Secession votes before and after Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to invade the South

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Vote for Convention Delegates

December 1860-February 1861
.................Secession.....Union

Alabama...........35,693.........28,181......Dec 24, 1860
Arkansas...........17,927.........23,626......Feb 18, 1861
Florida................6,000..........4,000......Dec 22, 1860 (estimate-see note)
Georgia.............44,152.........41,632......Jan 2, 1861
Louisiana..........20,214.........18,451......Jan 7, 1861
Mississippi.........16,800.........12,218......Dec 20, 1860
N. Carolina.......21,775..........37,375.....Feb 28, 1861 (see note)
S. Carolina........10,118...............253.....Dec 6, 1860 (see note)
Tennessee.........24,749.........88,803......Feb 9, 1861
Texas................46,153..........14,747......Feb 23, 1861 (referendum)
Virginia............45,161.........100,536......Feb 4, 1861 ("reference vote"-see note)

Total..........288,742.....369,822
......................43.8%........56.2%


December 1860-February 1861
.................Secession.....Union

N. Carolina.......21,775..........37,375.....Feb 28, 1861
Tennessee.........24,749.........88,803......Feb 9, 1861
Virginia............45,161.........100,536......Feb 4, 1861

Total............91,685......226,714
.......................28.8%........71.2%


May-June 1861
.................Secession.....Union

N. Carolina.........4,992..................0......May 13, 1861 (see note)
Tennessee........104,913.........47,238......June 8, 1861 (referendum)
Virginia............132,201.........37,451......May 23, 1861 (referendum)

Total...........242,106......84,689
.......................74.1%........25.9%

"Union"- conditional, unconditional, cooperationist, etc

Alabama
http://books.google.com/books?id=IvyB6nqTUBcC&pg=PA125&dq="35,693" "28,181" alabama&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n1VkUf76C5CK9QTb4oDYAQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q="35,693" "28,181" alabama&f=false

Arkansas
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=6304

Florida
"Estimates of co-operationist strength range from 36 to 43 per cent"
http://books.google.com/books?id=uDUjPolsuRAC&pg=PA369&dq=florida secession 36 43&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qExkUbeEAoii8QT15ICYCA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=florida secession 36 43&f=false

Georgia
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1085

Louisiana
http://books.google.com/books?id=S7Qk9nIwk14C&pg=PA497&dq=Louisiana "20,214" "18,451"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2zBjUfXDBJD89gSJg4G4Bg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Louisiana "20,214" "18,451"&f=false

Mississippi
http://books.google.com/books?id=S7Qk9nIwk14C&pg=PA496&dq="16,800" "12,218" mississippi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mzFjUc6iGIOm8AThu4CICw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q="16,800" "12,218" mississippi&f=false

North Carolina
Partial return for February 28 election (about 65%).-Carolina Observer (Fayetteville, NC), March 4 & 11, 1861. Partial return for May 13 election (five counties). No Union candidates. -Standard (Raleigh, NC), May 22, 1861.

South Carolina
Partial return for December 6 election (about 40%). -Charleston Courier, December 8 & 10-12, 1860.

Tennessee
http://books.google.com/books?id=2NEGAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA43&dq=Tennessee "24,749" "88,803"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RTJjUcPBO4iC9gSv04GgBw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Tennessee "24,749" "88,803"&f=false

Texas
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4554

Virginia
The reference vote reflected union and secession sentiment in the state.
http://books.google.com/books?id=RIIKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA256&dq="45,161" "100,536"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6_llUdKXEo-08ASMzICQAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q="45,161" "100,536"&f=false[/quote]
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Vote for Convention Delegates
.................Secession....Union.............................Secession....Union

Alabama..........35,693.........28,181
Arkansas..........17,927.........23,626
Florida..................*...................*....
Georgia............44,152.........41,632
Louisiana.........20,214.........18,451
Mississippi........16,800.........12,218
N. Carolina...........*...................*.... (Feb 28 election)...............*..................*..... (May 13 election)
S. Carolina............*...................*....
Tennessee.........24,749.........88,803.....................................104,913.........47,238 (referendum)
Texas................46,153..........14,747 (referendum)
Virginia.................*...................*..........................................132,201.........37,451 (referendum)

Total..........205,688.....227,658............................237,114......84,689

*Vote for delegates unknown.
"Union"- conditional, unconditional, cooperationist, etc
Mississippi-An additional 12,000 votes were cast for which the position of the delegate is unknown.

Amazingly enough, this appears to be exactly the same list as the Secession votes before and after the Confederacy's aggressive assault upon Fort Sumter list.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The excuse that the Upper South did not secede over the issue of slavery, but instead only did so after Lincoln's call for troops to suppress the rebellion, is old, worn-out, and simply not true.

Read their secession convention records and see how many times the word "slave" or "slavery" comes up.

You will NOT be surprised.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

Bama proud

Cadet
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
The excuse that the Upper South did not secede over the issue of slavery, but instead only did so after Lincoln's call for troops to suppress the rebellion, is old, worn-out, and simply not true.

Read their secession convention records and see how many times the word "slave" or "slavery" comes up.

You will NOT be surprised.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
We seceded, or tried to anyway, for the same reason our colonists left England. That union flag was the flag of a bunch of rebels only about 85 years earlier. We didn't want to be dictated to by a king or all-powerful leader. It was and is supposed to be a government of the people. I am NOT for slavery, but it was already in place, and Lincoln used it as an admirable excuse to stop the spread of wealth in the south, and the spread of power. He knew we could afford to buy up western territories, and needed a way to stop it. He first claimed he would only stop slavery by not allowing it where it didn't already exist. But he would do nothing to stop it where it already existed. Of course, that was a lie as he handed down the emancipation proclamation without allowing us to vote on it. He sent troops to Ft. Sumpter, and we tried to allow them to leave peacefully, or they could stay in there and starve if they wanted to. We said we would only fire if they were stupid enough to send in more troops, weapons, ammo, supplies, etc. Well, they did, obviously. From then on, it was never a fair fight. Yankees had everything they wanted/needed. We, however were blocked from being able to buy or sell anything from our ports. And what we could make ourselves, was destroyed, along with private citizens' homes, livestock, and everything else. Sherman should have been convicted of war crimes. And admirable Mr. Lincoln stated that he did not believe negroes were to be considered equal to whites. He didn't believe them to be of equal intelligence, and certainly didn't want them to be able to vote.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
We seceded, or tried to anyway, for the same reason our colonists left England. That union flag was the flag of a bunch of rebels only about 85 years earlier. We didn't want to be dictated to by a king or all-powerful leader. It was and is supposed to be a government of the people. I am NOT for slavery, but it was already in place, and Lincoln used it as an admirable excuse to stop the spread of wealth in the south, and the spread of power. He knew we could afford to buy up western territories, and needed a way to stop it. He first claimed he would only stop slavery by not allowing it where it didn't already exist. But he would do nothing to stop it where it already existed. Of course, that was a lie as he handed down the emancipation proclamation without allowing us to vote on it. He sent troops to Ft. Sumpter, and we tried to allow them to leave peacefully, or they could stay in there and starve if they wanted to. We said we would only fire if they were stupid enough to send in more troops, weapons, ammo, supplies, etc. Well, they did, obviously. From then on, it was never a fair fight. Yankees had everything they wanted/needed. We, however were blocked from being able to buy or sell anything from our ports. And what we could make ourselves, was destroyed, along with private citizens' homes, livestock, and everything else. Sherman should have been convicted of war crimes. And admirable Mr. Lincoln stated that he did not believe negroes were to be considered equal to whites. He didn't believe them to be of equal intelligence, and certainly didn't want them to be able to vote.


Interesting, but is it not a fact that you took 4 million human beings away from the possibility of freedom and if so, does not your claim of freedom ring false.
 

Bama proud

Cadet
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Interesting, but is it not a fact that you took 4 million human beings away from the possibility of freedom and if so, does not your claim of freedom ring false.
Were we allowed to freely leave the union, or were 700,000+ killed for it, and us forced to stay? I am not debating slavery here. My point is Lincoln didn't care about the plight of slaves other than how it would affect his interests financially and politically. It is always dangerous when a leader gets too much power and starts handing down orders. It is called a dictatorship, and we didn't want that.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
We seceded, or tried to anyway, for the same reason our colonists left England. That union flag was the flag of a bunch of rebels only about 85 years earlier. We didn't want to be dictated to by a king or all-powerful leader. It was and is supposed to be a government of the people. I am NOT for slavery, but it was already in place, and Lincoln used it as an admirable excuse to stop the spread of wealth in the south, and the spread of power. He knew we could afford to buy up western territories, and needed a way to stop it. He first claimed he would only stop slavery by not allowing it where it didn't already exist. But he would do nothing to stop it where it already existed. Of course, that was a lie as he handed down the emancipation proclamation without allowing us to vote on it. He sent troops to Ft. Sumpter, and we tried to allow them to leave peacefully, or they could stay in there and starve if they wanted to. We said we would only fire if they were stupid enough to send in more troops, weapons, ammo, supplies, etc. Well, they did, obviously. From then on, it was never a fair fight. Yankees had everything they wanted/needed. We, however were blocked from being able to buy or sell anything from our ports. And what we could make ourselves, was destroyed, along with private citizens' homes, livestock, and everything else. Sherman should have been convicted of war crimes. And admirable Mr. Lincoln stated that he did not believe negroes were to be considered equal to whites. He didn't believe them to be of equal intelligence, and certainly didn't want them to be able to vote.
Weren't some of those "bunch of rebels" Virginians or just southerners???
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Were we allowed to freely leave the union, or were 700,000+ killed for it, and us forced to stay? I am not debating slavery here. My point is Lincoln didn't care about the plight of slaves other than how it would affect his interests financially and politically. It is always dangerous when a leader gets too much power and starts handing down orders. It is called a dictatorship, and we didn't want that.


You did not answer my question. Please answer my question.

To help you I will quote the CSA Constitution, the fundamental law and expression of CSA political will.

CSA Constitution.
ARTICLE. I.
Section 9.
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


ARTICLE. IV.
Sect. 2.
(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Sect. 3.
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates [sic]; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Lincoln is not a factor, the Union is not a factor. This is the CSA constitution.

Now please answer the question.

Is it not a fact that you took 4 million human beings away from the possibility of freedom and if so, does not your claim of freedom ring false.
 

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Location
Central Massachusetts
Interesting, but is it not a fact that you took 4 million human beings away from the possibility of freedom and if so, does not your claim of freedom ring false.


As true as this is, we as Americans must recognize that the same argument applies to 1776 just as it does to 1861. That "false ring" emanating from loud protests of "Freedom!" is the "original sin" of the American Republic -- the entire Republic, north and south. It took four agonizing years of bloody civil war to bring about "a new birth of Freedom".

jno
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Amazingly enough, this appears to be exactly the same list as the Secession votes before and after the Confederacy's aggressive assault upon Fort Sumter list.

In North Carolina, it was the unionists that called for a state convention to consider secession-- they thought they had the votes to nip it in the bud. Things started to go wrong when a goodly number of supposedly unionists started to show secessionist sympathies. The unionists then quickly cancelled the convention and called for a statewide referendum with the clever theme of “watch and wait.” In the February 1861 referendum the anti secessionist won a narrow victory 47,323 to 46,672 out of 93,977 votes cast.

“We are all one now,” said John A. Gilmer, a staunch Unionist, to George Howard, equally staunch Secessionist,
when they heard the news of the firing on Sumter and Lincoln’s call for troops. After the adoption of the [North Carolina] Ordinance of Secession “
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
As true as this is, we as Americans must recognize that the same argument applies to 1776 just as it does to 1861. That "false ring" emanating from loud protests of "Freedom!" is the "original sin" of the American Republic -- the entire Republic, north and south. It took four agonizing years of bloody civil war to bring about "a new birth of Freedom".

jno


There are those who believe that ACW finished the work of the American Revolution. There was a Union view that the South wished to extinguish the experiment in Democracy began in 1776. I think it took 100-150 more years for freedom to be largely recognized.
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
In the February 1861 referendum the anti secessionist won a narrow victory 47,323 to 46,672 out of 93,977 votes cast.

“We are all one now,” said John A. Gilmer, a staunch Unionist, to George Howard, equally staunch Secessionist,
when they heard the news of the firing on Sumter and Lincoln’s call for troops. After the adoption of the [North Carolina] Ordinance of Secession “
That was the vote on whether to have a convention or not.

I need the vote for delegates for both February 28 and May 13. The first election results had 39 for secession and 81 against. The delegates that were elected on May 13 voted 115-0 for secession.
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
The excuse that the Upper South did not secede over the issue of slavery, but instead only did so after Lincoln's call for troops to suppress the rebellion, is old, worn-out, and simply not true.

Read their secession convention records and see how many times the word "slave" or "slavery" comes up.

You will NOT be surprised.

Yeah, it's not hard to imagine you at the keyboard doing word searches for "slavery."
:smile coffee:

Sincerely,
Unionblue
But the numbers fly in your face. When I find the votes for those other states (VA, NC, SC, FL) the Union vote will probably have a 100,000 vote majority.

Think of it - Tennessee and Virginia which had the greatest opposition to secession, voted nearly 3 to 1 in favor after Lincoln's call for troops.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
... He sent troops to Ft. Sumpter, and we tried to allow them to leave peacefully, or they could stay in there and starve if they wanted to.

The troops in Ft Sumter where there before Lincoln became president.

We said we would only fire if they were stupid enough to send in more troops, weapons, ammo, supplies, etc. Well, they did, obviously. From then on, it was never a fair fight. Yankees had everything they wanted/needed. We, however were blocked from being able to buy or sell anything from our ports. And what we could make ourselves, was destroyed, along with private citizens' homes, livestock, and everything else.

Based on the rest of the paragraph, which side was really the stupid ones?
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Think of it - Tennessee and Virginia which had the greatest opposition to secession, voted nearly 3 to 1 in favor after Lincoln's call for troops.


You have reported the numbers for Tennessee's first vote incorrectly.
The numbers I have seen are 59,449 for and 62,282 against

Think of it -- in February, before Lincoln was president, over 40% of the voters in Tennessee were eager to rebel

Think of it -- in June 1861, after the war was underway and a lot more had happened than just Lincoln;s first call for troops, 1/3 of Tennessee still voted for staying loyal to the USA.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
The excuse that the Upper South did not secede over the issue of slavery, but instead only did so after Lincoln's call for troops to suppress the rebellion, is old, worn-out, and simply not true.

Read their secession convention records and see how many times the word "slave" or "slavery" comes up.

You will NOT be surprised.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

During the secession convention in Virginia, the issue of slavery was an important topic of debate. However, the members of the convention also stated they would not agree to the use of federal forces against the citizens of a seceded state. The state of Virginia originally wanted to remain in the Union and the secession convention voted not to secede on April 4, 1861 by a margin of 2 to 1. However, Lincoln's call for troops on April 15th changed everything. On April 17th, the secession convention was presented with the response of Governor Letcher of VA to Lincoln's request for troops. Gov. Letcher stated "I have only to say that, that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington, for any such purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the southern states, .....an object in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795, will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war.....". Subsequently, the secession convention voted by a clear majority to recommend a secession ordinance to the public who ratified the ordinance on May 23. Therefore, the reason the secession convention had reversed itself in only a short two week period and voted for secession was in response to Lincoln's call for troops.

The other states of the Upper South also originally desired to remain in the Union. In February 1861, North Carolina and Tennessee held elections for the people to decide whether or not to call state conventions to deliberate and decide on secession. In both of these states, the residents voted not to even hold state conventions to discuss the issue of secession. However, after Lincoln's call for troops the situation in these states changed also. Governor Ellis of N. Carolina responded to Lincoln's request for troops by stating " I have to reply, that I regard the levy of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the states of the South as in violation of the Constitution, and a usurption of power." Subsequently, a special session of the legislature was called by the Governor which authorized a state convention and secession was approved in May 1861. Horace Maynard, who was a member of Congress from Tennessee, called Lincoln's proclamation for troops "disastrous" because it turned public sentiment against the Union in his state. He stated the residents of Tenn. believed the troops would be used for no other purpose "but to invade, overrun and subjugate the Southern States". Therefore, this state held another referendum and the public voted to secede from the Union in June 1861. As for Arkansas, the secession ordinance of this state specifically refers to Lincoln's proclamation for troops. The ordinance states ".....he (Lincoln) has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule,.......and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas."

In summary, the states of the Upper South had all originally voted to remain in the Union. However, they believed that Lincoln's call for troops was unconstitutional and was an attempt to subjugate the South. Subsequently, after the call for troops by Lincoln, all the states of the Upper South voted to secede from the Union as a result of the proclamation.
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
You have reported the numbers for Tennessee's first vote incorrectly.
The numbers I have seen are 59,449 for and 62,282 against
Vote for what? To have a convention? Or the vote for delegates?

"The vote for the convention was 57,798, and for delegates who favored secession, 24,749. The vote against the convention was 69,675, and for delegates who favored the Union, 88,803. "
http://books.google.com/books?id=8G...6AEwAw#v=onepage&q="88,803" secession&f=false
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
Were we allowed to freely leave the union, or were 700,000+ killed for it, and us forced to stay? I am not debating slavery here. My point is Lincoln didn't care about the plight of slaves other than how it would affect his interests financially and politically. It is always dangerous when a leader gets too much power and starts handing down orders. It is called a dictatorship, and we didn't want that.
No it was called a fair legal election that the slave owning political party lost, so they decided to leave..
 

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
South of the North 40
No it was called a fair legal election that the slave owning political party lost, so they decided to leave..

I would go one step more and say it was a planned sabotage of the 1860 Democratic platform so the Dems would lose and have an excuse for secession. If Fremont had won in 56 I have little doubt SC would have left then. The slaveocracy had too much power and too much control of the corrupion inherent in the political process.

There really hasn't been a book written on the back room dealings of the 1860 Democratic convention in Chalreston. I suspect one would smell a few rats if the records weren't carefully destroyed. The slaveocracy cultivated a crop of professional politicians who, I believe, knew exactly what they were doing and had been planning for it. They got a splendid start, but forgot to plan that the US might elect someone who was neither stupid nor inept w/ more than a little intestinal fortitude. They were counting on another Buchannan; they got Lincoln.
 

KeyserSoze

Captain
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Location
Kansas City
We seceded, or tried to anyway, for the same reason our colonists left England.

No taxation without representation? Nonsense.


I am NOT for slavery, but it was already in place, and Lincoln used it as an admirable excuse to stop the spread of wealth in the south, and the spread of power.



Of course, that was a lie as he handed down the emancipation proclamation without allowing us to vote on it.

Possibly because you all were off rebelling at the time?

He sent troops to Ft. Sumpter, and we tried to allow them to leave peacefully, or they could stay in there and starve if they wanted to. We said we would only fire if they were stupid enough to send in more troops, weapons, ammo, supplies, etc. Well, they did, obviously.

It wasn't there fort. It was the property of the federal government.

From then on, it was never a fair fight. Yankees had everything they wanted/needed. We, however were blocked from being able to buy or sell anything from our ports. And what we could make ourselves, was destroyed, along with private citizens' homes, livestock, and everything else. Sherman should have been convicted of war crimes. And admirable Mr. Lincoln stated that he did not believe negroes were to be considered equal to whites. He didn't believe them to be of equal intelligence, and certainly didn't want them to be able to vote.

So now you're complaining because we didn't let you win the war that you were foolish enough to begin in the first place?
 
Top