John G. Nicolay, The Outbreak of Rebellion

[127] he was a disunionist. He had remonstrated against the rash and separate movements of South Carolina and the Cotton States; but since their movement was made, he looked upon it as final and irrevocable, and committed himself unqualifiedly against coercing them back to obedience. More than this, he argued that Kentucky was no longer safe in the Union, and declared she “will not and ought not to submit to the principles and policy avowed by the Republican party, but will resist, and resist to the death, if necessary.”

In this view, he recommended to the Legislature, which met in January under his call, the project of a “Sovereignty” State Convention, appropriations to purchase arms, and the immediate and active organization of the militia. None of these suggestions were, however, adopted by the Legislature, which contented itself for the present by protesting against coercion as unwise and inexpedient, and recommending a call for a national convention. While Kentucky sentiment was deeply pro-slavery, and business and commerce bound her strongly to the South, the patriotic example and teachings of Henry Clay had impressed upon her people a love and reverence for the Union higher and purer than any mere passing interest or selfish advantage.

Nevertheless, as rebellion progressed, the State became seriously agitated and divided. When Sumter fell and the President issued his call for troops, Governor Magoffin insultingly refused compliance. This action in turn greatly excited the people of the three Border Free States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, who thus beheld a not remote prospect of having civil war brought to their own doors They therefore looked immediately to the protection and control of the Ohio River. Their enthusiastic response to the President's call had filled their capitals with volunteers, which