Download Champion of the Union: George D. Prentice and the Secession

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 recounting of the struggles and triumphs of the founding fathers, George D. Prentice, 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 substantial 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 completion 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 Democrats, 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 Forewarning 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 newspapers 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
John Bell
Abraham Lincoln
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 harmless, being subject to the restraints of Congress and the Supreme Court. Only
a Cabinet of temperate views could possibly be confirmed. No "unconstitutional 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!", Prentice 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 proUnion 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 geographically 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 sentimental 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, Tennessee, and Cumberland rivers made Kentucky the crossroads between the North
and the South.
Simon B. Buckner, commander of the state guard,
was known to have Confederate 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 bayonets. 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 Crittenden Compromise had died in the Senate while the Washington Peace Conference 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 condemned 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 bombardment 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 Kentucky. 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 composed 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 de123
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 Kentucky, Prentice provided Lincoln with one of the war's most significant political victories.
M. PRICHARD, a graduate student at Wright State University, received
his Bachelor of Arts in history in 1976 from Wright State.
JAMES
( 1) Louisville Journal, July 4, i860.
(2) Betty C. Congleton, "George D.
Prentice: Nineteenth Century Southern
Editor, "Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, 65 (April, 1967) pp. 94-119.
(3) Ibid. Although there is general agreement among historians in regarding
Prentice as a prominent figure in the
history of the Ohio Valley, with the possible exception of a few articles, no major
study of his life has been published to
date. Even more importantly, his role as
one of Kentucky's leading Unionists during the Civil War, particularly in regard to
his part in saving the state from secession,
has yet to receive proper attention.
(4) David Porter, "The Southern Press
and the Presidential Election of i860,"
West Virginia History, 63 (October,
I97i),2-i5.
(5) After the Emancipation Proclamation
was announced, when the existence of
slavery in the border states was still in
question, Prentice wrote, "The Border
States claim the right under the Federal
Constitution to dispose of slavery as of
every other domestic interest by their own
free 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 of
Lincoln 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 Borderland in the Civil War (Freeport, N. Y.,
1969), p. 64.
(17) Ibid.
(18) E. Merton Coulter, The Civil War
and Readjustment in Kentucky (Gloucester, Mass., 1966), pp. 21-23.
(19) Ibid., p. 24.
(20) Porter, "Southern Press."
(21) Ibid.
(22) Louisville Journal, November 8,
i860.
124
(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.), Confederate 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 SERPENTS
DISUNION AND SECESSION.