Was secession put to a popular vote?
June 24, 2015 2:36 PM Subscribe
Was secession put to direct popular vote in any state?
When the US southern states seceded in 1861, they all took authority from conventions created by special elections. AFAIK those elections returned only convention delegates -- not up-or-down decisions on secession.
Was secession itself put to direct popular vote in any US state?
When the US southern states seceded in 1861, they all took authority from conventions created by special elections. AFAIK those elections returned only convention delegates -- not up-or-down decisions on secession.
Was secession itself put to direct popular vote in any US state?
Also, it looks like Texas and Tennessee had referendums on secession: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession
posted by ndfine at 3:19 PM on June 24, 2015
posted by ndfine at 3:19 PM on June 24, 2015
TN's first referendum was to hold a convention to decide the matter. It was defeated. However:
...after the battle of Fort Sumter and President Lincoln’s call for the states to send troops for war, public opinion turned in the state. A new referendum was held in June on outright secession (skipping the issue of a convention), and the voters who came the polls strongly supported secession. It is worth noting that only 13% of the actual population cast ballots and in an era of no secret ballot, intimidation was a major issue. Nevertheless, this time Middle Tennessee sided with the West and heavily backed secession. Middle Tennessee had rejected a convention with 51% in February, but come June it favored secession over 80%. (source)
posted by jquinby at 4:12 PM on June 24, 2015
...after the battle of Fort Sumter and President Lincoln’s call for the states to send troops for war, public opinion turned in the state. A new referendum was held in June on outright secession (skipping the issue of a convention), and the voters who came the polls strongly supported secession. It is worth noting that only 13% of the actual population cast ballots and in an era of no secret ballot, intimidation was a major issue. Nevertheless, this time Middle Tennessee sided with the West and heavily backed secession. Middle Tennessee had rejected a convention with 51% in February, but come June it favored secession over 80%. (source)
posted by jquinby at 4:12 PM on June 24, 2015
This blog post suggests that Texas, Tennessee, and Virginia had referendums, and that Georgia might have.
The Texas results are shown here, although apparently there was fraud to rig the vote for secession (shocker). Here's a map showing how the counties in Texas went.
posted by adamrice at 4:27 PM on June 24, 2015
The Texas results are shown here, although apparently there was fraud to rig the vote for secession (shocker). Here's a map showing how the counties in Texas went.
posted by adamrice at 4:27 PM on June 24, 2015
Arkansas went through its Secession Convention, its members having been elected by (as monospace notes) a limited portion of the states' population.
"Appended is the Secession ordinance which the Arkansas State Convention adopted on May 6, Hon. ISAAC MURPHY, of Madison County, alone voting in the negative:
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the Union now existing between the State of Arkansas and the other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America." ... "
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 4:32 PM on June 24, 2015
"Appended is the Secession ordinance which the Arkansas State Convention adopted on May 6, Hon. ISAAC MURPHY, of Madison County, alone voting in the negative:
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the Union now existing between the State of Arkansas and the other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America." ... "
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 4:32 PM on June 24, 2015
Several states had popular votes, though my understanding is that the books were cooked so it looked like the common people supported secession unanimously, when in fact the decisions were much more mixed. Stephanie McCurry's book Confederate Reckoning has a lot of detailed info about it; you can read some of it here. (Page 55 in particular seems to have some good info.)
posted by lilac girl at 7:14 PM on June 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by lilac girl at 7:14 PM on June 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
The PBS biography of Lee suggests that it was his decision to side with the Confederacy and lead its armies that tipped the scales for states to line up behind secession.
posted by mmiddle at 7:49 AM on June 25, 2015
posted by mmiddle at 7:49 AM on June 25, 2015
Are you asking because a 'direct popular vote' shows what people really wanted?
That idea can be misleading. Here in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, they tell an interesting story about what happened in between the two kinds of election (the delegate election was held before the referendum).
The economy here depended much less on slave labor than did eastern Virginia, and many communities were Mennonites (pacifists who had been advocating abolition since 1688) or Church of the Brethren (pacifists who had been renouncing slavery since 1797). So in the first special election, people voted against secession. Logically, they should have wound up part of West Virginia, as did their immediate neighbors to the west.
Unfortunately, Richmond realized the Valley was a vital resource ('the breadbasket of the confederacy') and sent in troops. The next election went the other way, with much lower turnout. Some people fled. Others abstained. Others may have voted for secession in order to prevent bloodshed in the Valley (which in the long run didn't work out so well). And of course, there were lots of people who voted for secession both times, and were passionate about it. But it would be difficult to argue that the second election offers a better measure of public opinion.
(I'm just repeating what I've heard. But this book may be helpful.)
posted by feral_goldfish at 10:45 AM on June 25, 2015
That idea can be misleading. Here in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, they tell an interesting story about what happened in between the two kinds of election (the delegate election was held before the referendum).
The economy here depended much less on slave labor than did eastern Virginia, and many communities were Mennonites (pacifists who had been advocating abolition since 1688) or Church of the Brethren (pacifists who had been renouncing slavery since 1797). So in the first special election, people voted against secession. Logically, they should have wound up part of West Virginia, as did their immediate neighbors to the west.
Unfortunately, Richmond realized the Valley was a vital resource ('the breadbasket of the confederacy') and sent in troops. The next election went the other way, with much lower turnout. Some people fled. Others abstained. Others may have voted for secession in order to prevent bloodshed in the Valley (which in the long run didn't work out so well). And of course, there were lots of people who voted for secession both times, and were passionate about it. But it would be difficult to argue that the second election offers a better measure of public opinion.
(I'm just repeating what I've heard. But this book may be helpful.)
posted by feral_goldfish at 10:45 AM on June 25, 2015
A popular vote in the states that seceded would have been limited to white men, and in most of the states would almost certainly have been a minority of the population.
Slaves, who couldn't vote, made up large proportions of the seceding states' populations in 1860: 45% of Alabama's population, 26% of Arkansas', 44% of Florida's, 44% of Georgia's, 47% of Louisiana's, 55% of Mississippi's, 33% of North Carolina's, 57% of South Carolina's, 25% of Tennessee's, 30% of Texas', and 31% of Virginia's.
In the border states--Delaware (2%), Kentucky (20%), Maryland (13%), and Missouri (10%)--slaves made up smaller proportions, and none of the Northern states had slaves.
Women couldn't vote in the United States until 1920.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:19 PM on June 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
Slaves, who couldn't vote, made up large proportions of the seceding states' populations in 1860: 45% of Alabama's population, 26% of Arkansas', 44% of Florida's, 44% of Georgia's, 47% of Louisiana's, 55% of Mississippi's, 33% of North Carolina's, 57% of South Carolina's, 25% of Tennessee's, 30% of Texas', and 31% of Virginia's.
In the border states--Delaware (2%), Kentucky (20%), Maryland (13%), and Missouri (10%)--slaves made up smaller proportions, and none of the Northern states had slaves.
Women couldn't vote in the United States until 1920.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:19 PM on June 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: This is all much appreciated, and yes, it’s clear than there were direct votes. But they all seem to have ratified decisions already made by a convention or legislature.
And thus mea culpa. I should had been more careful with my question, to include that qualifier: direct popular vote on secession, up or down, other than a vote to ratify the earlier action of a state body or official.
Most states held elections for convention delegates, but no direct vote on Secession. (One possible confuser: The word referendum is used inconsistently in the literature, but when pursued it clearly refers to an election for delegates.)
Of course, it’s possible to say this or that state ‘voted for (or against) Secession,’ in that its convention election returned delegates clearly identifiable as pro- or against Secession. But it was not always so cut-and-dried, as for example, in GA – where the vote could not guarantee that delegates pledged to loyalty would hold firm in the convention, where the Slave Power could make its influence felt more keenly. (Plus ça change, no?)
Couple of points:
"Are you asking because a 'direct popular vote' shows what people really wanted?"
No, but thank you anyway. Valid points & related to what I’m looking at. For example, a Secession vote held after it was clear the state was going out would be a different proposition to many, e.g. merchants and wholesalers and printers who must think about what business is going look like for a Unionist. (I don’t believe the secret ballot was in use anywhere in the South at that time.)
“[The] vote .. would have been limited to white men … “Women couldn’t vote …:”
True both, and certainly millions of women and slave voters would have changed the outcomes. But in 1861 that brighter world had not been born, or even contemplated by many. I’m interested here in the popular vote as it was defined by law at the time.
tl;dr: Any evidence of a specific up-or-down vote on the Secession question itself, other than to ratify an earlier decision by a legislature, convention, or executive?
posted by LonnieK at 7:03 PM on June 25, 2015
And thus mea culpa. I should had been more careful with my question, to include that qualifier: direct popular vote on secession, up or down, other than a vote to ratify the earlier action of a state body or official.
Most states held elections for convention delegates, but no direct vote on Secession. (One possible confuser: The word referendum is used inconsistently in the literature, but when pursued it clearly refers to an election for delegates.)
Of course, it’s possible to say this or that state ‘voted for (or against) Secession,’ in that its convention election returned delegates clearly identifiable as pro- or against Secession. But it was not always so cut-and-dried, as for example, in GA – where the vote could not guarantee that delegates pledged to loyalty would hold firm in the convention, where the Slave Power could make its influence felt more keenly. (Plus ça change, no?)
Couple of points:
"Are you asking because a 'direct popular vote' shows what people really wanted?"
No, but thank you anyway. Valid points & related to what I’m looking at. For example, a Secession vote held after it was clear the state was going out would be a different proposition to many, e.g. merchants and wholesalers and printers who must think about what business is going look like for a Unionist. (I don’t believe the secret ballot was in use anywhere in the South at that time.)
“[The] vote .. would have been limited to white men … “Women couldn’t vote …:”
True both, and certainly millions of women and slave voters would have changed the outcomes. But in 1861 that brighter world had not been born, or even contemplated by many. I’m interested here in the popular vote as it was defined by law at the time.
tl;dr: Any evidence of a specific up-or-down vote on the Secession question itself, other than to ratify an earlier decision by a legislature, convention, or executive?
posted by LonnieK at 7:03 PM on June 25, 2015
Best answer: LonnieK, I've been thinking on your question for a few weeks and finally got to the point where I can pick up McCurry's Confederate Reckoning book I suggested earlier. I reread the second chapter and here's what I found. I'm including all the details she does. (All page #s point to her book unless I say otherwise)
Deep South: McCurry argues there was no legitimate democratic process as Unionist politicians often weren't even on the ballots in 1860.
-South Carolina: seceded via state convention (the vote was unanimous on the first day of the convention). Those delegates were elected via popular election, but not without intense politicking. Also, remember there weren't any real opposition choices: most of the candidates on the ballots were all pro-secession. South Carolina was the only unanimous secession vote. (40-45)
-Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana: held state conventions for secession (53)
-Texas: the convention voted for secession (outcome: 166-8) and was later ratified by the people (55)
-Georgia: seceded by convention vote (McCurry argues the GA governor cooked the books and falsified results to make support seem greater than it was -- the governor claimed 57% support but McCurry argues it was just over 50%, and then the legislature required all delegates to sign the secession order, even if they'd voted against it, to give a greater air of unity) (56)
-Alabama: decided by state convention (61)
Upper South: McCurry argues that 19th-century democratic debate was much more substantial in the Upper South, as all 4 presidential candidates at least appeared on the tickets and opposition parties were able to challenge the majority.
-Tennessee: voters in a popular election initially voted against a secession convention (65). The governor later submitted a request for secession to the legislature, who voted on it. Tennessee was one of the last state to secede. (cite)
-North Carolina: Voters also initially refused to call a secession convention (65). I couldn't find anything about exactly how they seceded, but I'd bet good money it was through a similar path as Tennessee, as they were the other last state to secede. Given how tepid the state was about the whole process I can't imagine secession would be put to a direct, popular vote.
-Virginia & Arkansas: held a secession convention first, then required the decision to be ratified by the people (65)
Votes Against Secession
-Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky: voters refused to call secession conventions and thus shut down the whole process (65)
-West Virginia: looks like they seceded from Virginia as a convention, not by popular vote (cite)
-Missouri: state convention voted for Union; the governor took control of the state militia and unilaterally declared secession; things fell into chaos (76)
-Maryland: federal troops occupied the state before anybody could vote for a convention (76)
tl;dr: No states voted for secession through a popular election, though arguably several states did vote against secession through popular vote. Likely, this was due to 19th century American political culture, which very rarely put important decisions in the hands of the voters. The convention process, as with secession, was far more common. Direct referendums really only became popular in the US during the Progressive Era in the early 20th century. Also, if you want more info you should read Stephanie McCurry's book -- chapter 2 in particular addresses exactly this topic.
"Secession convention" is also really fun to say.
posted by lilac girl at 12:04 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Deep South: McCurry argues there was no legitimate democratic process as Unionist politicians often weren't even on the ballots in 1860.
-South Carolina: seceded via state convention (the vote was unanimous on the first day of the convention). Those delegates were elected via popular election, but not without intense politicking. Also, remember there weren't any real opposition choices: most of the candidates on the ballots were all pro-secession. South Carolina was the only unanimous secession vote. (40-45)
-Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana: held state conventions for secession (53)
-Texas: the convention voted for secession (outcome: 166-8) and was later ratified by the people (55)
-Georgia: seceded by convention vote (McCurry argues the GA governor cooked the books and falsified results to make support seem greater than it was -- the governor claimed 57% support but McCurry argues it was just over 50%, and then the legislature required all delegates to sign the secession order, even if they'd voted against it, to give a greater air of unity) (56)
-Alabama: decided by state convention (61)
Upper South: McCurry argues that 19th-century democratic debate was much more substantial in the Upper South, as all 4 presidential candidates at least appeared on the tickets and opposition parties were able to challenge the majority.
-Tennessee: voters in a popular election initially voted against a secession convention (65). The governor later submitted a request for secession to the legislature, who voted on it. Tennessee was one of the last state to secede. (cite)
-North Carolina: Voters also initially refused to call a secession convention (65). I couldn't find anything about exactly how they seceded, but I'd bet good money it was through a similar path as Tennessee, as they were the other last state to secede. Given how tepid the state was about the whole process I can't imagine secession would be put to a direct, popular vote.
-Virginia & Arkansas: held a secession convention first, then required the decision to be ratified by the people (65)
Votes Against Secession
-Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky: voters refused to call secession conventions and thus shut down the whole process (65)
-West Virginia: looks like they seceded from Virginia as a convention, not by popular vote (cite)
-Missouri: state convention voted for Union; the governor took control of the state militia and unilaterally declared secession; things fell into chaos (76)
-Maryland: federal troops occupied the state before anybody could vote for a convention (76)
tl;dr: No states voted for secession through a popular election, though arguably several states did vote against secession through popular vote. Likely, this was due to 19th century American political culture, which very rarely put important decisions in the hands of the voters. The convention process, as with secession, was far more common. Direct referendums really only became popular in the US during the Progressive Era in the early 20th century. Also, if you want more info you should read Stephanie McCurry's book -- chapter 2 in particular addresses exactly this topic.
"Secession convention" is also really fun to say.
posted by lilac girl at 12:04 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Although, now that I've fallen down the rabbit hole, you could possibly make an argument that by the conventions of the time, voting for delegates to the state conventions was a popular vote on secession. At least, if you follow my argument about Maryland/Delaware/Kentucky being popular votes against session to its conclusion you'd have to argue that. By that reasoning, then, you could say that voters in places like South Carolina and Mississippi did vote on the issue, albeit in a roundabout way.* So, I guess the easy answer to your question is that no states held a direct, popular referendum on the secession question, but the issue gets more complex if you start arguing whether Southerners ever voted on the issue at all.
*Falling down the rabbit hole further, those may not be the best examples because there was no effective opposition to secession... in which case you'd have to use states like Virginia & Arkansas as your evidence. But Virginia's convention was long & drawn out because they couldn't agree on a course of action until after Fort Sumter, so you can't really say there was a clear consensus on the issue anyway. In summary, history is a field of many contradictions.
posted by lilac girl at 12:17 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
*Falling down the rabbit hole further, those may not be the best examples because there was no effective opposition to secession... in which case you'd have to use states like Virginia & Arkansas as your evidence. But Virginia's convention was long & drawn out because they couldn't agree on a course of action until after Fort Sumter, so you can't really say there was a clear consensus on the issue anyway. In summary, history is a field of many contradictions.
posted by lilac girl at 12:17 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Many thanks, lilac girl! Just ordered the McCurry book.
It's something I've never completely, absolutely confirmed, but have asserted many times. So I'm awfully glad to see this.
posted by LonnieK at 6:03 PM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's something I've never completely, absolutely confirmed, but have asserted many times. So I'm awfully glad to see this.
posted by LonnieK at 6:03 PM on July 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Crash course in Seattle housing market | Who is the boxer/fighter in one of last year's... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
On May 23, 1861, Virginia's voting men ratified the Ordinance of Secession that the Virginia Convention had adopted on April 17
I haven't found anything on the other states, though.
posted by ndfine at 3:07 PM on June 24, 2015