Replies

1861 votes for and against secession:

FLT-bird: "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."

A few rare exceptions, read the map.
Every major region which voted against secession was also a region with few to no slaves & slaveholders.
Those regions included:

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

Yes, here and there a few small exceptions, including:

Western & North-central Virginia (east of West Virginia) where slaveholders felt & acted more like Border State slaveholders, who believed that secession meant war and war would destroy their economic well being.
Northern Alabama, Tennessee Valley, non-cotton growing political Whigs.
Louisiana French speaking Cajun Country, focused on local mixed agriculture rather than the plantation export economy.
Parts of North‑Central Texas outside the German Belt were Sam Houston loyalists, and/or settled from the Upper South and Northern states -- these were people who did not necessarily oppose slavery, but did reject secession.

Those slaveholders who opposed secession shared the following:

Whig political culture:
- Loyalty to the Union
- Suspicion of radical democracy and planter oligarchs = Southern Democrats!!
Economic orientation:
- Mixed farming vs. plantation monoculture
- Trade networks oriented toward local and Northern US sales, rather than Atlantic & Gulf ports' international exports
Ethno‑cultural identity:
- German Texans
- French‑speaking Louisianans
- Scots‑Irish uplanders
Fear of war:
- Slaveholders who believed secession would endanger slavery -- by provoking war -- rather than protecting it

Bottom line: A small minority of slaveholders -- especially those with fewer slaves -- opposed secession because they viewed it as reckless elite adventurism, not because they rejected slavery itself.

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

Yes, on rare occasions, slaveholders voted against secession, however, in every case it was because their specific region did not belong to the dominant plantation export mono-culture -- cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar & hemp -- but were instead relatively small, locally oriented & agriculturally diverse producers who feared civil war would only bring destruction to their way of life.
They were minor exceptions to the general rule that: the higher the % of slaves & slaveholders, the greater was the 1861 vote % for secession.

FLT-bird: "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."

You're right, it was slightly more complicated.
The general rule did not apply in every case, but it did apply in the vast majority, and exceptions were few and far between -- a few counties in Northern Virgina, Northern Alabama, Louisiana Cajun Country and Northern Texas.

Out of roughly 1,000 Confederate counties in total, 20 to 30 were exceptions to the general rule that: higher % slaveholders = higher votes for secession.
That's less than 3% of all counties, but these were relatively sparsely populated, so represented fewer than 2% of the Confederate voting population.

So, you're right, the general rule is not 100% accurate, it's only ~98% accurate.

FLT-bird: "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."

No, it's not at all "strange" because:

Compared to the Deep South, there were fewer slaveholders in the Upper South, and more slaveholder Unionists, who feared war and did not like the dominant plantation export culture.
And Border States had even fewer slaveholders and even more of them remained loyal Unionists after war began at Fort Sumter.
From their perspectives, the Union (not civil war) was the best protector of slavery.
Overall there were only minor exceptions to the general rule that: throughout the South, the higher the percentages of slaves and slaveholders, the higher the percentage vote for secession.

FLT-bird: "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."

So, first, despite what Karl Marx claimed and your professors may have preached, "economic interests" are not the only interests which can unite or divide different groups in a diverse society.
People can have many other common interests, even when their economic interests diverge.

Second, in counties like Giles & Marshall in South-Central Tennessee, only a small minority (~15%) were considered "poor white trash" because they were landless and dependent on wage labor -- which was often not available in high slave regions.
Everyone else (well over 50%) who was not a slaveholder fell into a middle-class "yeoman farm" type category.
Such people were close neighbors to, and often relations of, the large export-oriented cotton slave plantations.
But, more important, where large plantations concentrated on growing products for exports, the "yeoman farmers" grew or made products for local consumption, including supplying food to cotton plantations which were not always self-sufficient.

Third, as such, the yeoman farmers who did not own slaves were still closely tied in their economic interests to the large & medium sized plantations which did own slaves.
They therefore voted in the interest of slavey for secession on June 8, 1861.

Because despite being privately disparaged as "poor white trash", they were often essential in maintaining the dominant slave culture by:

disproportionately serving in slave patrols & posses
hired as overseers to supervise slaves
used as constables, jailers & guards enforcing slave codes, guarding jails, transporting captives
worked jobs “Too dangerous for slaves” labor (dirty, risky, expendable), i.e., building railroads & bridges, canal digging, drainage & flood control
also: Mining, quarrying, heavy earthworks, all "too dangerous for slaves"
volunteered disproportionately for Tennessee military service in May 1861.

Bottom line: even "poor white trash", despite resentments against slave labor, still showed overwhelming support for the slave-system which, in maintaining itself, provided them both status and employment.

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

Yes, if we look only at Confederate counties, then the correlation holds true at least 97% of the time.
If we look at populations in those exception counties, compared to the entire Confederacy, then the correlation of slave-ownership to secession votes holds true over 98% of the time.

FLT-bird: "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."

You misread it.
That quote, in context is:

"This paper analyzes the characteristics of the free population who were recorded as “owners” of enslaved people in the antebellum Southern states...
The findings indicate that 90 percent of the enslaved population were reportedly held by free males."

There's nothing in the report suggesting it applies only to rural counties and indeed it specifically mentions slaveholder occupations more common in towns and cities:

"professionals, including clergy, doctors, and lawyers who used enslaved people in their household, in their professional practice..."

The attached table 2 shows % of women slaveholders at ~10% overall, but also says,

"They find that White women participated in more than 30 percent of the transactions (as either buyers or sellers) in the New Orleans slave trade overall and in about 40 percent in the trade of enslaved women (Wishart and Logan, 2024)."

So, in big cities, women represented up to 40% of slaveholders, meaning the percentage in rural areas (like Giles & Marshall counties TN) must have been well under 10%.

FLT-bird: " 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. "

I don't think we need to debate the differences between "owned by" and "controlled by" men or women.
It's irrelevant for our purposes here.
What matters is that even in families with women slaveholders, there were male voters who supported their family's economic, social & cultural interests.

FLT-bird: "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."

No, "most scholars" don't say that, "most scholars" say they don't know the totals and refer to Neely's records for what we can say for sure.

A few rare exceptions, read the map. Every major region which voted against secession was also a region with few to no slaves & slaveholders. Yes, here and there a few small exceptions,

We don't really disagree here. I've acknowledged there was generally a correlation between those areas with higher slave ownership and those areas that supported secession and those areas with lower rates of slave ownership which did not. I would ascribe much of the fact of higher rates of slave ownership to the local climate/terrain being suitable for the production of cash crops ie what most slaves were engaged in - and that export-import economy being more affected than areas where there was more subsistence farming which tended to be poorer and more insular....thus not affected nearly as much by the tariff.

Bottom line: A small minority of slaveholders -- especially those with fewer slaves -- opposed secession because they viewed it as reckless elite adventurism, not because they rejected slavery itself.

There were plenty of slaveowners who supported the union. The border states had plenty as well as the Upper South. Obviously they did not reject slavery being slave owners themselves.

Yes, on rare occasions, slaveholders voted against secession, however, in every case it was because their specific region did not belong to the dominant plantation export mono-culture -- cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar & hemp -- but were instead relatively small, locally oriented & agriculturally diverse producers who feared civil war would only bring destruction to their way of life. They were minor exceptions to the general rule that: the higher the % of slaves & slaveholders, the greater was the 1861 vote % for secession.

Again, we're saying the same thing. Areas that had more slaves had economies more geared toward the production of cash crops for export. They also tended to be less self sufficient focusing all their efforts on that and thus needed to import more. So tariffs would affect them far more.

No, it's not at all "strange" because: Compared to the Deep South, there were fewer slaveholders in the Upper South, and more slaveholder Unionists, who feared war and did not like the dominant plantation export culture. And Border States had even fewer slaveholders and even more of them remained loyal Unionists after war began at Fort Sumter. From their perspectives, the Union (not civil war) was the best protector of slavery. Overall there were only minor exceptions to the general rule that: throughout the South, the higher the percentages of slaves and slaveholders, the higher the percentage vote for secession.

We agree on the facts. Our differences are in interpretation. You look at it and say its slave ownership driving the support for secession. I look at it and say their economy was geared more toward an export-import based model and thus they were hurt far more by the tariff.

So, first, despite what Karl Marx claimed and your professors may have preached, "economic interests" are not the only interests which can unite or divide different groups in a diverse society. People can have many other common interests, even when their economic interests diverge.

Agreed.

Second, in counties like Giles & Marshall in South-Central Tennessee, only a small minority (~15%) were considered "poor white trash" because they were landless and dependent on wage labor -- which was often not available in high slave regions. Everyone else (well over 50%) who was not a slaveholder fell into a middle-class "yeoman farm" type category. Such people were close neighbors to, and often relations of, the large export-oriented cotton slave plantations. But, more important, where large plantations concentrated on growing products for exports, the "yeoman farmers" grew or made products for local consumption, including supplying food to cotton plantations which were not always self-sufficient.

Indeed the large plantations were very much not self sufficient. All their resources went into producing cash crops. Yes, Yeoman farmers did sell them corn, animals, etc. It was a common practice for those Yeoman farmers to also devoted 20%, 25% of their land to producing cotton themselves which the plantation as the large entity in the area would buy up and bundle along with their own cotton for export. Basically the large plantations acted as wholesalers and for the small family farmers and would make a slight profit from doing to by buying the family farmer's cotton at a slight discount.

Third, as such, the yeoman farmers who did not own slaves were still closely tied in their economic interests to the large & medium sized plantations which did own slaves. They therefore voted in the interest of slavey for secession on June 8, 1861.

Again, this is a difference in interpretation. The yeoman farmers in those areas were plugged into the export-import economy of the area. They were selling their cotton and selling food and services to the plantations to keep them going. A tariff which hurt sales and drove up the price of manufactured goods would hurt them pretty quickly and directly too.

Fourth, this leaves only the bottom tier, disparagingly called "poor white trash", who competed directly with slave labor for wages and may have felt highly alienated from the dominant slave culture. But by June 8, 1861, they decidedly were not. Why? Because despite being privately disparaged as "poor white trash", they were often essential in maintaining the dominant slave culture by: disproportionately serving in slave patrols & posses hired as overseers to supervise slaves used as constables, jailers & guards enforcing slave codes, guarding jails, transporting captives worked jobs “Too dangerous for slaves” labor (dirty, risky, expendable), i.e., building railroads & bridges, canal digging, drainage & flood control also: Mining, quarrying, heavy earthworks, all "too dangerous for slaves" volunteered disproportionately for Tennessee military service in May 1861. Bottom line: even "poor white trash", despite resentments against slave labor, still showed overwhelming support for the slave-system which, in maintaining itself, provided them both status and employment.

You say they provided support for the slave system. I'd say they provided support for their local communities and for their states. (BTW, some slaves were skilled laborers, eg carpenters, masons, etc and these definitely did compete against White labor)

No, "most scholars" don't say that, "most scholars" say they don't know the totals and refer to Neely's records for what we can say for sure.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. Even a simple google search yielded:

Key Details of the Arrests

Total Numbers: While some estimates are lower (roughly 14,000), newer research suggest up to 38,000 individuals were detained in Northern-controlled areas, including political opponents, journalists, and civilians perceived as disloyal.