Seccession referenda in every southern state in 1861

I believe that outside of Texas none of the seceding lower south states who seceded before Fort Sumter held actual secession referenda. Instead voters were only able to choose delegates to secession convention.
I would argue that had actual secession referenda been held, at least some of the lower south states would have voted against secession, with Georgia being my most likely case. In Georgia about 50% of the voters actually voted for some type of unionist delegate anyway according to one study of the issue.
It is a strong sign of the overall weakness of the secessionists that they were afraid to actually hold referenda in these states. I believe the unionists tried to get a referenda requirement passed by the conventions and in one state (maybe Georgia or Alabama, can't remember which) came just a few votes short in the convention of getting one. In a referendum, the dispirited and divided unionists would likely have gained new strength and momentum, and a silent unionist plurality might actually have won out in many of these states. I refer to a unionist plurality in that the southern electorate was divided into many factions in early 1861, hard core unionists, marginal unionists, conditional unionists, people on the fence, and a similar split among secessionists. In a referenda setting, a unionist outcome was more likely than a convention setting.
 
I believe that outside of Texas none of the seceding lower south states who seceded before Fort Sumter held actual secession referenda. Instead voters were only able to choose delegates to secession convention.
I would argue that had actual secession referenda been held, at least some of the lower south states would have voted against secession, with Georgia being my most likely case. In Georgia about 50% of the voters actually voted for some type of unionist delegate anyway according to one study of the issue.
It is a strong sign of the overall weakness of the secessionists that they were afraid to actually hold referenda in these states. I believe the unionists tried to get a referenda requirement passed by the conventions and in one state (maybe Georgia or Alabama, can't remember which) came just a few votes short in the convention of getting one. In a referendum, the dispirited and divided unionists would likely have gained new strength and momentum, and a silent unionist plurality might actually have won out in many of these states. I refer to a unionist plurality in that the southern electorate was divided into many factions in early 1861, hard core unionists, marginal unionists, conditional unionists, people on the fence, and a similar split among secessionists. In a referenda setting, a unionist outcome was more likely than a convention setting.

Unlikely. Most the "Unionist" delegates and voters were actually just folks wanting to organize secession with the rest of the south ("cooperationists") instead of the state unilaterally seceding by itself. To the extent they were unionists, their unionism was conditional on stuff that wouldn't be forthcoming, like an amendment allowing slavery in the territories and Lincoln not raising troops to suppress secession where it had occurred.
 
One thing a referendum would do is provide a true one man one vote standard. Because of the 3/5 compromise, slave owners will always overrepresented in the state legislatures and conventions because much of the population they represented were their own slaves.

I don't know how many Deep South states would remain in the union, but it at least gives the possibility for an upset. Many unionist delegates at the conventions were browbeaten into accepting secession, and when they came home were vilified by their constituents.

In a secret ballot, it even gives people in hard core secessionist areas a chance to vote against it where they might not be willing to do so in a more open forum and expose themselves to ridicule and reprisal.
 
One thing a referendum would do is provide a true one man one vote standard. Because of the 3/5 compromise, slave owners will always overrepresented in the state legislatures and conventions because much of the population they represented were their own slaves.

Huh? The 3/5 compromise is for federal elections, not state convention delegates.

Anyhow, the evidence simply isn't there that there was a plurality or majority of union sentiment that was stampeded. The secession conventions represented the will of their voting constituents.
 
I don't know offhand how convention delegates were apportioned, and whether in fact they were close to a one man one vote standard. The southern state legislatures often were malapportioned, or at least one of the two houses. I believe South Carolina was really disproportionate. According to one article I read about the Georgia convention vote in some cases voters did back alleged unionist delegates with big majorities only to see those delegates turn around and vote with the seceeders. I can't remember the article source, but it basically argued that a case could be made that the unionist vote was actually bigger than the secessionist vote in raw numbers. Of course much of this unionist vote was for conditional unionism.
Still, what I find compelling about this issue is the fact that these secession conventions were unwilling to seek popular ratification in a referendum. What were they so afraid of? Another question is whether a correlation of the Bell/Douglas vote vs. the vote for Breckingridge in the 1860 presidential election is relevant as a formula for guessing how such referenda would have turned out. In other words was a vote for Douglas or Bell a relevant indicator of potential unionist support or not? and one for Breckingridge a sign of incipient secession?
 
even if all the states in the south had a referendum and voted for secession. I do not think the union would have allowed it.

i do not remember there being referendum in the 13 states that seceded from the British empire.
 
Last edited:
Huh? The 3/5 compromise is for federal elections, not state convention delegates.

I'm probably wrong on the specifics, but I think the point still stands. State convention delegates were usually (always?) choosen with the same rules as the state legislatures. Those legislative seats were gerrymandered so that large slaveholders were over-represented. Also, I am pretty sure that the slave states all included slaves in some kind of proportion as the basis for determining representatives. I think Louisiana, at least, had a direct one for one proprotion for counting slaves to determine population of the parish representatives. Hopefully someone more expert than me can give us the facts on how distorting the laws were.

In any case, a direct referendum would remove much of the built-in advantages the fire eaters had. That may not affect the final outcome, but it does eliminate much of the certainty the fire eaters had going in.
 
In a secret ballot, it even gives people in hard core secessionist areas a chance to vote against it where they might not be willing to do so in a more open forum and expose themselves to ridicule and reprisal.
True, but I don't think the secret ballot existed anywhere in the South. (For that matter, did it exist anywhere in the US at the time?)
 
Top