Replies

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."

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.

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.

In this case? Yes. That was not universally the case though. There are areas that had relatively higher concentrations of slave owners which did not support secession and areas with lower concentrations which did.

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.

Different areas saw things differently and their votes did not always depend on the prevalence of slave owners in the area.

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.

I don't deny there was a correlation. Areas that had more slavery also tended to be those areas that were better suited to producing cash crops for export and thus their economic interests were much more directly impinged. So its not so easy or simple as to say owning slaves = supporting secession and not owning slaves = not supporting secession. It was more complicated than that.

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.

If slave ownership had been such a dominant factor, it seems strange then that the states of the upper South did not choose to secede until war had started. Only then did they switch and support secession.

Wait. You say "common interest". By plenty of measures non slave owners were put at a disadvantage when they had to compete against slave labor which was sometimes the case for various contracts, jobs, etc. The existence of slave labor in the area actually harmed their economic interest.

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.

Sometimes though not always. I won't deny there is a correlation, but it is far from absolute.

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.

the way I read that was that 90% were males in rural areas...ie 10% were women. While the rate of females owning/buying and selling slaves soared to as much as 40% in major cities.

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%.

Its true that Freedmen and Children sometimes owned slaves. But the same paper also said that when a female slave owner married, they would often call those slaves the property of her husband rather than her property unless there were a specific deed or contract setting out that the slaves were the wife's property. So less than 10% were women by one measure but a portion of that 90% which were listed as being owned by males were actually slaves owned by their husbands. They didn't give a percentage when you revised both up and down for those categories so I just assumed it was the 10% that were owned by women in rural areas that they listed.

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.

Yes a large chunk of voters in areas with relatively low rates of slave ownership flipped after a war had started.

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.

A few problems here. 19th century record keeping was not at anywhere near the level of detail we would require nowadays. Believe me, I've seen this when researching a number of different topics from the era. That includes the records of both armies. Secondly, this was not exactly a subject the Lincoln administration, the army or the federal bureaucracy was keen to keep detailed records of. Lincoln twice refused to provide Congress a detailed listing of those who had been arrested and held arbitrarily saying it was "not in the national interest" to provide the numbers.

So by everybody's admission, you simply will not find records for all those arrested and imprisoned without charge or trial or only given perfunctory trials in front of military tribunals. Neely counted those for whom there is an explicit record but he even admits there were more - he simply can't find records for them. Though he was a Lincoln apologist, I think he's telling the truth about this. Such records probably never existed.

American Bastille listed multiple accounts of individuals who were arrested and held without charge or trial. That's not polemics, those are actual eyewitness accounts from the people themselves as well as from other witnesses. Neely lists 14,400 but admits there were more. Other sources say 38,000 as an estimate. Most modern scholars say somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000.