The Voice of Kentucky?

Johnson's 1862 map of Kentucky, courtesy wikimedia (cropped for this blog)

 
This story, published March 1, 1862 by the Covington Journal offers some insight into the mindsets of some of Kentucky's  politicians, but the following years would show that these leaders did indeed have a fairly good grasp on what their constituents believed and wanted. Kentucky and many of her citizens strongly opposed such "radical" propositions as mentioned here.  (The phrase "set her face like flint" in the first paragraph below is from the Bible and means "to be strongly determined.")

The Voice of Kentucky
If we do not mistake the indications of popular sentiment, Kentucky will set her face like flint against all such revolutionary schemes as that of Sumner, which proposes to divest certain Southern States of all attributes of sovereignty and throw them back into a territorial condition, and that of Trumbull, provides for freeing all the slaves of which rebels." (note: that is how the paragraph ends. It does not look like anything else was printed at the end of that line. Substituting "providing" for "provides" may match the writer's intent.)

"In the Senate of Kentucky, Tuesday, Feb. 25, Thornton F. Marshall (Union) offered a series of resolutions, from which we extract the following:
Resolved, That it is the deliberate opinion of Kentucky that the only hope for the restoration of the National Union is upon that great charter of our freedom, the Constitution of the United States. It cannot be accomplished in any other mode. The original State organizations, with all their just rights and powers under the federal compact, must be preserved. Hence, Kentucky deplores and condemns, in this great struggle for constitutional liberty all attempts to abolish or alter, in the least respect, the relative position of any of the States toward each other, or the Federal Government; and especially does she condemn, in unqualified terms, any effort to reduce any of the States to a colonial or territorial condition."

Mr. Dehaven (Union) offered the following: 

"Resolved, that we regard all propositions and schemes for abolishing the State governments, reducing them to territories, or holding them as conquered provinces as unwarranted assumptions of power and utterly subversive of the very form, spirit and genius of republican institutions."

In the House, Mr. Wolfe (Union), offered the following: 

"Resolved by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That the effort now being made to divert this war from its original purpose as proclaimed by the President and Congress of the United States several months ago - the maintenance of the Federal Constitution and the preservation of the Union's integrity - and to turn it into for the emancipation of slaves and the subjugation  of the Southern States, or their return to a territorial condition is an effort against the Union; against the Constitution; against justice; and against humanity, and should be promptly frowned upon by all the friends of Democratic Institutions. It is unworthy of loyal citizens, and can find support only in the sectional fanatics who have no love for the Union or desire for its restoration, and whose highest patriotism is an unnatural and unrighteous hatred of the citizens of Sister states. "
These resolutions were referred. We cannot doubt that they will, in substance, receive the sanction of both branches of the Legislature. 

----
"Sumner's scheme" was his proposal that the states that had seceded from the Union and fought in the war against the Union had committed "state suicide," forfeiting any rights or privileges they previously held, and should be treated as any American territory, under Congress' guidance.

The mention of Trumbull is due to his late 1861 introduction of a bill to emancipate slaves and confiscate property of Confederates and their supporters.

In the final two resolutions, note that  Wolfe refers to "democratic institutions" while Mr. Dehaven had used the term "republican institutions." Is this a bit of an identity crisis among these two men as to their nation's form of government, or are/were the terms interchangeable enough - at least in general, public understanding - to be used as virtual synonyms?

A Ridiculous Blunder

courtesy lrc.ky.gov

 
The Covington Journal of December 28, 1861 included this article about a recent action by the state legislature.

The Kentucky Legislature has committed an absurd blunder in requesting President Lincoln to remove Secretary Cameron from office. We don't often find in the Cincinnati Gazette an editorial we can commend to the approval of our readers, but in the following article from that paper there are points suggested which deserve consideration:


"KENTUCKY SOVEREIGNTY - The Kentucky Legislature has by resolution approved the President for modifying the Secretary of War, and called upon the President to dispense with Secretary Cameron's service. it is rather novel of a State Legislature to revise the private difference between the President and his Cabinet, which only became public by accident. It is a new feature also for States to interfere with the President's domestic arrangements, but the occasion is one to make precedents, and modesty is not a Kentucky failing. But certainly the Legislature has left its work very incomplete. There is just as much emancipation in the modified report and in the message, as in the report originally. So there is in Secretary Chase's report. The only difference is that Secretary Cameron thinks that if the negroes can be made to make daylight shine through the rebels in the regular way, according to military regulations, it would be both pleasing and fit to let them. 


Is it possible that the Kentucky Legislature has taken the unusual course of revising private Cabinet affairs, and calling upon the President to discharge a Cabinet officer on a question relating solely to the protection of the rebels from being hurt?


To be consistent, the Legislature should have demanded the resignation of the President, and that he should dispense with the services of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

What is the Kentucky Legislature going to do about it, if the President does not dispense with Mr. Cameron's services? Is that the ultimatum of Kentucky? Is there anybody else that Kentucky wants removed? Let her not lose anything for want of demanding; and since she has taken to revise the President's subordinates and recommendations, she will be held responsible if they are wrong." 


That the resolution was merely intended for Buncombe is evidenced by the fact that an officer of the Legislature who has heartily endorsed the infamous proclamation of Cameron, is allowed to retain his position undisturbed. This, however, only adds to the absurdity of the proceeding. 


The Gazette heads its article "State Sovereignty" - with a view, doubtless, to bring into contempt the good old doctrine that the State is supreme in everything pertaining to its domestic institutions. State Sovereignty, while resisting unwarranted interference, come from what quarter it may, claims no right to regulate or control the appointments of the Federal executive. The notion of the Kentucky Legislature in relation to Cameron, is nearer akin to that officious intermeddling inaugurated by politicians of the North, and which has had no small share in bringing on our present troubles.