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.
FLT-bird: "We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. 
Neely also identified 4,108 civilian Confederates arrested by Confederate authorities for: