Overall no, certainly not economically, and not on racial issues either. That said, there is a bit of nuance to this, and a few points worth mentioning:
If we are talking about their descendants, i.e. the plantation elite after slavery was abolished, then I think many had a sense of noblesse oblige towards African Americans, whereas poor whites had very little sympathy for black people, as they viewed them as economic competition. For instance, apparently a reason that the jury acquitted Emmett Till’s killers was because it was mostly drawn from poor hill country whites, rather than the elite living nearer the Mississippi River. I think that many of the white elite, while staunchly supportive of segregation, were far less comfortable with lynchings and I also read that many refrained from using the n-word because it was viewed as uncouth.
That said, they were very reactionary overall, seeking to preserve a quasi-feudal society, with both poor whites and blacks prevented from rising up the economic ladder or voting. The most liberal whites in the South were those living in lily-white upland areas, because they were both staunchly supportive of the New Deal, and very rarely had any interactions with African Americans, so viewed them as less of a threat than the poor whites living in closer proximity to them.
As for your point about the Religious Right, my understanding was that its base has always been found in affluent suburbs (obviously the main area of Republican strength in the South in the late 20th century), whereas the poorer rural areas had much lower levels of religious observance.
Yeah it bears repeating that, contrary to current trends, suburban areas in the South switched to voting Republican long before White rural areas did, and these types of areas continued to show a lot of residual support for downballot democrats for a pretty long time, especially in the upland/rim South: see the OK & KY senate races in 2004 for example.
