Here is another interesting piece from the Covington Journal of April 6, 1861.
Down with Sectionalism
The miserable Sectionalists who by appealing to the worst passions and prejudices of the Northern people have secured possession of the Federal Government must be put down.
They must not only be put down, but the South must have such guarantees as will render the success of a Northern sectional party in the future a moral impossibility.
Kentucky has been dallying long enough. Now is the time to strike the decisive blow. Let the true friends of the Constitution and the Union reject all such delusive propositions as that for a National Convention, and all such shallow cheats as the Peace Conference plan, and taking a stand upon the Crittenden compromise, bring the question to an issue without further circumlocution.
Every consideration calls for a prompt settlement. Every day that the question is left open augments its complications, adds to the embarrassments of business, and increases the danger of war.
The Crittenden plan is not objectionable to such of the people at the North as are willing to adjust the difficulty on a fair basis. It is their favorite plan. It is the only plan yet suggested that gives satisfaction to the South. It is the only plan that will utterly and forever crush out sectionalism North and South. It is the only plan which gives any hope of a reconstruction of the Union.
The policy of Kentucky most clearly is to stand by and insist upon the adoption of the Crittenden plan.
In other words, there needs to be a plan that will prevent "sectionalists" from the North from gaining power in the national government, yet will "guarantee" the South its desires - i.e. let the federal government stay in control of Southern sympathizers, instead of northern "sectionalists." It does refer to southern sectionalism later in the article, but it seems to me that instead of crushing out that characteristic in the South, this article wants to prolong it, while only eliminating the northern version of sectionalism.
Of course, this paper's strong support of the Crittenden Compromise (seen in previous edition of this journal too) and its strong support of the rights of slaveholders, is no surprise either.