND SECESSION.