So why didn't rebel magnates in deep south cotton states have equal high confidence that Abe's promises were honest? In fact, mere thought of Abe as President struck fear in white southerners to incite secession before his election to Oval Office was reality. Each region must have some reason for its perception of him that is direct opposite from Dixie's other end. What else has such power to polarize but pecuniary interests? Slavery was dead to all practical extents up north where industrialists ran the show. Whereas, agricultural pursuits was standing order of every day on killing fields run by King Cotton, Sir Rice Paddy or Lord Sugar Daddy in deep heart of Dixie. Those domains require many Negroes who sustains their eco viability. In fact, most Black captive subjects came from more northerly climes where the air and soil aren't suitable for their toil. More than a million made the trek on foot, boats and trains during the largest forced human migration in human history bka America's Domestic Slave Trade.
Thus, what did Far Upper Borderlanders have to gain from a floodgates of free labor running loose in their territory?
That's what I tended to suspect long before now. But if ALL 4 or 5 holdouts joined rebels in mass secession fever, Union jeopardy would have been overwhelming to become extinct vs the distinct sovereign power it is to this day. Ive read about the many strategic advantages each border state offered. From Kentuckys maritime access, to Missouri's St Louis outlets, to Marylands buffers of protection for DC, et al.
Which brought a new question to mind: Was it possible for a state to declare itself neutral territory and stay off the warpath either way it ran? Or did Union membership come with some dues that are not negotiable in any circumstance?
(BTW, I've read that rebels were far from true confederates, as a few of their own sought to make a new break for themselves.)