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

by James M. Prichard

G rave concern over the brewing sectional conflict then threatening theUnion, 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 fellowKentuckians that but a few decades had elapsed since the nation wasfounded that July day in Philadelphia. "Surely," he reminded them,"heaven never meant so short a period for the long life and old age of ourcountry." Although still in infancy, the United States had already "dazzled allthe century growths of old races and dead histories in all that makes thegreatness and glory of national life." Adding that "July 4th is the anniversaryof 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 howsacred he regarded this "holy bond." Although heartily opposed to theelection of Lincoln, Prentice felt the latter's victory in the presidentialelection of i860 far from warranted the breakup of the nation. Throughoutthe months that followed he and the Journal proved powerful allies toKentucky's pro-Union element in their struggle with the state's secessionparty. Although he remained a bitter political foe of the newly electedpresident, Prentice was to figure prominently in the eventual triumph ofKentucky's pro-Union element which resulted in preserving that key borderstate 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 eveof the Civil War, was at the zenith of a journalistic career that would spannearly forty years. A native of Connecticut, where he was born in 1802,Prentice, a promising young journalist, had come to Louisville in 1830 inorder 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 toremain in Kentucky and accept the editorship of the soon to be establishedLouisville Journal—a. newspaper that they hoped would become the voiceof the Whig party in the West. In the years that followed, Prentice's skillin attacking rival editors, usually displayed in a sharp, stinging, satirical

George D. Prentice, a promising young journalistwho had come from Connecticut to Louisville towrite a biography of Henry Clay, decided to remainin Louisville and accepted the editorship of theLouisville Journal.

manner, enhanced his reputation throughout the Ohio River Valley andthe West. As more of his editorials were picked up and reprinted in theeastern press, Prentice soon became not only a well known figure through-out America but in Europe as well.3

The growing difficulties between the North and South over slavery be-came a matter of increasing concern to Prentice, who firmly believed that theUnion was threatened not only by the ravings of Southern fire-eaters, butby the schemes of radical abolitionists as well. Throughout the furiouspolitical struggles of the fifties, he counseled moderation. The Journalsupported the extension of slavery into the territories,4 and the editormaintained that it should only be abolished through the Constitutionalprocess.5 Yet he did not believe the increasing opposition to the slavesystem warranted the break-up of the Union and he was quick to point outto militant-southerners that any sectional war in its defense would onlyend in the destruction of their precious institution.6

Prentice was keenly aware that a victory by the anti-slavery RepublicanParty in the presidential election of i860 would surely split the nation.Accordingly, he swung the full weight of his support behind the candidateof the Constitutional Union Party, John Bell of Tennessee. Formerly theKnow-Nothing Party, which the editor had supported in previous contests,the Constitutional Unionists adopted a platform that completely avoidedthe slave issue, placing emphasis on the maintenance of the Union, theConstitution, and the enforcement of laws.7

Portraying the Constitutional Unionists as the only national party re-maining in the country,8 Prentice felt that Bell was the candidate who hadthe best chance of defeating the Republicans due to the hopelessly dividedcondition 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 orBreckinridge dis-unionism" from taking root "in Kentucky soil."10

However, as November drew closer and Lincoln's chances of being electedincreased, the editor, along with other moderates wrote to the Republicancandidate in the hopes he might steal the secessionists thunder by modifyinghis stand on slavery.1! Lincoln, a former Whig himself, had always admiredPrentice, the Journal having been a political primer in his youth.12 Yet inhis reply, dated October 29, but not sent till after the November election,he refused to comply with the editor's request. Stating that any furthercomments he might make on the slavery issue would only be twisted by "badmen, both North and South," Lincoln added a personal sting to the refusalby reminding Prentice that the Journal, which often pictured him as "theworst man living," had done much to increase Southern apprehensionsover 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 shouldthe conservatives of the nation be overwhelmed and "Lincoln be elected bya sectional vote, it is of the first importance that the Union men shouldclose their ranks . . . and be ready to act as the best interests of the countrymay demand. We shall have to contend, in the border states, with thefanaticism of the North and the hot-headed, over zealous Secessionists ofthe South, and upon the calmness, discretion, and moderation of the con-servative masses will depend the destiny of the country."15

The efforts of Prentice and his party bore fruit on November 6 as far asKentucky was concerned. Bell, who carried the state with 66,016 votes, wasfollowed by favored son John C. Breckinridge of the Southern Democratswith 52,836 and Stephen A. Douglas of the Northern Democrats with25,644. Lincoln received less than 2,000 votes throughout the state.16

For the most part the state divided along traditional Whig-Democratlines of previous elections.17 The division in the Democratic Party had beena powerful factor in the election, as well as the fact that Breckinridge, apopular figure in the state, had increasingly become associated with thedis-unionist elements of the Deep South.18 Bell's victory had also been avictory for the large, conservative pro-Union element whose views werewhole-heartedly championed by Prentice in the pages of the Journal.^

The support of Prentice was no doubt another major factor in Bell'sfavor. The editor's backing proved decisive in Louisville where Bell re-ceived 4,896 votes to a total of 3,441 for Breckinridge and 1,112 forDouglas.20 It is interesting to note that of seven major Kentucky news-papers involved in the campaign, four supported Breckinridge, two (oneof which was the Journal) supported Bell, while one backed Douglas. Thefact that Prentice was able to overcome his journalistic opponents' weightin numbers shows not only editorial skill, but perhaps his influence onpublic opinion as well.21

Yet despite Bell's success in Kentucky, it would be a Republican whoentered the White House in March. In a post-election editorial, Prenticewrote that the news of Lincoln's victory was a deplorable event that filledhim with sorrow and anxiety. "Yet," he went on, "we do not on account ofit despair of our country and least of all do we intend by reason of it toabandon her in any crisis the unhappy event may bring with it."22

Both during and after the election Prentice sought to play down theLincoln "threat" in an effort to weaken the secessionist argument. Ridiculingany notions that Lincoln would attempt to subjugate Kentucky or any otherSouthern state,23 the editor went on to ask "Why should a nation that hascalmly tolerated Van Buren, and Tyler and Pierce and Buchanan in thePresidential chair, fly fiercely into fragments on account of the election ofLincoln?"24

116

Abraham Lincoln

The efforts of Prentice onbehalf of John Bell in thei860 election proved quitesuccessful as Bell carriedKentucky followed byBreckinridge, Douglas, andLincoln respectively.

John Bell

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. Onlya Cabinet of temperate views could possibly be confirmed. No "unconstitu-tional laws adverse to slavery" could be enacted "since both branches [ofthe Congress] are Anti-Republican." Any attempt at aggression on Lincoln'spart would surely result in his impeachment.25

In the Deep South, where emotions were at a fever pitch, pleas for reasonby men such as Prentice fell on deaf ears. On December 20, i860, SouthCarolina left the Union and the editor's initial reaction was to lash out at theSouthern radicals as well as Lincoln. The former, he charged deliberatelyengineered Lincoln's election in order to precipitate a crisis,26 while thelatter's "unconciliatory and defiant course . . . had rendered the advocatesof patience and steadiness in the South all but powerless."2? Exhorting therest of the South to stand firm and resist following South Carolina's example,the editor warned that secession meant Civil War with the most catastrophicresults 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 editorsaw the crisis as needless and advised Kentucky and her neighbors to resistrushing headlong into a conflict spawned by radical Southerners and aboli-tionists. A firm stand on the part of Kentucky as well as the remaining statesof the Union would preserve peace and "win the battle of the Constitution."Kentucky must not permit herself to submit, to be swayed by the excitementand enter a self-destructive war. To be drawn into the struggle on the side ofthe abolitionists or the secessionists would not be worth the price of losingwhat Prentice termed as her precious rights:

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

Prentice felt "the Abolitionists would have been thwarted" had it not beenfor 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 restof the nation would plant themselves firmly between both antagonists. "LetSouth Carolina desert the Union... Kentucky will not falter She will sayto 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 whichhe requested an advance copy of the inaugural address, over six otherSouthern states had left the Union.30 On February 8, 1861, the same day the

118

Confederate Constitution was adopted at Montgomery, Alabama, he againwrote the President.

The portents, Mr. Lincoln, are dark and I know not what the future is tobe. I trust to God, Kentucky may stay in the Union. I recognize no partynow 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 seces-sion issue, and its proponents soon showed themselves to be well organizedand vigorous in their efforts. In addition, both Governor Beriah Magoffinand Simon B. Buckner, the commander of the State Guard, were known tohave Confederate sympathies. Faced with such a serious challenge, theUnion men in the state began taking steps almost immediately.32

Among the first actions taken was the unification of all former Bell orDouglas followers into one effective party in January. Known as the UnionState Central Committee, it included Prentice and other prominent pro-Union figures. Adopting a policy of neutrality, the Committee intended notonly to crush the rising threat of secessionism, but also to prevent Kentuckyfrom 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 Virginiawith much affection.34 However in the decades prior to i860, the increasein Ohio River traffic brought about by the rise in canal and railroad building,had forged strong economic ties with the North. Tobacco and other Kentuckyproducts soon found lucrative markets as far north as New York. The Ohio,Mississippi, Tennessee, and Cumberland rivers, as well as the Louisville andNashville Railroad, virtually made the state the crossroads between the Northand South.ss

To the members of the Committee the Confederacy had little to offer. Intheir opinion the economic ties with the North far outweighed any senti-mental ties with their southern neighbors. If Kentucky were to leave theUnion she would invite economic disaster as well as bear the brunt of anyNorthern invasion.36

A civil war was equally undesirable. With the Upper South still in theUnion, the Committee hoped a chance for avoiding conflict remained.Through a policy of neutrality, Kentucky might set an example for the restof the Union. A coalition of such neutrals might prove strong enough to forcethe warring factions to negotiate. Prentice, the voice of the Party, expressedthese 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 andNashville Railroad as well as the rivertraffic on the Ohio, Mississippi, Tennes-see, and Cumberland rivers made Ken-tucky the crossroads between the Northand the South.

Simon B. Buckner, com-mander of the state guard,was known to have Con-federate sympathies.(Picture courtesy KentuckyHistorical Society)

Kentucky be found standing in armed neutrality beneath, the white flagof peace—an asylum for the victims of Civil War, and a sublime exampleto our erring countrymen . . . ^

Prentice's New England background had little, if any, influence on hispro-Union views. After thirty years in his adopted state, he considered him-self a loyal Kentuckian and his concerns for the state were as real as anynative son's. Conservative in temperament, he valued and respected theConstitution and resisted any change that might endanger it. The weakstruggling 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 andno doubt he was appreciative of the economic advantages Kentucky sharedwith the North. During the course of one.editorial he noted: "Now if wewant to pay an export duty on everything we send across the Ohio and uponeverything we bring across it, we only have to precipitate ourselves intothe Cotton States Confederacy."38

Prentice scoffed at fears of economic chaos if Kentucky failed to allyherself to the Confederacy. When the pro-Confederate Louisville Courierwarned that adherence to the Union would cause grass to grow in thestreets of Kentucky cities, Prentice answered, "Fetch up your horses andcows 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 thefull length of the Ohio,40 coupled with the gradual depreciation of slaveproperty were factors that would ultimately ruin Kentucky slave owners if thedis-Union spirit prevailed.41 If Kentucky were to join the Confederacy shewould play into the hands of the abolitionists, whose dreams of destroyingslavery 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 theupper hand in its struggle with the state's secessionist faction. Yet successin 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'scall 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, Lincolnwas to receive the lion's share. To Prentice the clash at Sumter was an at-tempt 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, aConfederate sympathizer,refused to send troops toeither warring faction andapplauded the legislature'sadoption of an official policyof neutrality in late May1861. (Picture courtesyKentucky Historical Society)

z&\4--

;-::?-w:-:

Using Louisville as his headquarters Prenticeattempted to play down the Lincoln threat inan effort to weaken the secessionist argumentwhich had increased greatly throughout theSouth after Lincoln's election.

the approval of South Carolina's actions. "Now although we are opposed toMr. 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 aguilty dissembler; if he has conceived it under the excitement raised inthe seizure of Fort Sumter, he is a guilty hotspur. In either case, he ismiserably unfit for the exalted position in which the enemies of thecountry 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 acoalition of neutral border states vanished and war was inevitable. Howeverwith the crucial elections for the state legislature approaching in August,both the Union and Secession elements continued to openly support neu-trality in an effort to buy time. Thus each side publicly expressed approvalof Governor Magoffin's refusal to send troops to either warring faction andapplauded the legislature's adoption of an official policy of neutrality onMay 29. However both factions were keenly aware that a fierce politicalstruggle was forming behind the facade of good will.47

As the crucial election approached, Prentice urged Kentuckians that itwas of "the very first importance" that men of "thorough and undoubtedloyalty" should be elected to office. "A legislature," he warned, " if not com-posed of true material may be speedily converted into a disunion legislatureby manipulators and demagogues and thus the will of the people be fatallythwarted."48

The resulting overwhelming victory of the Union men at the polls inAugust heralded the fall of Kentucky's pro-Confederate faction. Admittingthey had been outmaneuvered, the secession element ceased to be a majorthreat. When Kentucky repealed the neutrality policy in September, it wasfirmly 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 ofPrentice and others, E. Merton Coulter would write, "Perhaps no party inthe history of the state ever announced more clearly the general desires ofthe people . . . ."50 The strong pro-Union sentiment had always been there.All that was needed was a well organized leadership for the populace to rallyaround. This the Committee was able to provide.51

Although not solely responsible for saving Kentucky for the Union, asmany 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 regardedPrentice's powerful support as "hard to overestimate."54 The Journal wasthe vehicle through which the Committee had molded public opinion into apractical weapon.55 Prentice had ably proved his worth by providing thecrucial link between the Union men and the populace at large.

The editor would continue to wield his pen in defense of the Unionthroughout the remainder of the conflict, despite the fact that he becameincreasingly dissatisfied with Lincoln's policies. Although a formidable andbitter political foe of the President, Prentice was an indispensible ally to theUnion cause. Through his key role in thwarting the Secession crisis in Ken-tucky, Prentice provided Lincoln with one of the war's most significant polit-ical victories.

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

( 1) Louisville Journal, July 4, i860.(2) Betty C. Congleton, "George D.Prentice: Nineteenth Century SouthernEditor, "Register of the Kentucky Histor-ical Society, 65 (April, 1967) pp. 94-119.(3) Ibid. Although there is general agree-ment among historians in regardingPrentice as a prominent figure in thehistory of the Ohio Valley, with the possi-ble exception of a few articles, no majorstudy of his life has been published todate. Even more importantly, his role asone of Kentucky's leading Unionists dur-ing the Civil War, particularly in regard tohis part in saving the state from secession,has yet to receive proper attention.(4) David Porter, "The Southern Pressand the Presidential Election of i860,"West Virginia History, 63 (October,I97i),2-i5.

(5) After the Emancipation Proclamationwas announced, when the existence ofslavery in the border states was still inquestion, Prentice wrote, "The BorderStates claim the right under the FederalConstitution to dispose of slavery as ofevery other domestic interest by their ownfree and voluntary action," Louisville

Journal, November 4, 1863.(6) Q. Randall, Lincoln the President(New York, 1945), II: 6.(7) Porter, "Southern Press."(8) Louisville Journal, July 2, i860.(9) Ibid., July 6, i860.(10) Jfctd., July 3, i860.(11) Michael Davis, The Image ofLincoln in the South (Knoxville, Tenn.,1967), P- 15-

(12) John G. Nicolay and John Hay,Abraham Lincoln: A History (New York,igi7),p. 277.

(13) Image of Lincoln, pp. 15-16.(14) Louisville Journal, October 31, i860.(15) Ibid.(16) Edward Conrad Smith, The Border-land in the Civil War (Freeport, N. Y.,1969), p. 64.(17) Ibid.(18) E. Merton Coulter, The Civil Warand Readjustment in Kentucky (Glou-cester, Mass., 1966), pp. 21-23.(19) Ibid., p. 24.(20) Porter, "Southern Press."(21) Ibid.(22) Louisville Journal, November 8,i860.

1 2 4

(23) Ibid., November I, i860.

(24) Ibid., November 6, i860.(25) Randall, I: 208.(26) Ibid.

(27) Porter, "Southern Press."(28) Louisville Journal, December 24,i860.

(29) Ibid., January 7, 1861.(30) Richard N. Current, The Lincoln

Nobody Knows (New York, 1958),pp. 91-92.

(31) Robert S. Harper, Lincoln and the

Press (New York, 1951), p. 209.

(32) Ibid., pp. 210-11.

(33) C. Buell and R. Johnson, Battles and

Leaders of the Civil War (New York,

1956 reprint), I: 373 (hereafter cited as

B.L.).

(34) Coulter, p. 28.

(35) Ibid., p. 8-9.

(36) Ibid., p. 10.

(37) Ibid., p. 17.

(38) Louisville Journal, January 28,

1861.

(39) Coulter, p. 10.(40) Louisville Journal, August 10, 1861.(41) Ibid., October 31, i860.(42) Robert Emmett McDowell, City of

Conflict: Louisville in the Civil War,

(Kingsport, Tenn., 1962), p. 24.

(43) Randall, II: 6.(44) Louisville Journal, April 16, 1861.(45) Ibid.

(46) Ibid., April 17, 1861.

(47) Clement A. Evens (ed.), Confed-

erate Military History, (Secaucus, N. J.,

!975 reprint) IX: 24-25. (Hereafter cited

as CM. H.)

(48) Louisville Journal, July 1, 1861.

(49) C. M. H.,IX: 24-25.

(50) Coulter, pp. 95-97-

(51) Ibid., p. 41.(52) Ibid., p. 4.

(53) Ibid., p. 112.

(54) Ibid., p. 452.

(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 SERPENTSDISUNION AND SECESSION.