Finally, an honest Abe

Director Steven Spielberg, whom I introduced last week [in 2012] at Gettysburg at ceremonies marking the 149th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s greatest speech, said he was deeply humbled to be delivering an address on that history-making spot.

… Daniel Day-Lewis gives the definitive portrayal of our time, perhaps ever, of Honest Abe.

For people like me, who have spent their lives studying Abraham Lincoln, the film is chilling — as if he’s really come to life.

Day-Lewis does it by avoiding the traps most Lincoln actors fall into, the stoic, “Hall of Presidents”-esque stereotype that probably most Americans imagine.

There are no moving pictures of Lincoln, no recordings of his voice. But after his death, everyone was Lincoln’s best friend, and there are descriptions of everything from his accent to his gait.

The most important thing is the voice. Far from having a stentorian, Gregory Peck-like bass, Lincoln’s was a high, piercing tenor. Those who attended his speeches even described it as shrill and unpleasant for the first 10 minutes, until he got warmed up (or his endless stories managed to cow them into submission).

Few great people are appreciated in their time. And it’s good to remember that, no matter how right the decisions seem now, they were hard-fought then.

“I wanted — impossibly — to bring Lincoln back from his sleep of one-and-a-half centuries,” Steven Spielberg said at Gettysburg, “even if only for two-and-one-half hours, and even if only in a cinematic dream.”

Harold Holzer is one of the country’s leading authorities on Abraham Lincoln. ...

[At the end of the article Holzer gives thumbnail reviews of all prior Lincoln films, ranking them from worst to best, which Holzer considers to be Spielberg’s.]

FLT-bird: "East Tennessee is not the whole South.
Its not even the whole South outside of the more heavily cotton producing areas.
You seem to want to focus exclusively on East Tennessee."

Now you're not paying attention, are you?
I mentioned East Tennessee because you say your ancestors came from East Tennessee and you used it to illustrate how "happy whities" who held no slaves could still lovingly support the CSA.
Bullshite.

In fact, non-slaveholding East Tennessee was a hotbed of Unionist insurrection and was treated as such by the CSA, most notably in the Bridge Burning Hangings (Dec. 1861), the exiling of East Tennessee Unionists and the Shelton Laurel Massacre (Jan. 1863).

Perhaps more important, East Tennessee was only one such region, others including:

Western Virginia
Western North Carolina
Northern Georgia
Northern Alabama
Arkansas Ozarks
Northern Texas & Texas Hill Country

FLT-bird: "You want to talk about oppression of civilian populations that were not supportive of the war? OK.
We can do that.
It was worse in the Union under Lincoln and afterwards under the Radical Republicans in Congress than it was in the Confederate states."

Nonsense.
There are no Northern analogies to Confederate massacres or drumhead trials of civilians & surrendering soldiers at:

Great Hangings at Gainesville, Texas, October 1862:

East Tennessee Bridge Burner hangings November-December 1861
Nueces Texas Massacre of Unionist civilians, August 1862
Great Hangings of civilians at Gainesville, North Texas, October 1862
Shelton Laurel massacre of civilians, North Carolina, January 1863
Lawrence Massacre of civilians, Kansas, August 1863
Baxter Springs Kansas Massacre of surrendering Union troops, October 1863
Massacres of black Union troops at Fort Pillow, Tennessee, Poison Springs, Arkansas & Saltville, Virginia

FLT-bird: "How many were unlawfully arrested during the war?
This is another area where historians disagree.
The numbers vary greatly.
One scholar, Alexander Johnston, writing in the 1880s, estimated it as high as 38,000.
Other historians believe this to be exaggerated.
Some estimates are around 14,000, which seems a bit low.
It was more than likely in the 20,000-30,000 range"

Neely estimated 14,000 Union arrests and identified 4,000 arrested in the Confederacy, which is per capita the same number.

But the correct answer is: zero were arrested unlawfully in the Union, while relatively equal numbers of Southern Unionists were arrested in the Confederacy, many murdered absolutely unlawfully by Confederates.
See some examples listed above.

Now you're not paying attention, are you? I mentioned East Tennessee because you say your ancestors came from East Tennessee and you used it to illustrate how "happy whities" who held no slaves could still lovingly support the CSA. Bullshite.

Bullshite indeed. It is you who is not paying attention. I said my ancestors lived in Tennessee at that time. I did not say East Tennessee. Take a look at a map of Tennessee and see if you can figure out where Giles County and Marshall County are.

Perhaps more important, East Tennessee was only one such region, others including: Western Virginia Western North Carolina Northern Georgia Northern Alabama Arkansas Ozarks Northern Texas & Texas Hill Country

There were some areas. Then again there were far more areas that did not have many slaves at all but which supported the Confederacy. Like most of Tennessee for example.

Nonsense. There are no Northern analogies to Confederate massacres or drumhead trials of civilians & surrendering soldiers at: Great Hangings at Gainesville, Texas, October 1862:

Nonsense indeed. There were not tens of thousands of civilians thrown into prison without charge or trial or at best trial before military tribunals only in the Confederacy unlike in the Union. Over 100 opposition newspapers were not shut down by order of Jefferson Davis. Confiscation acts were not passed in the border states and citizens were not disarmed in the border states unlike in the union.

Massacres of black Union troops at Fort Pillow, Tennessee.

There was no such "massacre". There was a running battle there with some soldiers surrendering and some still shooting. As is always the case in such situations, if some are still shooting then the other side assumes they are all threats and shoots them all. The same thing happened the other way at Drewry's Bluff and countless other places. Congress specifically questioned Nathan Bedford Forest about this and he was able to produce the receipts for the captured union soldiers he turned over to the Confederate Medical Corps. Even the Northern dominated Congress declined to charge him with anything after looking at the evidence. This was just so much propaganda put out by the Republican newspaper in Cincinnati right before the election.

Neely estimated 14,000 Union arrests and identified 4,000 arrested in the Confederacy, which is per capita the same number.

Historians have disagreed about the numbers but 14,000 is considered a low estimate for those arrested in the union. There's universal agreement among historians that Jefferson Davis suspended Habeas Corpus less often and far fewer were arrested in the Confederacy.

But the correct answer is: zero were arrested unlawfully in the Union, while relatively equal numbers of Southern Unionists were arrested in the Confederacy, many murdered absolutely unlawfully by Confederates.

The correct answer is that is pure Bullshite. Tens of thousands were arrested unlawfully in the Union. Some were tortured and some died. There were far fewer abuses of civil liberties in the Confederacy.

June 8, 1861 Tennessee vote: red=pro secession, blue=anti-secession:

FLT-bird: "I said my ancestors lived in Tennessee at that time.
I did not say East Tennessee.
Take a look at a map of Tennessee and see if you can figure out where Giles County and Marshall County are."

I see -- South-Central Tennessee, where about 30% of families in 1860 owned slaves meaning: if your ancestors there did not, then some of their relatives and neighbors did.
30% of slaveholding families is well within the range of regions which voted for secession and supported the Confederate cause.

Contrast your pro-secession Central and Westen Tennessee with Eastern Tennessee, which had very few slaves and only about 5% of families owned slaves.
Eastern Tennesseans:

Voted against secession by a margin of 2 to 1, even after Fort Sumter.
Tried to secede from Tennessee and form their own Union state, like West Virginia.
Burned railroad bridges to disrupt Confederate communications.
Suffered under Confederate army imposed martial law, revocation of habeas corpus, expulsions, deportations, drumhead trial hangings, and massacre ordered by Confederate commander to "take no prisoners".
Supplied more white troops to the Union army (31,000) than to Confederates (~20,000).

Bottom line: your Tennessee family was embedded in the the 30% slaveholder culture of Middle & Western Tennessee, not the 5% slaveholder anti-slavery pro-Union culture of East Tennessee.

FLT-bird or rebellion against the CSA: "There were some areas.
Then again there were far more areas that did not have many slaves at all but which supported the Confederacy.
Like most of Tennessee for example."

No, there were no such areas, not any!
Your ancestors' area of central Tennessee was deeply embedded in the Southern slave culture, with ~30% of slaveholding families.
All of the Southern regions which opposed secession and resisted the CSA had few to no slaves, including:

1861 votes for and against secession:

Western Virginia
Eastern Tennessee
Western North Carolina
Northern Georgia
Northern Alabama
Mississippi Free State of Jones, Piney Woods
Arkansas Ozarks
Southern Louisiana, including Cajun country
Northern Texas and Texas Hill Country

Combined, these regions provided nearly 100,000 white troops to the Union Army and suffered oppression, confiscations, martial law, drumhead hangings and massacres at the hands of Confederates.

FLT-bird: "There were not tens of thousands of civilians thrown into prison without charge or trial or at best trial before military tribunals only in the Confederacy unlike in the Union.
Over 100 opposition newspapers were not shut down by order of Jefferson Davis."

All that is 100% pure nonsense because:

Per capita suppression of dissent in the Confederacy was at least as vigorous as in the Union, arguably considerably more so.
Neely identified 14,401 Union military arrests of Union civilians, all but a handful of those being in Border States and conflict regions for:
- Trading with the enemy
- Blockade runners
- Guerillas & spies
- Draft evaders & assisting deserters
- Contractors cheating and supplying defective goods
- Small numbers of copperheads, agitators, newspaper editors and anti-war politicians
Neely identified 4,108 civilian Confederates arrested by Confederate authorities for:
- Unionism
- Harboring or sheltering Union sympathizers
- Anti-conscription agitation, draft resistors and civilians aiding deserters
- Religious conscientious objectors
- Being labeled "disloyal", “disaffected,” “dangerous,” or “unreliable” by CSA authorities
- Claiming the CW was a “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight”
- Writing letters to relatives in Union states
- Domestic violence against Confederate authorities
- Hiding goods from CSA impressment officials
- Trading with Union smugglers or forces

FLT-bird on Fort Pillow: "There was no such "massacre".
There was a running battle there with some soldiers surrendering and some still shooting.
As is always the case in such situations, if some are still shooting then the other side assumes they are all threats and shoots them all...
Congress specifically questioned Nathan Bedford Forest about this and he was able to produce the receipts for the captured union soldiers he turned over to the Confederate Medical Corps.
Even the Northern dominated Congress declined to charge him with anything after looking at the evidence.
This was just so much propaganda put out by the Republican newspaper in Cincinnati right before the election."

What a truckload of cr*p that is!
Here's the truth of it:

The US Congress did investigate Fort Pillow immediately after the events in April 1864, while war was still ongoing.
Congress found:
- There was a massacre ("slaughter", "butchery", "murder", "atrocity" in newspaper reports) of Union troops after surrender at Fort Pillow
- African American soldiers were deliberately & disproportionately targeted
- Confederate claims of a “false surrender” causing the deaths, do not align with casualty patterns or eyewitness testimony.
- Confederate law refused to recognize Black Union soldiers as lawful combatants.
  Confederate law required that captured Black soldiers be treated as enslaved insurrectionists rather than prisoners of war -- meaning they could be killed on sight -- a policy known to Confederate troops in the field.
Regarding Forrest, Congress found in May 1864 (paraphrasing):
Forrest did not testify to Congress (or anyone else) in 1864, since he was still in the field fighting the war!
When Forrest did finally testify to Congress, in June 1871, it was about his alleged role in the KKK (he denied it) and no question about Fort Pillow was ever raised or answered.

FLT-bird: "There's universal agreement among historians that Jefferson Davis suspended Habeas Corpus less often and far fewer were arrested in the Confederacy."

Neely's research shows that the Confederate per capita rate of civilian arrests was equal to or greater than the Union rate.
Further, that these arrests occurred within the Confederacy itself, predominately in regions which had voted against secession, not as was the Union, in Border States with large numbers of slaveholding pro-Confederates.

More important, Neely's research included only a small number of the 10 major Confederate regions (like Eastern Tennessee) which voted against secession and resisted Confederate authorities.
Other regions were not included because their CW records had been destroyed, leaving only newspaper and other informal reports.
However, there is zero reason to suppose that Confederate oppressions were any less in those regions than they were in regions for which more historical records survived.

I see -- South-Central Tennessee, where about 30% of families in 1860 owned slaves meaning: if your ancestors there did not, then some of their relatives and neighbors did.

None of the families who lived there at the time that I am descended from owned so much as a single slave. This was the norm throughout the Southern states at the time.

30% of slaveholding families is well within the range of regions which voted for secession and supported the Confederate cause.

1. I would need to see where you are getting that 30% figure and 2. 87% of Tennesseans voted to secede.

Contrast your pro-secession Central and Westen Tennessee with Eastern Tennessee, which had very few slaves and only about 5% of families owned slaves. Eastern Tennesseans: Voted against secession by a margin of 2 to 1, even after Fort Sumter. Tried to secede from Tennessee and form their own Union state, like West Virginia. Burned railroad bridges to disrupt Confederate communications. Suffered under Confederate army imposed martial law, revocation of habeas corpus, expulsions, deportations, drumhead trial hangings, and massacre ordered by Confederate commander to "take no prisoners". Supplied more white troops to the Union army (31,000) than to Confederates (~20,000). Bottom line: your Tennessee family was embedded in the the 30% slaveholder culture of Middle & Western Tennessee, not the 5% slaveholder anti-slavery pro-Union culture of East Tennessee.

Considering 87% of Tennesseans voted for secession, that tells you how small the population of East Tennessee was. I am actually descended from 3 different families from that area at that time (as well as others from different areas obviously) and NONE of the 3 families owned so much as a single slave. They all supported the Confederacy. That was their culture. It was the norm throughout the Southern states. Most of the White population did not own slaves and most supported the CSA.

No, there were no such areas, not any! Your ancestors' area of central Tennessee was deeply embedded in the Southern slave culture, with ~30% of slaveholding families.

See above. Where are you getting this 30% claim from? The rate of slave ownership in the Upper South was lower than in the Deep South AND the percentage of families in the entire CSA which owned slaves was 19.9%. So it seems rather farfetched to say it was 30% in central Tennessee at the time. Anyway, not owning any slaves and supporting the CSA was the NORM throughout the South. After all.....only 5.63% of individuals and 19.9% of White families owned slaves and yet the populations of those states overwhelmingly voted for secession and the overwhelming majority fought in the Confederate Army.

All that is 100% pure nonsense because: Per capita suppression of dissent in the Confederacy was at least as vigorous as in the Union, arguably considerably more so.

Yes but....no. That's pure BS.

Neely identified 14,401 Union military arrests of Union civilians, all but a handful of those being in Border States and conflict regions for: Trading with the enemy Blockade runners Guerillas & spies Draft evaders & assisting deserters Contractors cheating and supplying defective goods Small numbers of copperheads, agitators, newspaper editors and anti-war politicians Neely identified 4,108 civilian Confederates arrested by Confederate authorities for: Unionism Harboring or sheltering Union sympathizers Anti-conscription agitation, draft resistors and civilians aiding deserters Religious conscientious objectors Being labeled "disloyal", “disaffected,” “dangerous,” or “unreliable” by CSA authorities Claiming the CW was a “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight” Writing letters to relatives in Union states Domestic violence against Confederate authorities Hiding goods from CSA impressment officials Trading with Union smugglers or forces

Neely's estimate of 14,400 in the union is at the extreme low end of estimates. Most historians and others who have looked into the matter place the number far higher. Secondly, your claim that most were for cause is also pure BS. If they were arrested and held for cause they were usually actually charged with same. No, these were people arrested and held without charge.....ie they were arrested for simply disagreeing with Lincoln's war. There were far more people arbitrarily arrested and held in the Union than in the Confederacy then there are the matters of the torture they inflicted, the Newspapers shut down all telegraph traffic censored, confiscation acts, etc etc.

What a truckload of cr*p that is! Here's the truth of it: The US Congress did investigate Fort Pillow immediately after the events in April 1864, while war was still ongoing. Congress found: There was a massacre ("slaughter", "butchery", "murder", "atrocity" in newspaper reports) of Union troops after surrender at Fort Pillow African American soldiers were deliberately & disproportionately targeted Confederate claims of a “false surrender” causing the deaths, do not align with casualty patterns or eyewitness testimony. Confederate law refused to recognize Black Union soldiers as lawful combatants. Confederate law required that captured Black soldiers be treated as enslaved insurrectionists rather than prisoners of war -- meaning they could be killed on sight -- a policy known to Confederate troops in the field. Regarding Forrest, Congress found in May 1864 (paraphrasing): The massacre was committed by troops under Forrest’s command, after control was secured, and Forrest as commanding officer bore responsibility whether by action or failure to prevent it. Forrest did not testify to Congress (or anyone else) in 1864, since he was still in the field fighting the war! When Forrest did finally testify to Congress, in June 1871, it was about his alleged role in the KKK (he denied it) and no question about Fort Pillow was ever raised or answered.

As usual you are completely full of chit.

Firstly, the accusation made without evidence in 1864...ie during the war....when the Union Congress could not examine the evidence from both sides and were motivated by war fever are a complete joke. Even they could not substantiate any guilt on Forrest's part because they even recognized they lacked evidence. "Moreover, as the transcript will reveal, the Congress was unable to establish Forrest's guilt. Nevertheless, a careful review of the Fort Pillow investigation transcript reveals many inconsistencies, leaving room to question whether this investigation can be relied upon to inform Forrest's reputation." pg 35

"Despite Jordan and Pryor, among numerous biographers, going to great lengths to demonstrate that most, if not all, of the charges made against Forrest were unfounded...."

https://www.amazon.com/Campaigns-General-Bedford-Forrest-Forrests/dp/030680719X

...."Four, the Northern Congress did not include any testimony from Forrest or Southern sources. Fifth, numerous Union witnesses have later been determined to not have been on the battlefield the day of the conflict..."

That was the 1864 "investigation" by Congress. Testimony by union sources who weren't even there and no testimony by Southern Sources....in other words it was a complete joke exactly as one would expect during a war.

https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1351&context=etd

By the way, as is uncontested by anyone, Forrest's horse was shot out from under him early in the battle and rolled over him leaving his ribs pretty seriously bruised. As a result he was not even at the front that day like he usually was. Why do you suspect even the Union government never even saw fit to charge him with any crime for the Battle of Fort Pillow if they had proof of him being guilty of anything?

Neely's research shows that the Confederate per capita rate of civilian arrests was equal to or greater than the Union rate. Further, that these arrests occurred within the Confederacy itself, predominately in regions which had voted against secession, not as was the Union, in Border States with large numbers of slaveholding pro-Confederates.

Neely is the about the only one who even farcically claims the Confederates arrested anywhere near as many as the Union even on a per capita basis and the claim that the Union arrested mostly people in the Border States is a lie. They arrested tons of people throughout the Union. Hell, the most famous one was Senator Clement Vallandingham of Ohio. As usual, you're just spouting crap.

FLT-bird: "None of the families who lived there at the time that I am descended from owned so much as a single slave.
This was the norm throughout the Southern states at the time."

And yet, the 1860 census didn't lie.
It shows Giles & Marshall County (South-central TN) slave populations around 35% of the total and cotton as the major cash crop.
This puts those counties well within the Deep South's King Cotton slavery culture and locked Giles & Marshall loyalties into the CSA.
Giles & Marshall contrast sharply with Eastern Tennessee, where slaves & slaveholders made up less than 10% of the population, and also contrast with nine other notable anti-CSA regions of the Confederacy, all with few to no slaves, including:

Western Virginia
Eastern Tennessee
Western North Carolina
Northern Georgia
Northern Alabama
Mississippi Free State of Jones, Piney Woods
Arkansas Ozarks
Southern Louisiana, including Cajun country
Northern Texas and Texas Hill Country

FLT-bird: "1. I would need to see where you are getting that 30% figure and
2. 87% of Tennesseans voted to secede."

Two questions, two answers:

Mooney (foundational)
Tennessee Encyclopedia synthesis
Edwards (explicit “families” language)
Cimprich (East TN rarity & small scale)
Owsley structural analysis
Census Office spatial evidence

Any of these you can find with online inquiries, and are the basis for my % families owning slaves: 5%-8% East TN, 22%-28% Middle TN, 35%-45% West TN.
Bottom line: here are the numbers I found for Tennessee based on the 1860 census and secondary studies:

1860 Tennessee Population and Slaves by Region:

Area	Free population (approx.)	Estimated free families	Enslaved population	% enslaved of total pop.	% of free families owning slaves
East Tennessee	245,000	47,000	28,000	~10%	~5–8%
Middle Tennessee	435,000	84,000	155,000	~26%	~22–28%
West Tennessee	195,000	37,500	92,000	~32%	~35–45%
Tennessee (total)	875,000	168,000	275,719	24.9%	~25%

Giles County (Middle TN)	15,800	3,000	9,200	~37%	~40–45%
Marshall County (Middle TN)	11,400	2,200	6,100	~35%	~38–43%

As you can see, Giles & Marshall counties were in the heart of Tennessee's Cotton Belt and so achieved slave populations equal to or greater than those in even West Tennessee plantation counties.

87% of Tennesseans did not vote for secession on June 8, 1861.
The actual number was ~70%, and counties like Giles and Marshall did not change much -- they voted for a secession convention on February 9 by 75% and for secession on June 8 by over 90%.
That's because Giles & Marshall were solidly in the South-Central Tennessee Cotton-Belt slavery culture, so they voted with their Deep South Neighbors.
Also, East Tennessee counties like Scott, Sevier and Carter remained at ~95% against secession, while West TN counties like Shelby (Memphis) remained solidly (over 97%) for secession.
So the Feb.-June flip from anti-secession to pro-secession came most dramatically in Northern Middle TN counties -- those counties north of Giles & Marshall -- counties like Sumner, Wilson, Davidson (Nashville) & Rutherford.
Those were less tied to the Deep South's Cotton economy than were Giles & Marshall.

FLT-bird: "That was their culture.
It was the norm throughout the Southern states.
Most of the White population did not own slaves and most supported the CSA."

Again, Giles & Marshall (South-central TN) counties were deeply embedded in the Deep South's Cotton & slave culture, with slave populations over 35% of the total and slaveholding families around 40%.
This means, if your ancestors did not themselves own slaves, then their neighbors, cousins and other relations certainly did.
That's why, unlike East TN (i.e., Knoxville) and North-central TN (i.e., Nashville), which voted against secession in February, Giles & Marshall voted overwhelmingly for secession in both February and June, 1861.
Giles and Marshall did not need the Battle of Fort Sumter to motivate them to join the Deep South's Confederacy because they were already part of it, economically and culturally.

FLT-bird: "Neely's estimate of 14,400 in the union is at the extreme low end of estimates. "

No, those 14,401 are identified and named individuals, not estimates.
From those you can extrapolate, calculate or estimate until the cows come home, but Neely's are names, not estimates.

The same is true of Neely's 4,108 Confederate civilians arrested by CSA authorities -- a number that is relatively equal to the Union arrests per capita but is based on far less systematic records available.
IOW, just as you can extrapolate, calculate & estimate Union numbers based on Neely's 14,401 named Union individuals, so you also extrapolate, calculate or estimate based on his 4,108 named Confederates.

And yet, the 1860 census didn't lie. It shows Giles & Marshall County (South-central TN) slave populations around 35% of the total and cotton as the major cash crop. This puts those counties well within the Deep South's King Cotton slavery culture and locked Giles & Marshall loyalties into the CSA. Giles & Marshall contrast sharply with Eastern Tennessee, where slaves & slaveholders made up less than 10% of the population, and also contrast with nine other notable anti-CSA regions of the Confederacy, all with few to no slaves, including:

and yet the 1860 US Census shows not a single slave in the 3 families I'm descended from in that area. Also despite only 4.42% of the White population owning slaves in Tennessee, 87% of the population voted for secession. Obviously most non slave owners voted to secede..

This link shows the percentages of slave populations in Eastern (9%), Central (29%) and Western (34%) Tennessee, 1860. It also shows overall Tennessee slave population as 25%. Numerous studies support slaveholding family numbers, including: Mooney (foundational) Tennessee Encyclopedia synthesis Edwards (explicit “families” language) Cimprich (East TN rarity & small scale) Owsley structural analysis Census Office spatial evidence Any of these you can find with online inquiries, and are the basis for my % families owning slaves: 5%-8% East TN, 22%-28% Middle TN, 35%-45% West TN. Bottom line: here are the numbers I found for Tennessee based on the 1860 census and secondary studies: 1860 Tennessee Population and Slaves by Region: Area Free population (approx.) Estimated free families Enslaved population % enslaved of total pop. % of free families owning slaves East Tennessee 245,000 47,000 28,000 ~10% ~5–8% Middle Tennessee 435,000 84,000 155,000 ~26% ~22–28% West Tennessee 195,000 37,500 92,000 ~32% ~35–45% Tennessee (total) 875,000 168,000 275,719 24.9% ~25% Giles County (Middle TN) 15,800 3,000 9,200 ~37% ~40–45% Marshall County (Middle TN) 11,400 2,200 6,100 ~35% ~38–43% As you can see, Giles & Marshall counties were in the heart of Tennessee's Cotton Belt and so achieved slave populations equal to or greater than those in even West Tennessee plantation counties.

According to the 1860 US census, the percent of the White population in Tennessee which owned slaves was 4.42%. The rates were higher in central and eastern Tennessee but the overwhelming majority of White families in both regions did not own slaves. The culture was therefore one of not owning slaves.

87% of Tennesseans did not vote for secession on June 8, 1861. The actual number was ~70%, and counties like Giles and Marshall did not change much -- they voted for a secession convention on February 9 by 75% and for secession on June 8 by over 90%. That's because Giles & Marshall were solidly in the South-Central Tennessee Cotton-Belt slavery culture, so they voted with their Deep South Neighbors. Also, East Tennessee counties like Scott, Sevier and Carter remained at ~95% against secession, while West TN counties like Shelby (Memphis) remained solidly (over 97%) for secession.

The Entire states had a non slave owning culture since that represents the vast majority of families even in central and western Tennessee. The state voted not to secede until Lincoln chose to start a war to impose federal government rule on states that did not consent to it. Then Tennessee voted overwhelmingly in favor of secession..

So the Feb.-June flip from anti-secession to pro-secession came most dramatically in Northern Middle TN counties -- those counties north of Giles & Marshall -- counties like Sumner, Wilson, Davidson (Nashville) & Rutherford. Those were less tied to the Deep South's Cotton economy than were Giles & Marshall.

Obviously the cotton economy you claim existed in those areas was not enough to get the state to vote in favor of secession until Lincoln chose to start a war. Lincoln's war was clearly the issue they seceded over

FLT-bird: "That was their culture. It was the norm throughout the Southern states. Most of the White population did not own slaves and most supported the CSA." Again, Giles & Marshall (South-central TN) counties were deeply embedded in the Deep South's Cotton & slave culture, with slave populations over 35% of the total and slaveholding families around 40%.

Again most White families did not own slaves. Their culture was one of non slave ownership. Also my research shows that the rate of slave ownership in Marshall county was about 25%.

This means, if your ancestors did not themselves own slaves, then their neighbors, cousins and other relations certainly did.

They did not own any and most of their neighbors, cousins and other relations did not own any.....most of Giles and Marshall counties certainly did not own any.

That's why, unlike East TN (i.e., Knoxville) and North-central TN (i.e., Nashville), which voted against secession in February, Giles & Marshall voted overwhelmingly for secession in both February and June, 1861.

Davidson county....ie Nashville voted overwhelmingly for secession. 93.3%

Giles and Marshall did not need the Battle of Fort Sumter to motivate them to join the Deep South's Confederacy because they were already part of it, economically and culturally.

They supported the CSA in both. Their culture like most of the rest of the South was one of non slave ownership since the overwhelming majority of White Southerners did not own any slaves.

No, those 14,401 are identified and named individuals, not estimates. From those you can extrapolate, calculate or estimate until the cows come home, but Neely's are names, not estimates.

No. Neely's estimate is at the extreme low end. Records from the Provost Marshal's office in Washington D.C. indicate as many as 38,000 citizens were arrested and made prisoner without the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus.

IOW, just as you can extrapolate, calculate & estimate Union numbers based on Neely's 14,401 named Union individuals, so you also extrapolate, calculate or estimate based on his 4,108 named Confederates.

I already cited the source for the 38,000 figure.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/lincolns-prisoners/

FLT-bird: "and yet the 1860 US Census shows not a single slave in the 3 families I'm descended from in that area.
Also despite only 4.42% of the White population owning slaves in Tennessee, 87% of the population voted for secession.
Obviously most non slave owners voted to secede.."

I don't doubt that you are telling the truth about your own ancestors, but I'm certain someone is lying about the 87% voting for slavery.

Where did the bogus 87% come from?
Here is one source:
That claim is false.
Here is the real vote on June 8, 1861: 69.6% for secession.
However, your 87% could be true, if you exclude East Tennessee from the totals.
IOW, this is likely true: "87% of Tennessee voters outside East Tennessee voted for secession on June 8, 1861.
Non-slaveholding East Tennesseans voted 2 to 1 against secession".
FLT-bird: "...despite only 4.42% of the White population owning slaves in Tennessee"
"4.42% of whites" is irrelevant, what matters is that roughly 25% of Tennessee voters owned slaves and they all voted for secession on both February 9 and June 8, 1861.
This means a vast majority of non-slaveholders voted against secession on February 9, but a small majority of non-slaveholders (55%) voted for secession on June 8.
The flips from anti-secession to pro-secession happened primarily in the North-central TN counties around Nashville.

FLT-bird: "According to the 1860 US census, the percent of the White population in Tennessee which owned slaves was 4.42%."

Your 4.2% of the white population is roughly 25% of all voters.
Those 42,000 slaveholders all voted for secession on both February 9 and June 8.
So, what changed was that on February 9, some 90% of non-slaveholders voted against secession, while on June 8, about 55% of non-slaveholders voted for secession and that's what flipped Tennessee.

FLT-bird: "The Entire states had a non slave owning culture since that represents the vast majority of families even in central and western Tennessee. "

Slaveholders dominated Tennessee economically, politically and culturally in West Tennessee and in South-Central TN, where Giles & Marshall counties are.

We know this because Giles & Marshall counties had over 35% of slaves & slaveholding families and the counties voted over 70% for secession on February 9, then over 90% for secession on June 8, 1861.

FLT-bird: "Obviously the cotton economy you claim existed in those areas was not enough to get the state to vote in favor of secession until Lincoln chose to start a war."

West Tennessee's cotton economy-culture-politics voted ~90% for secession on both February 9 and June 8, 1861.
South Central Tennessee's (including Giles & Marshall) cotton economy voted over 70% for secession on February 9 and over 90% for secession on June 8.
Non-slaveholding East Tennessee voted over 80% against secession on February 9 and 70% against secession on June 8.

Tennessee's non-slaveholders voted over 90% against secession on February 9, but flipped to ~55% for slavery on June 8.
Obviously, a small majority of non-slaveholders bought into Confederate propaganda that even though Jefferson Davis attacked and took Fort Sumter, it was Lincoln who "chose war".

FLT-bird: "Again most White families did not own slaves.
Their culture was one of non slave ownership.
Also my research shows that the rate of slave ownership in Marshall county was about 25%."

Yes, ~25% was the average for Tennessee in 1860, but Giles and Marshall counties were far from average.
Marshall County's slave population was 35% of the total, making Marshall equivalent to Deep Cotton South states where 35% to 40% of families owned slaves.
Marshall County voted 71% for secession on February 9 and 94% for secession on June 8.
Giles County votes were roughly the same (74% & 99%).

So, any suggestions that Giles & Marshall were not then deeply embedded in the Deep Cotton South economy-culture-politics are lacking in evidence.

FLT-bird: "Davidson county....ie Nashville voted overwhelmingly for secession. 93.3%"

Davidson county voted 55% against secession on February 9, then 93% for secession on June 8, 1861.

FLT-bird: "They supported the CSA in both.
Their culture like most of the rest of the South was one of non slave ownership since the overwhelming majority of White Southerners did not own any slaves."

Slave populations in both Giles and Marshall counties were over 35%, meaning slaveholding families were also over 35%.
There is no evidence -- zero, nada, zip evidence -- suggesting the other 65% of families (& voters) did not sympathize with the economic, cultural & political interests of the 35% slaveholding families in Giles & Marshall counties, Tennessee.

FLT-bird: "Neely's estimate is at the extreme low end.
Records from the Provost Marshal's office in Washington D.C. indicate as many as 38,000 citizens were arrested and made prisoner without the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus."

All of that is a lie.
The truth is:

Neely's numbers -- 14,401 arrests -- are not an "estimate", they are a count of actual records, including those from the Provost Marshal's office in Washington D.C.
Neely made no estimates about how many the total number of military arrests might be, so you are free to speculate all you wish, Neely does not support any number higher than the actual 14,401 records he counted.
There are no estimates by any historian supporting any number higher than Neely's 14,401 arrest.
All of the higher numbers -- up to 38,000 -- come from unnamed sources based on nothing more that wild-assed guesses.
Specifically, your claim about 38,000 records counted at the "Provost Marshal's office in Washington D.C." is a flat-out lie.
No such count ever existed.
It is a total concocted number.

FLT-bird: "I already cited the source for the 38,000 figure."

Abbeville Institute is your source and this is the quote:

"How many were unlawfully arrested during the war?
This is another area where historians disagree.
The numbers vary greatly.
One scholar, Alexander Johnston, writing in the 1880s, estimated it as high as 38,000.
Other historians believe this to be exaggerated.
Some estimates are around 14,000, which seems a bit low.
It was more than likely in the 20,000-30,000 range.
Despite the discrepancy, there were, without doubt, thousands of arbitrary arrests over the four-year conflict."

Repeating & expanding on previously posted facts:

None of the alleged "38,000" arrests were "unlawful" at the time, nor has any of them ever been legally declared unlawful since.
There is no physical record of Alexander Johnson ever claiming "38,000 unlawful arrests".
None of Johnson's surviving works say "38,000", only secondary sources claim he put that number on them.
No scholars before or since Neely's 1992 & 1999 books on Civil War-related arrests have ever examined & quantified the total number of records of such arrests.

Bottom line: Whatever numbers or criteria they chose, Johnson & other scholars (except Neely) were all making wild-ass guestimates on how many of what type of arrests happened in either the Union or by Confederate authorities during the Civil War.
None of them did the serious work to find & count actual records, except Neely.

Obviously most non slave owners voted to secede.." I don't doubt that you are telling the truth about your own ancestors, but I'm certain someone is lying about the 87% voting for slavery. Where did the bogus 87% come from? Here is one source: "However, just months later, Tennessee would make a complete reversal. By June 8, a second referendum saw 88% of voters in favor of secession. What, you might be asking, caused such a dramatic shift?" That claim is false. Here is the real vote on June 8, 1861: 69.6% for secession. However, your 87% could be true, if you exclude East Tennessee from the totals. IOW, this is likely true: "87% of Tennessee voters outside East Tennessee voted for secession on June 8, 1861. Non-slaveholding East Tennesseans voted 2 to 1 against secession".

I thought I saw 87% but I could not locate that again and other sources said 70%. OK. I'll accept 70%. Only 4.42% of the White population in Tennessee owned slaves and only males could vote at that time. So 70% voting in favor of secession indicates a large majority of the non slave owning White male population of Tennessee voted to secede.

"4.42% of whites" is irrelevant, what matters is that roughly 25% of Tennessee voters owned slaves and they all voted for secession on both February 9 and June 8, 1861.

Wrong. Women could and did own slaves yet could not vote at the time. Some of that 4.42% of slave owners in Tennessee were women. Families did not vote. Only White Males voted. So it was less than 4.42% of the voters that owned slaves. Yet Tennesseans voted with a 70% majority to secede.

This means a vast majority of non-slaveholders voted against secession on February 9, but a small majority of non-slaveholders (55%) voted for secession on June 8.

No. As I just demonstrated, you got your numbers wrong. Families did not vote. White males did. Less than 4.42% of White males (of voting age) owned slaves. Therefore it was a large majority of the non slave owning White Male population that voted for secession. The math simply does not work any other way.

Your 4.2% of the white population is roughly 25% of all voters.

No its not. Families did not vote. Children did not vote. Women did not vote. Only White males voted.

Those 42,000 slaveholders all voted for secession on both February 9 and June 8.

Presumably a majority of them did though there were doubtless slave owners who voted against secession. I know you would like to reduce everything to slavery but it simply was not so. There were slave owners who were pro union. It happened in all the border states and no doubt happened in some of the non border Southern states too. Grant's wife owned slaves for example.....

So, what changed was that on February 9, some 90% of non-slaveholders voted against secession, while on June 8, about 55% of non-slaveholders voted for secession and that's what flipped Tennessee.

You have your percentages wrong because you failed to grasp who was voting.....and who was not.

Slaveholders dominated Tennessee economically, politically and culturally in West Tennessee and in South-Central TN, where Giles & Marshall counties are.

They "dominated"? How would you prove that? They were only at most 19.9% of of families and less than 4.42% of adult White Males.

We know this because Giles & Marshall counties had over 35% of slaves & slaveholding families and the counties voted over 70% for secession on February 9, then over 90% for secession on June 8, 1861.

But families did not vote. Adult White Males did. Only a relatively small percentage of adult White Males in both counties owned slaves. Ergo, for the vote for secession to exceed 90%, that indicated a large majority of non slaveowners voted for secession.

West Tennessee's cotton economy-culture-politics voted ~90% for secession on both February 9 and June 8, 1861. South Central Tennessee's (including Giles & Marshall) cotton economy voted over 70% for secession on February 9 and over 90% for secession on June 8. Non-slaveholding East Tennessee voted over 80% against secession on February 9 and 70% against secession on June 8.

Yet East Tennessee was a clear minority of the state's population and a large majority of the state voted for secession after Lincoln started a war.

Tennessee's non-slaveholders voted over 90% against secession on February 9, but flipped to ~55% for slavery on June 8.

Obviously over 90% of non slaveholders did NOT vote against secession. Only less than 4.42% of Adult White Males owned slaves. This is about the 5th time I've had to explain this to you in this one post alone.

Obviously, a small majority of non-slaveholders bought into Confederate propaganda that even though Jefferson Davis attacked and took Fort Sumter, it was Lincoln who "chose war".

Obviously a relatively large majority of non slaveholders voted to secede after Lincoln invaded South Carolina's territory and deliberately started a war.

Also my research shows that the rate of slave ownership in Marshall county was about 25%."

Marshall county had 729 slave owners out of a total free population of 14592. That works out to 5% of the total free population.

Yes, ~25% was the average for Tennessee in 1860, but Giles and Marshall counties were far from average. Marshall County's slave population was 35% of the total, making Marshall equivalent to Deep Cotton South states where 35% to 40% of families owned slaves.

19.9% of families in Tennessee owned slaves and what matters in terms of the voting and political power is not the number of slaves. Its the number of slave owners. Only 5% of the total free population of the county owned slaves.

Marshall County voted 71% for secession on February 9 and 94% for secession on June 8.

And given only 5% of the total free population of the county owned slaves.....

So, any suggestions that Giles & Marshall were not then deeply embedded in the Deep Cotton South economy-culture-politics are lacking in evidence.

All you've demonstrated is that both counties consistently voted for secession. You haven't proven an especially high rate of slave ownership.

Davidson county voted 55% against secession on February 9, then 93% for secession on June 8, 1861.

Yep. They agreed with Jefferson that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed and a government that tries to impose its rule over people who do not consent to it is not legitimate.

Slave populations in both Giles and Marshall counties were over 35%, meaning slaveholding families were also over 35%.

Woah! You think the a large population of slaves automatically means there were therefore a high percentage of slave owners? Not necessarily. A few slave owners could own a lot of slaves. That would not mean most of the White population were slave owners. That is a bad assumption on your part.

There is no evidence -- zero, nada, zip evidence -- suggesting the other 65% of families (& voters) did not sympathize with the economic, cultural & political interests of the 35% slaveholding families in Giles & Marshall counties, Tennessee.

You have not shown that anything like 35% of White families in these counties owned slaves. The percentage for Giles was difficult to find but the exact number of slave owners and total White population for Marshall county shows only 5% of that population owned slaves. It would be hard to believe that 5% somehow comprised 35% of White families in that county.

The relatively low rate of slave ownership and the overwhelming majority voting in favor of secession indicates most non slaveowners supported secession - just as was the case statewide.

All of that is a lie. The truth is: Neely's numbers -- 14,401 arrests -- are not an "estimate", they are a count of actual records, including those from the Provost Marshal's office in Washington D.C. Neely made no estimates about how many the total number of military arrests might be, so you are free to speculate all you wish, Neely does not support any number higher than the actual 14,401 records he counted. There are no estimates by any historian supporting any number higher than Neely's 14,401 arrest. All of the higher numbers -- up to 38,000 -- come from unnamed sources based on nothing more that wild-assed guesses. Specifically, your claim about 38,000 records counted at the "Provost Marshal's office in Washington D.C." is a flat-out lie. No such count ever existed. It is a total concocted number.

That is a lie. I posted the source and I posted a link to the source. You are simply lying by saying otherwise. A simple google search yields "High Estimate (38,000): This figure is often cited based on research by scholar Alexander Johnston in the 1880s, which is frequently referenced in historical discussions of the arrests."

Here's another source: "The American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1865 stated that the total number of military arrests in the North, during the War Between the States, had been thirty-eight thousand. (Columbia Law Review, XXI, 527–28, 1921)"

Abbeville Institute is your source and this is the quote:.......Repeating & expanding on previously posted facts: None of the alleged "38,000" arrests were "unlawful" at the time, nor has any of them ever been legally declared unlawful since. There is no physical record of Alexander Johnson ever claiming "38,000 unlawful arrests". None of Johnson's surviving works say "38,000", only secondary sources claim he put that number on them. No scholars before or since Neely's 1992 & 1999 books on Civil War-related arrests have ever examined & quantified the total number of records of such arrests. Bottom line: Whatever numbers or criteria they chose, Johnson & other scholars (except Neely) were all making wild-ass guestimates on how many of what type of arrests happened in either the Union or by Confederate authorities during the Civil War. None of them did the serious work to find & count actual records, except Neely.

As I've already shown, this is BS. SCOTUS has since ruled that the president alone may not suspend habeas corpus - particularly when the regular courts are operating. Thus all arrests at Lincoln's arbitrary order were unconstitutional - Justice Taney was fully vindicated in his ruling. The Abbeville was just the first source I listed. As I've shown in this post, there were others. Yes their research was serious. It was just inconvenient for you.

FLT-bird: "I thought I saw 87% but I could not locate that again and other sources said 70%.
OK. I'll accept 70%."

You're not wrong -- your Abbeville source did say 88%, but that number can only be true if you exclude East Tennessee's opposition to secession (by 2 to 1) from your calculations.
Once East Tennessee is included, the overall secession vote falls from circa 88% to the actual 70%.
Regardless, the June 8, 1861 vote is a serious majority for secession and a major flip from the first vote on February 9, 1861.

FLT-bird #533: "Also my research shows that the rate of slave ownership in Marshall county was about 25%."

25% of Marshall families & voters owned slaves -- that is much closer to the truth than 4.42%.
The actual number is 29%, but if you agree with 25%, then we are in the same ball park at least.

FLT-bird: "Only 4.42% of the White population in Tennessee owned slaves and only males could vote at that time.
So 70% voting in favor of secession indicates a large majority of the non slave owning White male population of Tennessee voted to secede."

Do the math.
Your 4.42% of the free citizens holding slaves is 36,844 (from the 1860 census) which is ~25% of all families & voters = 36,844 of ~127,000 voters on February 9 and ~155,000 voters in the June 8, 1861, elections.

Now, if you subtract those pro-slavery, pro-secession 36,844 from the total pro-secession votes, you see that ~77% of non-slaveholders voted against secession on February 9 and 60% of non-slaveholders voted for secession on June 8, 1861.
Look at the votes by county and you'll see that the biggest flips from anti-secession to pro-secession came in North Central Tennessee, around Nashville.

Giles & Marshall (in South-Central TN) voted pro-secession (~70%) on February 9 and pro-secession (>90%) on June 8.

FLT-bird: "Women could and did own slaves yet could not vote at the time.
Some of that 4.42% of slave owners in Tennessee were women.
Families did not vote.
Only White Males voted.
So it was less than 4.42% of the voters that owned slaves."

White male heads of families voted, so the total number of families (149,000) approximates the total number of voters (127,000 & 155,000).

What's true is that women slaveholders could reach 40% of all slaveholders in big cities like New Orleans and Charleston.
However, in rural plantation regions like South-Central Tennessee, things were very different.
There, women or children slaveholders amounted to only 5% of all slaveholders, with 95% of slaveholders being white male heads of households.
And even with the 5% women slaveholders, nearly every woman represented a family with adult male voters whose economic-social-political interests supported the dominant slave-culture.

FLT-bird: "Yet Tennesseans voted with a 70% majority to secede."

Nearly 100% of Tennessee's 36,844 slaveholders (or male relatives) voted for secession on both February 9 and June 8, 1861.
Non-slaveholders voted ~68% against secession on February 9, but flipped to vote 60% for secession on June 8.
That's why the overall came to 70% for secession on June 8.

FLT-bird #533: "Also my research shows that the rate of slave ownership in Marshall county was about 25%."

25% of Marshall families & voters owned slaves -- that is much closer to the truth than 4.42%.
The actual number is 29%, but if you agree with 25%, then we are in the same ball park at least.

FLT-bird: "Less than 4.42% of White males (of voting age) owned slaves."

I'm certain you know better than that.
Your 4.42% (36,844) is not the percentage of white male voters who owned slaves, it's the percentage of the entire white population (834,082), including women & children.
Your 4.42% represents overall about 25% of Tennessee's adult male voters.

Here's the same table again, updated and enhanced to show the June 8, 1861 voting percentages:

1860 Tennessee Population, Slaveholders and Voting, by Region:

Area	Free population	Free families	Enslaved population	% enslaved of total population	Number of slaveholders	% of free families owning slaves	% vote FOR secession (June 8, 1861)
East Tennessee	~350,000	~62,000	~25,000	~7%	~2,500 (apportioned)	~4%	~32%
Middle Tennessee	~300,000	~50,000	~125,000	~29%	~16,500–17,500 (apportioned)	~33–35%	~88%
West Tennessee	~184,000	~37,000	~125,000	~40%	~14,000–14,800 (apportioned)	~38–40%	~83%
Tennessee (Total)	834,082	149,335	275,719	24.8%	36,844 (counted)	24.7%	69.6%
Giles County	~16,800	~3,050	~7,400	~31%	~975	~32%	99.6%
Marshall County	~14,200	~2,550	~4,900	~25%	~740	~29%	94.2%

FLT-bird: "You have your percentages wrong because you failed to grasp who was voting.....and who was not."

Are you still confused about this?
Do you understand yet that the total number of voters (~150,000) roughly equaled the total number of heads of households (~149,000) and that roughly 25% (~37,000) of those were slaveholders ?

FLT-bird #533: "Also my research shows that the rate of slave ownership in Marshall county was about 25%."

25% of Marshall families & voters owned slaves -- that is much closer to the truth than 4.42%.
The actual number is 29%, but if you agree with 25%, then we are in the same ball park at least.

FLT-bird: "Marshall county had 729 slave owners out of a total free population of 14592.
That works out to 5% of the total free population."

You're right on 729 slaveholders out of 14,592 total free population = 5% of the free population owned slaves.

I've corrected my numbers in the table above.

However, the point you deliberately miss is that those 729 slaveholders represent ~29% of families, heads of households and voters.
Even where a small number of those were women or children, they still represent families whose adult men voted in the best interests of the Southern slave culture.

FLT-bird: "That is a lie.
I posted the source and I posted a link to the source.
You are simply lying by saying otherwise.
A simple google search yields "High Estimate (38,000): This figure is often cited based on research by scholar Alexander Johnston in the 1880s, which is frequently referenced in historical discussions of the arrests." "

If you dig deeper into Johnson, you find:

There is no surviving work from Johnson which claims "38,000 illegal arrests", and no evidence he ever studied or counted the historical records.
All of the sources claiming Johnson said "38,000" are secondary and do not quote him directly.
Nobody except Neely has ever actually counted the Civil War related arrest records of both Union and Confederacy.
Neely does not claim his numbers are the total of all arrests, only that they are the total of all surviving CW records.

25% of Marshall families & voters owned slaves -- that is much closer to the truth than 4.42%.

4.42% is the individuals in the White population who owned slaves.

Your 4.42% of the free citizens holding slaves is 36,844 (from the 1860 census) which is ~25% of all families & voters = 36,844 of ~127,000 voters on February 9 and ~155,000 voters in the June 8, 1861, elections.

The calculation was 19.9% of families rather than 25%

Now, if you subtract those pro-slavery, pro-secession 36,844 from the total pro-secession votes, you see that ~77% of non-slaveholders voted against secession on February 9 and 60% of non-slaveholders voted for secession on June 8, 1861.

You are ASSUMING every slave owner voted for secession. You have no evidence they did. I can cite numerous examples of pro union slave owners.....like the Grants for example.

White male heads of families voted, so the total number of families (149,000) approximates the total number of voters (127,000 & 155,000).

Once again, you are ASSUMING every adult White male had a family. While most would have, certainly not all of them would have. Also, you don't know if the people who voted were the heads of families.

What's true is that women slaveholders could reach 40% of all slaveholders in big cities like New Orleans and Charleston. However, in rural plantation regions like South-Central Tennessee, things were very different. There, women or children slaveholders amounted to only 5% of all slaveholders, with 95% of slaveholders being white male heads of households. And even with the 5% women slaveholders, nearly every woman represented a family with adult male voters whose economic-social-political interests supported the dominant slave-culture.

Where are you getting this from? I'll need to see some evidence that only 5% of slaveowners were women. Also, female slave owners would likely belong to families in which there were also male slave owners, which means that the number of families that owned slaves would be smaller because there were multiple slave owners in some single families.

Nearly 100% of Tennessee's 36,844 slaveholders (or male relatives) voted for secession on both February 9 and June 8, 1861.

You know how everyone voted? How? That's just an assumption on your part.

Non-slaveholders voted ~68% against secession on February 9, but flipped to vote 60% for secession on June 8. That's why the overall came to 70% for secession on June 8.

While there is no way of knowing how individuals voted, The flip in the vote after Feb 9 must have happened mostly among non slaveowners because they were a large majority of all voters and the vote did flip pretty significantly from 45% to 70%.

I'm certain you know better than that. Your 4.42% (36,844) is not the percentage of white male voters who owned slaves, it's the percentage of the entire white population (834,082), including women & children. Your 4.42% represents overall about 25% of Tennessee's adult male voters.

The Source you cited earlier said 19.9%

Are you still confused about this? Do you understand yet that the total number of voters (~150,000) roughly equaled the total number of heads of households (~149,000) and that roughly 25% (~37,000) of those were slaveholders ?

You seem to be. 4.42% of the Total White population owned slaves. 19.9% of White families owned slaves. 45% voted for secession the first time and 70% the second time. Ergo even if ever slave owner voted for secession - which is something that nobody has shown - slave owners could not have been the majority of votes for secession in either referendum.

Even where a small number of those were women or children, they still represent families whose adult men voted in the best interests of the Southern slave culture.

You don't know how anybody voted and slavery was just fine within the union. So I do not buy the argument that a vote for secession was a vote in favor of Slavery. The best way of protecting slavery would have been to stay in the union.

There is no surviving work from Johnson which claims "38,000 illegal arrests", and no evidence he ever studied or counted the historical records. All of the sources claiming Johnson said "38,000" are secondary and do not quote him directly. Nobody except Neely has ever actually counted the Civil War related arrest records of both Union and Confederacy.

I disagree with that. I've cited others who researched it as well and I've cited two that said 38,000. Most sources say that most historians who have examined the record in this period think its 25,000 to 30,000.

FLT-bird: "The calculation was 19.9% of families rather than 25%"

FLT-bird: "4.42% of the Total White population owned slaves.
19.9% of White families owned slaves.
45% voted for secession the first time and 70% the second time.
Ergo even if ever slave owner voted for secession - which is something that nobody has shown - slave owners could not have been the majority of votes for secession in either referendum."

The difference between your 19.9% any my 24.7% is in the methodology and assumptions.
Both numbers have been proposed and defended:
From the 1860 census:

834,082 = total free population (from the census)
149,335 = total free families (counted from the census)
36,844 = total slaveholders (adjusted for multiple slaveholders per family)
= 24.7% of TN families owned slaves in 1860.

25% slaveholding families is supported by scholars:
"Gary Edwards, speaking at the Stones River symposium, similarly states that about 25% of Tennessee families owned slaves"

But so is your 19.9%:
Tennessee State University materials state:

“The slaves were owned by 36,894 persons, less than twenty percent of Tennessee’s white families.”

That should be "case closed" on whether slavery was a determining factor in Tennessee's votes on secession.

FLT-bird: "You are ASSUMING every slave owner voted for secession.
You have no evidence they did.
I can cite numerous examples of pro union slave owners.....like the Grants for example."

Pro-Union slaveholders like Frederick Dent were a small minority, ~10%, among slaveholders, even in Union slave-states like Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland & Delaware.
Such men were rare to non-existent in the Deep Cotton South and export-cotton growing regions of Upper South states like Tennessee.

We can see this in such high slavery counties as Marshall and Giles, Tennessee, where ~70% voted for secession on February 9 and nearly 100% on June 8, 1861.

FLT-bird: "Once again, you are ASSUMING every adult White male had a family.
While most would have, certainly not all of them would have.
Also, you don't know if the people who voted were the heads of families."

Different methodologies for counting families and slaveholders produce results which range from your ~20% to my ~25% of families holding slaves.
I doubt if we'll ever get more precise than those two numbers -- 20% to 25% of Tennessee families & voters owned slaves.

FLT-bird: "Where are you getting this from? I'll need to see some evidence that only 5% of slaveowners were women. "

Here is a good source.
Here is another.
And here is a third.

What these show is that:

Census‑based analyses and county‑level slave schedules indicate that in rural cotton‑producing counties of Middle Tennessee, slaveholding was overwhelmingly concentrated among white male household heads, with women comprising only a very small minority of recorded slaveholders—typically widows or estate representatives.
This contrasts sharply with major slave‑market cities such as New Orleans and Charleston, where women constituted roughly 30–40 percent of documented slave owners.

From this, I put women slaveholder in rural plantation counties like Giles & Marshall, TN, as in the range of 5% rather than the up to 40% in large port cities like New Orleans or Charleston.

FLT-bird: "While there is no way of knowing how individuals voted, The flip in the vote after Feb 9 must have happened mostly among non slaveowners because they were a large majority of all voters and the vote did flip pretty significantly from 45% to 70%."

That is correct, but we can easily see that the higher percentage of slaveholders, the higher the percentage voting for secession -- on both February 9 and June 8, 1861.
Regions with low % slaveholders voted against secession both times, while those with high % slaveholders (like Giles & Marshall) voted for secession both times.

FLT-bird: "I do not buy the argument that a vote for secession was a vote in favor of Slavery.
The best way of protecting slavery would have been to stay in the union."

That was the opinion of Grant's father-in-law, Frederick Dent of St. Louis, Missouri.
But Dent's views were a small (~10%) minority even among Border State slaveholders and were almost unknown in the Deep Cotton South in 1861.

FLT-bird: "I've cited others who researched it as well and I've cited two that said 38,000.
Most sources say that most historians who have examined the record in this period think its 25,000 to 30,000."

The truth is, no recognized historian has put a total number on either Union or Confederate "illegal arrests", and only one, Mark Neely, has taken the time to actually count all the actual records available for what Neely calls "arbitrary arrests" (not "illegal arrests").
Neely does not claim his numbers (~14,400 Union, ~4,000 Confederate) are the actual totals, only that they are the totals of surviving records.

But regardless of the overall average, what matters is that in regions with fewer slaveholders, voters rejected secession on both February 9 and June 8 while the opposite is true in regions with higher percentages of slaveholders. That should be "case closed" on whether slavery was a determining factor in Tennessee's votes on secession.

Why should it? In the regions that had more slave owners, most of the votes for secession in both referenda were from Non Slave Owners. Any other outcome is mathematically impossible.

Julia Dent Grant's father, Frederick, owned a 30-slave plantation of 850 acres just west of St. Louis, Missouri. Dent did not grow export-oriented crops like cotton, tobacco or rice, instead he grew wheat, corn, potatoes and other produce for sale in St. Louis produce markets. St. Louis was the locus of Missouri Unionism so Dent, like other slaveholding Unionists recognized his own best interests lay with the Union. Pro-Union slaveholders like Frederick Dent were a small minority, ~10%, among slaveholders, even in Union slave-states like Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland & Delaware. Such men were rare to non-existent in the Deep Cotton South and export-cotton growing regions of Upper South states like Tennessee.

You are claiming that without any evidence. There were plenty of slave owning unionists in border states. For all we know there were more than a few in the states of the Upper and Deep South as well.

We can see this in such high slavery counties as Marshall and Giles, Tennessee, where ~70% voted for secession on February 9 and nearly 100% on June 8, 1861.

In both of these counties a majority of non slave owners had to have voted for secession in both referenda.

Here is a good source. Here is another. And here is a third. What these show is that: Census‑based analyses and county‑level slave schedules indicate that in rural cotton‑producing counties of Middle Tennessee, slaveholding was overwhelmingly concentrated among white male household heads, with women comprising only a very small minority of recorded slaveholders—typically widows or estate representatives. This contrasts sharply with major slave‑market cities such as New Orleans and Charleston, where women constituted roughly 30–40 percent of documented slave owners. From this, I put women slaveholder in rural plantation counties like Giles & Marshall, TN, as in the range of 5% rather than the up to 40% in large port cities like New Orleans or Charleston.

The First link said 10%. The 2nd was not very informative. The third link showed Women involved as buyers and sellers at a rate of between 23% and 40%. I don't see anywhere where 5% would be the expected ratio for women.

That is correct, but we can easily see that the higher percentage of slaveholders, the higher the percentage voting for secession -- on both February 9 and June 8, 1861. Regions with low % slaveholders voted against secession both times, while those with high % slaveholders (like Giles & Marshall) voted for secession both times.

True, but that's only a general observation and does not allow anybody to say with any degree of confidence that all slave owners voted for secession. What's clear is that in the states of the Upper South, the overwhelming majority rejected secession at first but changed their minds once a war to prevent it had begun. It seems to me that was by far the biggest issue to them.

That was the opinion of Grant's father-in-law, Frederick Dent of St. Louis, Missouri. But Dent's views were a small (~10%) minority even among Border State slaveholders and were almost unknown in the Deep Cotton South in 1861.

It was only a small minority who believed that slavery was safer in the union than outside of it? Again, I don't know where you would find any data to support that claim. We do know that Lincoln publicly said that and that several others had expressed the same thought publicly for years as well. We have no idea how many believed it or did not.

In fact, the only name you cited was Alexander Johnson from the 1880s, and for him there is no proof he actually said that, since no surviving work of Johnson's repeats the 38,000 number -- look that up if you don't believe me. The truth is, no recognized historian has put a total number on either Union or Confederate "illegal arrests", and only one, Mark Neely, has taken the time to actually count all the actual records available for what Neely calls "arbitrary arrests" (not "illegal arrests"). Neely does not claim his numbers (~14,400 Union, ~4,000 Confederate) are the actual totals, only that they are the totals of surviving records.

The American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1865: This primary source of that year stated that the total number of military arrests in the North during the war was thirty-eight thousand, a statistic later referenced in the Columbia Law Review (1921).

There are other sources including American Bastille (1869) which covered the topic.

FLT-bird: "Why should it?
In the regions that had more slave owners, most of the votes for secession in both referenda were from Non Slave Owners.
Any other outcome is mathematically impossible."

Yes, but this is also a mathematical fact, deny it all you want: regions with high %s of slaveholders, such as Giles & Marshall counties, voted overwhelmingly (70%+ & 90%+) for secession on both February 9 and June 8, 1861.
Conversely, regions with low to no slaveholders voted against secession both times, in East Tennessee's case by 4 to 1 on February 9 and still 2 to 1 on June 8, 1861.

There is no rational argument which says that difference had to do with anything other than the dominant slave culture of West and South Central Tennessee.

FLT-bird: "You are claiming that without any evidence.
There were plenty of slave owning unionists in border states.
For all we know there were more than a few in the states of the Upper and Deep South as well."

I researched it further.
Turns out that Unionist Border State slaveholders like Grant's father-in-law, Frederick Dent in St. Louis, were the majority of slaveholders there, at least until actual shooting began in 1861, and even then, even in Missouri's Little Dixie, a good many slaveholders, like Dent, saw their future in the Union rather than in a rebel Confederacy.

In the Upper & Lower South the situation was very different, but I was still able to get my AI assistant to confess the Lost Cause mantra:

"Slaveholding status alone did not determine secession allegiance, even after Fort Sumter."

When I challenged AI on this, it quickly reverted to saying the overwhelming correlation between slaveholding and pro-secession votes could not be just "coincidence":

"Historians are very explicit on this point.
The Upper South’s late secession was not random, not cultural coincidence, and not abstract “states’ rights” sentiment.
It tracked slave density almost mechanically.
So you’re right: this cannot be waved away."

Bottom line: Yes, even on June 8, 1861 there were documented slaveholding Unionists in East, Central and West Tennessee.
However, they were a tiny minority of the significant numbers of slaveholders who had voted against secession on February 9.

FLT-bird: "In both of these counties a majority of non slave owners had to have voted for secession in both referenda."

True enough, but the Marshall County percentage of voters owning slaves -- ~29% -- was high enough that nearly everyone who did not own slaves was related to, or neighbors of, and shared common interests with the dominant slave culture.

By stark contrast, in regions with few to no slaves, the entire culture and outlook was different -- they were anti-secession, anti-Confederacy and anti-war against the United States.

Those are facts.

FLT-bird: "The First link said 10%.
The 2nd was not very informative.
The third link showed Women involved as buyers and sellers at a rate of between 23% and 40%.
I don't see anywhere where 5% would be the expected ratio for women."

The first link says:

"The findings indicate that 90 percent of the enslaved population were reportedly held by free males."

The 10% who were not "free male slaveholders" (and so were ineligible to vote) is an overall number which includes big cities where slave ownership could soar to nearly 40% women slaveholders.
This means, in rural plantation counties like Giles & Marshall, TN, in 1860, the rate of women slaveholders must have been much less than 10%.
Further, not all non-voting slaveholders were women, some were children and a few were even freed-blacks.
That's why 5% of slaveholders being women in rural Giles & Marshall is more reasonable than 10%.

FLT-bird: "What's clear is that in the states of the Upper South, the overwhelming majority rejected secession at first but changed their minds once a war to prevent it had begun.
It seems to me that was by far the biggest issue to them."

Sure, overall, you're right.
But, yet again, if you look at Tennessee by region -- West, Middle and East -- you see that very high-slavery % West Tennessee voted overwhelmingly for secession both times, February 9 and June 8, while very low-slavery % East Tennessee voted overwhelmingly against secession both times.
High slavery % South Central TN (including Giles & Marshall) voted with West Tennessee both times overwhelmingly for secession.

North Central TN (i.e., Nashville), flipped from anti-secession of February 9 to solidly pro-secession on June 8, and that is what drove TN totals to ~70% pro-secession on June 8.

FLT-bird: "The American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1865: This primary source of that year stated that the total number of military arrests in the North during the war was thirty-eight thousand, a statistic later referenced in the Columbia Law Review (1921).
There are other sources including American Bastille (1869) which covered the topic."

Here's your problem with all of those sources:

The American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1865 is nowhere quoted fully and in context, nor is there information on the source and definitions behind the number "38,000" -- IOW, that 38,000 could represent almost anything, not necessarily "illegal arrests".
Mark Neely himself cites the 38,000 as an example of very poor scholarship, having no source or definition data behind it, other than, according to Neely, Cyclopedia said 38,000 were “denied the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus”
Nothing in the Columbia Law Review (1921) has been found to confirm the 38,000 "illegal arrests" number, or anything similar.
IOW, there is no confirmed citing of the Columbia Law Review (1921) as claiming "38,000 illegal arrests".
There is no surviving work from Alexander Johnson which claims "38,000 illegal arrests", and no evidence he ever studied or counted the historical records.
John Marshall's American Bastille (1869) is anti-Lincoln polemics, not true scholarship.
Marshall's claims of 5,000 to 10,000 "illegal arrests" came out of thin air, not from any serious research.
16 years later (1885), Marshall doubled his numbers but again without defining what they meant or doing any actual research.
IOW, Marshall's numbers are strictly pulled out of thin air.
Only Neely has ever made the efforts to actually define and count the numbers of records on what he calls "arbitrary arrests" (not "illegal arrests").
Those paint a very different picture of who, where and why people got arrested, than what we see from pro-Confederate propagandists like John Marshall or your Abbeville Institute.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.