Posted on 06/21/2015 6:07:40 PM PDT by PROCON
Edited on 06/21/2015 6:29:18 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Yes ma'am, you raise some good questions, but we do know certain facts, and I think they make my conclusions reasonable.
For example, we know for sure that Maryland Union troops outnumbered Confederate troops about two to one.
We also reasonably infer that those Confederate troops must mostly come from the highest slave-owning areas.
The map of 1860 shows us those areas as being Charles, Prince George and Montgomery counties, which are today the strongest Liberal Democrat voting counties.
We also know that Upper South and Border State counties which had the fewest percent of slaves were the most Unionist.
In Maryland those were the northern and western-most counties, but also Caroline County in the east had only 7% slaves.
In other posts I've noted that the dividing line between Confederate states versus Union slave-states seems to have been around 20% of white families owning slaves.
In other words, if more than 20% of white families owned slaves, then the state declared secession and joined the Confederacy.
But in states or counties where fewer than 20% of white families owned slaves, there you found hot-beds of Southern Unionism.
Examples I've listed include western Virginia, Maryland & North Carolina, plus eastern Tennessee and Kentucky, but there were others -- including parts of Alabama, Arkansas and Texas.
Indeed, if I remember correctly, only South Carolina supplied zero troops for Union units during the War.
Previously mentioned -- one reason for the Confederate invasion of Maryland in September 1862 was the hope it would encourage more Marylanders to join the Confederate Army, and in that they failed.
Well, it's worth noting that the battle of Antietam took place in one of the Maryland counties least committed to the institution of slavery.
So it should not be surprising Confederates didn't find many new recruits there.
Now I'll stop here and ask, which part of this do you disagree with?
“which part of this do you disagree with?”
“The map of 1860 shows us those areas as being Charles, Prince George and Montgomery counties, which are today the strongest Liberal Democrat voting counties.”
As I stated, I think your interpretation is flawed. Partly based on your later statement:
“In other words, if more than 20% of white families owned slaves, then the state declared secession and joined the Confederacy.”
OK, what % of slave population is this then as per that map? Because if we examine your maps earlier, which the last gov is actually a pretty good generalization, this is how it stacks up....
(realizing the Dem-onization of Charles Co. is a recent phenomenon, not at all historical, thanks to 301 and extra development spilling over from welfare-PG Co.).
1861 County Slave % 2014 County Election result
Allegany 2.3 Garrett Repub
“ “ Allegany Repub
Washington 4.6 same Repub
Frederick 7 same Repub
Carroll 3.2 same Repub
Baltimore 5.9 same Repub
Baltimore city 1 same Dem
Harford 7.7 same Repub
Cecil 4 same Repub
Montgomery 29.6 same Dem
Howard 21.5 same Repub
Anne Arundel 30.7 same Repub
Prince George’s 53.5 same Dem
Calvert 44.1 same Repub
Charles 58.4 same Dem (recent phenomenon)
St. Mary’s 43 same Repub
Kent 18.9 same Repub
Queen Anne’s 26.2 same Repub
Caroline 6.6 same Repub
Talbot 25.2 same Repub
Dorchester 20.2 same Repub
Somerset 20.4 same Repub
“ “ Wicomico Repub
Worcester 17.7 same Repub
“ “ Wicomico Repub
So if we go by the few counties that constantly go Dem, maybe 29.6% slave is the cut-off (not counting Baltimore city, far from the norm).
But, then, 3 of the 6 counties violate the “Dem trend” rule here - Calvert, St. Mary’s and Anne Arundel, while only 3 fit in officially.
And Queen Anne’s is only about 4% points below 1861 Monty, yet it’s a reliably conservative place.
No, I don’t think it’s a solid premise.
I’d also add it’s interesting you mention MD troops in a 2-to-1 ratio favoring Unionists.
Because that is about the ratio today (and all my life) of Dems outnumbering Repubs here (at least in registration).
Both your numbers and my maps show that, excepting Baltimore itself, all of today’s Dem counties were very high slave percents in 1860.
When freed slaves began to vote they voted Republican for many years, but since roughly FDR, their descendants have voted overwhelmingly Democrat.
And yes, I agree that some Republican counties today also had high percentage of slaves in 1860.
But most did not, as you can easily see by looking at the northern and western - most counties.
Finally, it’s only reasonable to suppose that Maryland’s Confederate troops came from the highest slave holding counties, while its Union troops came predominantly from counties with much fewer slaves.
Agreed?
On that two-to-one ratio you mentioned — the important point to remember is that most Americans were farmers in 1860, and most cities, even Baltimore, were relatively small.
Thus it should come as no surprise to learn that 1860 Maryland farmers with no slaves outnumbered those with slaves by a factor of several to one.
And sons of those farmers joined the Union Army by two to one over the Confederates.
Today’s economics are vastly different, with fewer that 5% of Americans farming, and still voting Republican, easily offset by great tracts of big cities filled with government housing for Democrat voters.
So it’s easy to see how Maryland’s two-to-one Unionists farmer - soldiers in 1860 were replaced by two-to-one big city Democrat voters today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.