Finally, an honest Abe

Yet one cannot properly reject the weight and details of what historians think. To enter historical debate on a serious basis requires that one also know and consider what professional historians think.

I will consider their opinion only to the extent that they can provide historical evidence to support it.

Beyond that, I prefer primary evidence rather than secondary opinions.

Yet one cannot properly reject the weight and details of what historians think. To enter historical debate on a serious basis requires that one also know and consider what professional historians think.

I'm well aware of the historiography. Historians don't agree. You wouldn't expect ideological conformity unless you had a top down system that would not tolerate any dissent from their political dogma. Which is exactly what exists in Academia today. It was not always so.

Because Newspapers then, just like now, shade the truth to favor their own party. Newspapers were not where you looked for independent thought.

So Northern newspapers would say the same things that Southern political leaders and Southern Newspapers and Foreign newspapers said about the North receiving vast amounts of tariff money from the Southern states and getting vast amounts of business servicing exports from the South because..... well....... because why exactly? Why would they tell their own readers in the North that the North was highly dependent on Southern exports?

The bottom line is they had no reason to lie about this.

In that context, Jackson identified slavery as the likely pretext for secession. In a larger sense though, after the nullification crisis, the South already had its bags packed and a divorce lawyer hired. Slavery, tariffs, an unpopular war, or other issue could trigger secession. Jackson's point was that in the nullification crisis, the South had already begun to repudiate the Union.

That I would not disagree with. I'd just like to point out that Nullification in the early 1830s traces its origin back to the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions written by Jefferson and Madison in 1798 when they wrote that states could Nullify or "interpose themselves between the federal government and their citizens" when opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was New England which had the Hartford Convention that proposed secession in 1814. Former President and current US Representative John Quincy Adams presented Congress with a petition for secession from Massachusetts in 1842. So the right of the states to nullify federal laws and secede from the union - unilaterally - had been present throughout US history. Southern secession in 1860-61 had a long tradition in the republic to that point.

Not this crap again. You know it isn’t true. Why do you keep spouting it.

You know it is true. EVERYBODY from political leaders on both sides to newspapers on both sides as well as foreign newspapers at the time all said it. Tax historians have admitted it. Its been widely admitted in Academia. The ONLY place I've seen where anybody tried to deny it is.....here.

Not this crap again. You know it isn’t true. Why do you keep spouting it.

I know it is absolutely true. You are the one denying reality because you *DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT.*

FLT-bird: "Actually the 1860 US Census recorded BOTH families AND households."

OK, if you want to get into the weeds on this, the 1860 US Census recorded:

"Dwellings" -- meaning separate buildings or separate entrances to a single structure (aka apartments)
"Families" -- defined as everyone living together in a single dwelling, regardless of kinship -- including boarders & hired help.
Multiple families could occupy in a single dwelling if they lived and ate separately.
"Slaves" -- listed on Schedule 2, by owner.
Owners then are cross referenced with families to see what percentage of families owned slaves.

Now, in these discussions, I've used the word "household" rather than "family" because of the broader definition of "family" used in 1860.
When I say "household", I mean "family" as broadly defined in the 1860 census.

quoting BJK: "1862 Nueces Massacre, Texas Hill Country:"

FLT-bird: relevance?"

Massacres of Southern Unionists such as the 1862 Nueces Massacre in Texas and the 1863 Shelton Laurel Massacre in western North Carolina prove unequivocally that there were indeed many Southerners who did not own slaves, and opposed the CSA.
Such people were not well treated by their slavery supporting neighbors.

FLT-bird: "In one of the densest Cotton producing areas HALF of White Southern families owned slaves - not all as you have portrayed it.
And of course, that was only a small portion of the CSA.
You frequently accuse me of "cherrypicking".
This is the biggest example of cherrypicking there could be."

1861 Votes For and Against Secession:

FRiend, if we agree that roughly 50% of Mississippi families owned slaves, while only 3% of Delaware families owned slaves, and other states fell between those numbers, then we've established a discussable fact-set.

What we know from that fact-set is, states with:

More than 33% slaveholding families, in the Deep South -- those declared secession from December 1860 to February 1861, before Fort Sumter, in April 1861.
25%-33% slaveholding families, in the Upper South -- those declared secession only after Fort Sumter.
Fewer than 25% slaveholding families, in Border States -- those never declared secession, though some did have minority secessionist populations.

The overall average of slaveholding families for the Confederacy depends on how you weight the numbers, but 26% is a reasonable approximation.

This means that some 74% of Confederate families did not own slaves, and where those were concentrated regionally -- i.e., eastern Tennessee among others -- those regions saw:

Bridge burners hanged in East Tennessee:

Serious resistance to the CSA,
Support for the Union
High rates of enlistments in the Union Army
Persecution of Unionists by CSA officials
Massacres of Unionists such as the Shelton Laurel Massacre in western North Carolina, 1863.

FLT-bird: "No they didn't.
The large majority of White Southern families did not own slaves....ie more than 80% according to the studies you yourself cited.
They made up the large majority of the Confederate army.
The 3 families of my ancestors who lived in Tennessee at the time provided 10 Confederate soldiers.
The 3 families between them owned a grand total of 0 slaves.
This was not unusual."

You're right because Eastern Tennessee:

Home of Lincoln's VP, then Pres. Andrew Johnson, a hotbed of Southern Unionism, had few to zero slaves -- 9% overall.
Supplied more troops to the Union army (~31,000) than to the CSA (~20,000).
Confederates hanged East Tennessee Unionists, confiscated their properties and drafted their young men.
Remained a solid Republican region even in the post War Solid Democratic South, well into the late 20th century.

So, if your ancestors from East Tennessee served the CSA army, it's because they were drafted and served to avoid Confederates confiscating their families' properties for being Southern Unionists.
Most East Tennesseans were Unionists during the Civil War, and remained loyal Republicans to this day.

FLT-bird: "That depends on when and where you're talking about.
Tennessee for example voted 54% against secession UNTIL Lincoln chose to start a war.
Then it voted 88% for secession.
Texas voted 76% for secession in the first instance.
Virginia voted 78% in favor after Lincoln chose to start a war."

Actually, it was Jefferson Davis who chose to start war, and for precisely the reasons you listed here: because he knew that war would flip the entire Upper South, plus possibly Border States, from Union to Confederate.

But East Tennessee is a case in point: even on June 8, 1861 -- long after Fort Sumter and Union forces occupying parts of Virginia -- in Tennessee's secession referendum, nearly two‑thirds of East Tennesseans voted against secession, despite Tennessee overall voting in favor.

FLT-bird: "To say that those Southerners who served in the Union army or refused to serve in the Confederate army were non slave owning is wrong.
To say they were therefore anti slavery is likewise wrong. "

Naw...
The fact is that nearly every pro-Union anti-Confederate Southern region also had few to no slaves, including:

Western Virginia
Eastern Tennessee
Western North Carolina
Northern Alabama
Arkansas Osarks
Texas Hill Country

Overall, circa 100,000 Confederate state whites served in the Union Army, and of those the vast majority came from the above regions.
For comparison, there were no major enlistments from Northern free-states in the Confederate army and estimates of individual soldiers range from a few hundred total to possibly 1,000.

Bottom line: Being anti-slavery made ~100,000 Confederates into Union Army soldiers.
Being pro-slavery turned maybe 1,000 Union free-state men into Confederate Army soldiers.

Broad denunciation of historians for ideological conformity is not the same as engagement on the facts. The most effective demolitions of Leftist historians are based on comparing what they say against what their cited sources actually say — or even showing that their claimed sources do not exist. One up and coming young antigun Leftist historian lost his teaching position over such a fraud and left the profession.

Ok if you want to get into the weeds on this, the 1860 US Census recorded: "Dwellings" -- meaning separate buildings or separate entrances to a single structure (aka apartments) "Families" -- defined as everyone living together in a single dwelling, regardless of kinship -- including boarders & hired help. Multiple families could occupy in a single dwelling if they lived and ate separately. "Slaves" -- listed on Schedule 2, by owner. Owners then are cross referenced with families to see what percentage of families owned slaves. Now, in these discussions, I've used the word "household" rather than "family" because of the broader definition of "family" used in 1860. When I say "household", I mean "family" as broadly defined in the 1860 census.

I've gone with families as that is the better measure rather than temporary boarders and the like.

Massacres of Southern Unionists such as the 1862 Nueces Massacre in Texas and the 1863 Shelton Laurel Massacre in western North Carolina prove unequivocally that there were indeed many Southerners who did not own slaves, and opposed the CSA. Such people were not well treated by their slavery supporting neighbors.

Sure. And there were many Southerners who did not own slaves and who supported the CSA. Just because some Southerners were opposed to those who were against the CSA does not mean they were "slavery supporting" as you claimed. People had lots of other reasons for supporting the CSA. Northern Copperheads were not treated very well by their war supporting neighbors either.

1861 Votes For and Against Secession: FRiend, if we agree that roughly 50% of Mississippi families owned slaves, while only 3% of Delaware families owned slaves, and other states fell between those numbers, then we've established a discussable fact-set.

Have we? Delaware did not secede. Why would they be included? When I said 5.63% of the White population in the Southern states owned slaves, I did not count Delaware or Maryland or Kentucky. They did not secede.

What we know from that fact-set is, states with: More than 33% slaveholding families, in the Deep South -- those declared secession from December 1860 to February 1861, before Fort Sumter, in April 1861. 25%-33% slaveholding families, in the Upper South -- those declared secession only after Fort Sumter. Fewer than 25% slaveholding families, in Border States -- those never declared secession, though some did have minority secessionist populations. The overall average of slaveholding families for the Confederacy depends on how you weight the numbers, but 26% is a reasonable approximation.

The Original 7 seceding states also happened to produce the most cotton and thus the most exports by $ value. They were thus hit hardest by the tariffs. The percentage of families the study of this showed that did own slaves in the seceding states was actually 19.9%. Meaning 80% did not.

This means that some 74% of Confederate families did not own slaves, and where those were concentrated regionally -- i.e., eastern Tennessee among others -- those regions saw:

Let me stop you right there. There were lots of regions of the Confederate states that did not have high percentages of slave ownership - not just the areas that did not support secession as much. All of Tennessee had significantly lower rates of slave ownership than states that were more in the Deep South. Yet Tennessee voted overwhelmingly for secession after Lincoln chose to start a war.

Serious resistance to the CSA

And Northern copperheads who did not think the union should fight a war of aggression to impose its rule over people who did not consent to it were treated very badly in the North. Somewhere between 13,000 and 38,000 were imprisoned often without charge or trial - or at best trial before military tribunals. They were thrown into federal dungeons where they were sometimes tortured. Newspapers which opposed the war were shut down by direct order of Lincoln. Others saw mobs invade their offices and smash up the printing presses which police never treated as a crime. Lincoln had several confiscation acts passed whereby the property of those opposed to the war was seized - and if they were ratted out by informers, the informers and the government split the proceeds. People were forcibly disarmed in areas where unionists weren't sure of the loyalty of the population, etc etc.

You're right because Eastern Tennessee: Home of Lincoln's VP, then Pres. Andrew Johnson, a hotbed of Southern Unionism, had few to zero slaves -- 9% overall. Supplied more troops to the Union army (~31,000) than to the CSA (~20,000). Confederates hanged East Tennessee Unionists, confiscated their properties and drafted their young men. Remained a solid Republican region even in the post War Solid Democratic South, well into the late 20th century. So, if your ancestors from East Tennessee served the CSA army, it's because they were drafted and served to avoid Confederates confiscating their families' properties for being Southern Unionists. Most East Tennesseans were Unionists during the Civil War, and remained loyal Republicans to this day.

There were plenty of areas of the South that had low rates of slave ownership which supported secession and supported the CSA....like my ancestors who moved from Virginia in the 1830s after the family had lived there for 180 years and settled in central Tennessee. Another family moved from North Carolina where they had lived since before the War of Independence to central Tennessee and a third family had moved to central Tennessee from England one generation earlier.

Actually, it was Jefferson Davis who chose to start war, and for precisely the reasons you listed here: because he knew that war would flip the entire Upper South, plus possibly Border States, from Union to Confederate.

Actually it was Lincoln who chose to start war because he could not afford to let the North's cash cows - the biggest exporting Southern States - leave.

But East Tennessee is a case in point: even on June 8, 1861 -- long after Fort Sumter and Union forces occupying parts of Virginia -- in Tennessee's secession referendum, nearly two‑thirds of East Tennesseans voted against secession, despite Tennessee overall voting in favor.

East Tennessee did not have a population that was that large. The state as a whole voted overwhelmingly for secession after Lincoln started the war. See previous post.

Naw... The fact is that nearly every pro-Union anti-Confederate Southern region also had few to no slaves, including: Western Virginia Eastern Tennessee Western North Carolina Northern Alabama Arkansas Osarks Texas Hill Country Overall, circa 100,000 Confederate state whites served in the Union Army, and of those the vast majority came from the above regions. For comparison, there were no major enlistments from Northern free-states in the Confederate army and estimates of individual soldiers range from a few hundred total to possibly 1,000. Bottom line: Being anti-slavery made ~100,000 Confederates into Union Army soldiers. Being pro-slavery turned maybe 1,000 Union free-state men into Confederate Army soldiers.

Yeah. There were plenty of slave owners who sided with the Union.....like the Grants for example. Read Jack Hinson's One Man War. He was another pro union slave owner. There were plenty of them. Its hardly surprising more people in the Southern states would choose to side with remaining in the Union than people in Northern states would choose to travel to the South to support the Confederacy. After all, all the states had been in the union.

Bottom line: There were plenty of areas that had low rates of slave ownership which were pro confederate. There were also plenty of union sympathizing slave owners. Being pro union did not necessarily mean being anti slavery and being pro Confederate did not necessarily mean being a staunch supporter of slavery. People had lots of other reasons to support the Confederacy - after all, most of the non slave owners who were the overwhelming majority in the Southern states voted to secede after all.

Broad denunciation of historians for ideological conformity is not the same as engagement on the facts. The most effective demolitions of Leftist historians are based on comparing what they say against what their cited sources actually say — or even showing that their claimed sources do not exist. One up and coming young antigun Leftist historian lost his teaching position over such a fraud and left the profession.

I remember the lying "historian" who claimed guns were rare in early America and the corporate media joyfully swallowed it and put that out on all the airwaves.....only for more research to show he had made that up, had no evidence to support it and guns were VERY common in early America...ie the exact opposite of his claims.

The problem we have today is ideological conformity all throughout Academia. That applies to History departments as much as if not more than almost any of them save perhaps Journalism and Sociology. Usually they won't be so stupid as to make up facts or quotes. They could get found out and embarrassed if they do that. What they do instead is:

- highlight any facts or quotes that support their narrative (like Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech or those portions of the declarations of secession that talk about slavery)

- studiously ignore and refuse to mention any quotes or facts that are embarrassing and undermine their narrative. (eg Jefferson Davis saying the war was not about slavery, (like the Corwin Amendment or the fact that the US Congress passed a resolution saying they were not fighting over slavery or the fact that abolitionism was extremely unpopular in the North or any discussion of tariffs and federal outlays)

- Have a laser-like focus on the statements and acts of those they dislike (so as to attack them) while completely ignoring it when the side/individuals they do like said or did the same things or things that were even worse......note this works well for them because almost nobody in the mid 19th century held the same views almost everybody in the West holds today. So for example just highlight these statements and acts. Ignore Lincoln's multiple flamingly racist public statements. Refuse to mention that it wasn't just slavery that was banned in much of the North or the West, it was BLACKS (even free ones), etc.

By telling only half the story....their narrative....and doing everything possible to bury the other side's arguments so most people never even hear it....they can indoctrinate students to believe what they want them to believe.

The Original 7 seceding states also happened to produce the most cotton and thus the most exports by $ value. They were thus hit hardest by the tariffs.

Oh brother. Do you understand that exports were not taxed. Or do you subscribe to Diognese’s bs lies about even though exports weren’t taxed, somehow his g-g-g-g Granddaddy paid for the whole country and the evil Yankees stole the rest of his hard earned money.

Do you understand exports were exchanged for imports and directly affected how much cotton and other cash crops customers bought and what the price was.

Do you understand exports were exchanged for imports …

Only in your imagination. That’s not how it worked.

Only in your imagination. That’s not how it worked.

Only in your imagination were they not. That's exactly how it worked. You think those ships sailed back across the Atlantic empty? That would have been incredibly wasteful.

James Spence of London explained the effects of such a high tariff on the Southern economy (1859):

"This system of protecting Northern manufactures, has an injurious influence, beyond the effect immediately apparent. It is doubly injurious to the Southern States, in raising what they have to buy, and lowering what they have to sell. They are the exporters of the Union, and require that other countries shall take their productions. But other countries will have difficulty in taking them, unless permitted to pay for them in the commodities which are their only means of payment. They are willing to receive cotton, and to pay for it in iron, earthenware, woollens. But if by extravagant duties, these be prohibited from entering the Union, or greatly restricted, the effect must needs be, to restrict the power to buy the products of the South. Our imports of Southern productions, have nearly reached thirty millions sterling a year. Suppose the North to succeed in the object of its desire, and to exclude our manufactures altogether, with what are we to pay? It is plainly impossible for any country to export largely, unless it be willing also, to import largely. Should the Union be restored, and its commerce be conducted under the present tariff, the balance of trade against us must become so great, as either to derange our monetary system, or compel us to restrict our purchases from those, who practically exclude other payment than gold. With the rate of exchange constantly depressed, the South would receive an actual money payment, much below the current value of its products. We should be driven to other markets for our supplies, and thus the exclusion of our manufactures by the North, would result in a compulsory exclusion, on our part, of the products of the South."

This is exactly what happened during the Tariff of Abomination. Cotton sales declined by 50% and the price decline considerably as well.

"This is a consideration of no importance to the Northern manufacturer, whose only thought is the immediate profit he may obtain, by shutting out competition. It may be, however, of very extreme importance to others — to those who have products they are anxious to sell to us, who are desirous to receive in payment, the very goods we wish to dispose of, and yet are debarred from this. Is there not something of the nature of commercial slavery, in the fetters of a system that prevents it? If we consider the terms of the compact, and the gigantic magnitude of Southern trade, it becomes amazing, that even the attempt should be made, to deal with it in such a manner as this."

And the North just let England take their wheat, corn, rye, timber, fish, beef, wool, furs, and all of their other exports. According to you, the South was the only exporter and cotton was the only export. Again, you are full of BS.

And the North just let England take their wheat, corn, rye, timber, fish, beef, wool, furs, and all of their other exports.

The one major export from the North at that time was grain. Prior to the mid 19th century, the North had not exported hardly anything. England had a first mover advantage in manufacturing and by the time the North started to industrialize, England was already well ahead and had large economies of scale. The result was that Northern manufacturers could not compete on price....thus the screaming for tariffs. They certainly weren't exporting manufactured goods to England.

According to you, the South was the only exporter and cotton was the only export. Again, you are full of BS.

Wrong. That's not what I said. I said the same thing the various Northern newspapers as well as numerous political commentators said which was that by 1860, the South furnished about 3/4s of all exports. It had been more in the past but as the Great Plains started being brought under the plow, there was abundant excess grain to export. The one who's full of BS here is you.

FLT-bird re: 1860 census terms: "I've gone with families as that is the better measure rather than temporary boarders and the like."

You can call it whatever you like, but in the 1860 census the word "family" meant household including borders and hired help, but not slaves.

FLT-bird: "Sure.
And there were many Southerners who did not own slaves and who supported the CSA.
Just because some Southerners were opposed to those who were against the CSA does not mean they were "slavery supporting" as you claimed.
People had lots of other reasons for supporting the CSA."

Your own East Tennessee is a perfect example.
By the way, my parents met in college in East Tennessee in the 1930s.
They married shortly after WWII, living in Philadelphia and New Jersey at the time.

December 1861: Bridge Burners hanged in East Tennessee:

East Tennessee in 1860 had few to zero slaves, only ~5% of East TN families owned slaves, compared to ~30% in West Tennessee.
Two thirds of East Tennesseans voted against secession, even after Fort Sumter flipped the state from Union to Confederate.
East Tennesseans tried to secede from Tennessee and set up their own Union state, similar to West Virginia.
Some East Tennesseans conducted sabotage raids on Confederate military infrastructure.
More East Tennesseans served in the Union Army (31,000) than in the Confederate army (~20,000).
The CSA made a Department of East Tennessee, commanded by Major Gen. Kirby Smith & Brig. Gen. Henry Heth, to suppress rebellion in East Tennessee.
CSA Gen. Smith declared East Tennessee, "an enemy's country".
CSA Generals Smith & Heth imposed on East Tennessee:
- Martial law
- Suspension of habeas corpus
- Arrests and deportations of suspected Unionists
- Confiscations of suspected Unionist properties
- Acting like a military dictator, Smith jailed and deported suspected Unionists and vigorously enforced the CSA's April 1862 conscription act.
January 1863: Shelton Laurel Massacre, Western NC:
Confederate authorities in western North Carolina and East Tennessee increasingly treated Unionist civilians as enemies rather than protected noncombatants.
This treatment included:
- Torture to extract information
- Summary executions
- Collective punishment of families
These heavy‑handed measures succeeded in further provoking Unionists and spreading discontent, turning previously neutral East Tennesseans into enemies of the CSA.

In January 1863, CSA Gen. Heth ordered the 64th North Carolina Infantry to "take no prisoners" in dealing with suspected Unionists in western NC.
The result was the Shelton Laurel Massacre of civilians.

Bottom line: Confederates who lived in regions with few to no slaves overwhelmingly supported the Union, opposed secession, the CSA and Confederate military service.
These people were not treated well by Confederate authorities.

Northern copperheads who did not think the union should fight a war of aggression to impose its rule over people who did not consent to it were treated very badly in the North.

There was a lot of antiwar sentiment in the southern counties of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and in New Jersey as well. The southernmost counties of the three Midwestern states were heavily settled by Virginians and Kentuckians a generation or two before Fort Sumter. All these states were Northern and were free of slaves, although a handful remained in New Jersey. However, Ohio beyond the southernmost counties was pro-Union and the early Union takeover of West Virginia was largely due to the Ohio militia invading that future state. Three of the main Union generals were Ohioans: Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. Yet Clement Vallandigham, the most prominent Copperhead, was also an Ohioan. The antiwar sentiment in New Jersey was so prevalent that Northern generals did not fully trust troops from that state. The New England influence on the Garden State was not as great as it was in New York and the Upper Midwest. It was not as influenced by German immigration was were Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa. New Jersey voted for the Democrat in national Presidential elections, 1872 excepted, from 1856 to 1892, unusual for a state in the North. In the 20th Century, New Jersey, along with Delaware and Maryland, became a part of the Northeastern megalopolis.

Your own East Tennessee is a perfect example. By the way, my parents met in college in East Tennessee in the 1930s. They married shortly after WWII, living in Philadelphia and New Jersey at the time. December 1861: Bridge Burners hanged in East Tennessee: East Tennessee in 1860 had few to zero slaves, only ~5% of East TN families owned slaves, compared to ~30% in West Tennessee. Two thirds of East Tennesseans voted against secession, even after Fort Sumter flipped the state from Union to Confederate. East Tennesseans tried to secede from Tennessee and set up their own Union state, similar to West Virginia. Some East Tennesseans conducted sabotage raids on Confederate military infrastructure. More East Tennesseans served in the Union Army (31,000) than in the Confederate army (~20,000). The CSA made a Department of East Tennessee, commanded by Major Gen. Kirby Smith & Brig. Gen. Henry Heth, to suppress rebellion in East Tennessee. CSA Gen. Smith declared East Tennessee, "an enemy's country". CSA Generals Smith & Heth imposed on East Tennessee: Martial law Suspension of habeas corpus Arrests and deportations of suspected Unionists Confiscations of suspected Unionist properties Acting like a military dictator, Smith jailed and deported suspected Unionists and vigorously enforced the CSA's April 1862 conscription act. January 1863: Shelton Laurel Massacre, Western NC: Confederate authorities in western North Carolina and East Tennessee increasingly treated Unionist civilians as enemies rather than protected noncombatants. This treatment included: Torture to extract information Summary executions Collective punishment of families These heavy‑handed measures succeeded in further provoking Unionists and spreading discontent, turning previously neutral East Tennesseans into enemies of the CSA. In January 1863, CSA Gen. Heth ordered the 64th North Carolina Infantry to "take no prisoners" in dealing with suspected Unionists in western NC. The result was the Shelton Laurel Massacre of civilians. Bottom line: Confederates who lived in regions with few to no slaves overwhelmingly supported the Union, opposed secession, the CSA and Confederate military service. These people were not treated well by Confederate authorities.

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.

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.

"Those who advocated the right of secession alleged in their own justification that we had no regard for law and that the rights of property, life, and liberty would not be safe under the Constitution as administered by us. If we now verify their assertion we prove that they were in truth fighting for their liberty, and instead of branding their leaders as traitors against a righteous and legal government, we elevate them in history to the rank of self-sacrificing patriots, consecrate them to the admiration of the works, and place them by the side of Washington, Hampden and Sidney." President Andrew Johnson on Radical Reconstruction

"Candor compels me to declare that at this time there is no Union as our fathers understood the term, and as they meant it to be understood by us. The Union which they established can exist only where all the States are represented in both Houses of Congress; where one state is as free as another to regulate its internal concerns according to its own will, and where the laws of the central Government, strictly confined to matters of national jurisdiction, apply with equal force to the people of every section." President Andrew Johnson 3rd annual message to the Union

"The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy; much more if he talks ambiguously — talks for his country with "buts" and "ifs" and "ands." (Collected Works of Lincoln, vol. 6, pp. 264—265.) You have to actively cheer for the tyrant....or you're a traitor.

One of those imprisoned for fourteen months for simply questioning the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus was Francis Key Howard, the grandson of Francis Scott Key and editor of the Baltimore Exchange newspaper. In response to an editorial in his newspaper that was critical of the fact that the Lincoln administration had imprisoned without due process the mayor of Baltimore, Congressman Henry May, and some twenty members of the Maryland legislature, he was imprisoned near the very spot where his grandfather composed the Star Spangled Banner. After his release, he noted the deep irony of his grandfather's beloved flag flying over "the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed" (John Marshall, American Bastile, pp. 645—646).

After his release, Francis Key Howard wrote a book about his experiences entitled Fourteen Months in American Bastilles in which he described daily life as "a constant agony, the jailers as modified monsters and the government as an unfeeling persecutor which took delight in abusing its political prisoners" (Sprague, p. 284). In his defense and whitewashing of Lincoln's civil liberties abuses even Lincoln apologist Mark Neely, Jr., author of The Fate of Liberty, noted that in Fort Lafayette (aka “the American Bastille”) and in other dungeons where political prisoners where held, "Handcuffs and hanging by the wrists were rare [but not nonexistent], but in the summer of 1863 the army had developed a water torture that came to be used routinely" (p. 110) Repeatedly, whenever Congress asked for information on the arrests, he replied that it was not in the public interest to furnish the information (p. 302).

In May 1861 the New York Journal of Commerce published a list of 100 Northern newspapers that opposed the Lincoln administration. Lincoln ordered the Postmaster General and the army to shut them all down. May 18, 1864, Lincoln order that directly issued to General John Dix: "You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers." For good measure, all telegraph communication in the North was censored as well.

"Davis . . . possessed the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for a total of only sixteen months. During most of that time he exercised this power more sparingly than did his counterpart in Washington. The rhetoric of southern libertarians about executive tyranny thus seems overblown." (McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 435) Did you get that? That's chief PC Revisionist James McPherson admitting it!

"With the suspension of habeas corpus [the right not to be arrested without reasonable charges being presented], Lincoln authorized General Scott to make arrests without specific charges to protect secessionist Marylanders from interfering with communications between Washington and the rest of the Union. In the next few months, Baltimore's Mayor William Brown, the police chief, and nine members of the Maryland legislature were arrested to prevent them from voting to secede from the Union. . . . "Twice more during the war Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, including the suspension 'throughout the United States' on September 24, 1862. Although the records are somewhat unclear, more than thirteen thousand Americans, most of them opposition Democrats, were arrested during the war years, giving rise to the charge that Lincoln was a tyrant and a dictator." (Davis, Don't Know Much About the Civil War, pp. 182-183)

Lincoln won New York state by 7000 votes "with the help of federal bayonets," wrote Pulitzer Prize—winning Lincoln biographer David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered.

The border states were systematically disarmed, and two "confiscation acts" were written into law in which any U.S. citizen could have all of his private property confiscated by the government for such "crimes" as "falsely exalting the motives of the traitors"; "overstating the success of our adversaries"; and "inflaming party spirit among ourselves." Informers who turned in their neighbors could keep 50 percent of their neighbors' property; the other half when to the U.S. treasury. In Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln James G. Randall painstakingly details all of these attacks on constitutional liberty, and more

According to a 2011 New York Times article, Seward supposedly told Lord Lyons, the British envoy, "My Lord, I can touch a bell on my right hand, and order the arrest of a citizen in Ohio. I can touch the bell again, and order the arrest of a citizen in New York. Can the Queen of England, in her dominions, do as much?".

"Fate has indeed taken a malignant pleasure in flouting the admirers of the United States. It is not merely that their hopes of its universal empire have been disappointed; the mortification has been much deeper than this. Every theory to which they paid special homage has been successively repudiated by their favorite statesmen. They were Apostles of Free Trade: America has established a tariff, compared to which our heaviest protection-tariff has been flimsy. She has become a land of passports, of conscriptions, of press censorship and post-office espionage; of bastilles and lettres de cachet [this was a letter that bore an official seal which authorized the imprisonment, without trial of any person named in the letter] There was little difference between the government of Mr. Lincoln and the government of Napoleon III. There was the form of a legislative assembly, where scarcely any dared to oppose for fear of the charge of treason." the Quarterly Review in Britain

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. A major account of Lincoln’s prisoners was published in 1881, written by John A. Marshall, entitled American Bastille. In his work, he recounts dozens of stories of victims of these arbitrary arrests, including some of the most prominent targets of the Lincoln administration. It includes many from across the North, not just those residing in Border States.

“[The Lincoln administration] has destroyed a vast mass of property and happiness, and scattered to the winds the best hopes of the American people,” wrote the London Times. “The Republican majority in Congress … deserve a foremost place among those representatives of the people who from time to time have made themselves notorious in the history of the world by surrendering the liberties of their country into the hands of a dictator or tyrant…. The office of President, plain and republican as it came from the hands of the founders … is hardly recognizable beneath the mass of powers with which it is overlaid. The first citizen of the republic, the servant of the people, the head of an executive, exercising certain few and clearly defined powers, has become, by the treason of a legislature … the most absolute autocrat on earth.”

Of the situation in the North, Dean Sprague, author of Freedom Under Lincoln, wrote, “The laws were silent, indictments were not found, testimony was not taken, judges did not sit, juries were not impaneled, convictions were not obtained and sentences were not pronounced. The Anglo-Saxon concept of due process, perhaps the greatest political triumph of the ages and the best guardian of freedom, was abandoned.”

Lambdin P. Milligan, an Indiana lawyer, believed the South had every right to secede from the Union. The government accused him of joining an anti-government secret society, the “Knights of the Golden Circle,” which Washington claimed wanted to overthrow the government, and charged him with several offenses – “conspiracy against the government of the United States; affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States; inciting insurrection; disloyal practices; and violation of the laws of war.” More specifically, Milligan had communicated with the enemy, conspired to seize munitions of war stored in the arsenals and liberate Confederate prisoners held in military prisons in Indiana, and resisted the draft. The military commander arrested Milligan in the fall of 1864 and brought him before a military commission, where he was convicted and sentenced to hang. The military had a presence in Indiana, as the war was still ongoing but the civil courts were still in operation.

One of the attorneys arguing on behalf of Milligan was James A. Garfield, future President of the United States. During his oral presentation before the Court, Garfield compared Lincoln’s policy with that in the Confederate States, where nearly all of the war had been fought. Despite the South’s “rebellion,” said Garfield, there was still in the minds of those men, during all the struggle, so deep an impression on this great subject, that, even during their rebellion, the courts of the Southern States adjudicated causes, like the one now before you, in favor of the civil law, and against courts-martial established under military authority for the trial of citizens. In Texas, Mississippi, Virginia, and other insurgent States, by the order of the rebel President, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended, martial law was declared, and provost marshals were appointed to administer military authority. But when civilians, arrested by military authority, petitioned for release by writ of habeas corpus, in every case, save one, the writ was granted, and it was decided that there could be no suspension of the writ or declaration of martial law by the executive, or by any other than the supreme legislative authority.

Indeed. There was considerable sentiment against Lincoln's war in New Jersey.

New Jersey Peace Resolutions March 18 1863

Be it resolved, That it is the deliberate sense of the people of this State that the war power within the limits of the Constitution is ample for any and all emergencies, and that all assumption of power, under whatever plea, beyond that conferred by the Constitution, is without warrant or authority, and if permitted to continue without remonstrance, will finally encompass the destruction of the liberties of the people and the death of the Republic; and therefore, to the end that in any event the matured and deliberate sense of the people of New Jersey may be known and declared, we, their representatives in Senate and General Assembly convened, do, in their name and in their behalf, make unto the Federal Government this our solemn

PROTEST

Against a war waged with the insurgent States for the accomplishment of unconstitutional or partisan purposes; Against a war which has for its object the subjugation of any of the States, with a view to their reduction to territorial condition; ...

Against the domination of the military over the civil laws in States, Territories, or districts not in a state of insurrection;

Against all arrests without warrant;

Against the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus in States and Territories sustaining the Federal Government, "where the public safety does not require it,"

and against the assumption of power by any person to suspend such writ, except under the express authority of Congress;

Against the creation of new States by the division of existing ones, or in any other manner not clearly authorized by the Constitution, and against the right of secession as practically admitted by the action of Congress in admitting as a new State a portion of the State of Virginia;

Against the power assumed in the proclamation of the President made January first, 1863, by which all the slaves in certain States and parts of States are for ever set free;

and against the expenditures of the public moneys for the emancipation of slaves or their support at any time, under any pretence whatever;

Against any and every exercise of power upon the part of the Federal Government that is not clearly given and expressed in the Federal Constitution - reasserting that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

And be it Resolved, That ... while abating naught in her devotion to the Union of the States and the dignity and power of the Federal Government, at no time since the commencement of the present war has this State been other than willing to terminate peacefully and honorably to all a war unnecessary in its origin, fraught with horror and suffering in its prosecution, and necessarily dangerous to the liberties of all in its continuance ...