was the slaveowning population

[freepcrusher]

in some ways actually more liberal (relatively) than the rest of the white south writ-large? I remember Skill and Chance in some post earlier this year - mentioned that the religious right/evangelical movement was largely descended from poorer whites who lived in the upland south. In general I feel the sort of redneck culture associated with the south is most accurate in the upland areas where slavery wasn't much of a thing.

This is not in any way to excuse slavery. I'm sort of curious if anyone agrees with this hunch or if there any books written on this topic?

[freepcrusher]

did Andrew Jackson own slaves? Middle Tennessee I don't think was ever a slave-heavy part of the country. The only part of TN that was was the western part.

[freepcrusher]

how though? I mean I have a hard time seeing Nashville being a slave hotspot.

[freepcrusher]

how though? I mean I have a hard time seeing Nashville being a slave hotspot.

Well, it was.  The City of Nashville even purchased 24 slaves for $12,000 in 1846.

To answer OP, slaveholding Whites in the South were planter aristocracy.  They were social elites who ruled the region's cultural and civic institutions:  universities, military colleges, theatres, etc.  Their agrarian culture was imitative of the slow, genteel pace of English estate life, which of course put them at odds with increasingly industrious and Germanic Yankees.  Describing this dynamic as "conservative" or "liberal" in a contemporary culture war sense is really missing the point. 

I guess a better question is - I feel their descendants would be more likely to be lefty now rather than the poor white masses. My guess is many of them married into yankee families and left the south or the few southern white liberals out there (that aren't carpetbaggers) are descended from them

[freepcrusher]

how though? I mean I have a hard time seeing Nashville being a slave hotspot.

Well, it was.  The City of Nashville even purchased 24 slaves for $12,000 in 1846.

To answer OP, slaveholding Whites in the South were planter aristocracy.  They were social elites who ruled the region's cultural and civic institutions:  universities, military colleges, theatres, etc.  Their agrarian culture was imitative of the slow, genteel pace of English estate life, which of course put them at odds with increasingly industrious and Germanic Yankees.  Describing this dynamic as "conservative" or "liberal" in a contemporary culture war sense is really missing the point.  

I guess a better question is - I feel their descendants would be more likely to be lefty now rather than the poor white masses. My guess is many of them married into yankee families and left the south or the few southern white liberals out there (that aren't carpetbaggers) are descended from them

Why do you think that?

because they would have been probably be more likely to be exposed to liberal institutions (OSS, CFR, Central Banking etc). Think someone like Lewis Powell, who probably was descended from slaveowners.

[freepcrusher]

how though? I mean I have a hard time seeing Nashville being a slave hotspot.

Well, it was.  The City of Nashville even purchased 24 slaves for $12,000 in 1846.

is the black population of Nashville "native" or was it AL or GA blacks who came over in mid-late 20th century?

[freepcrusher]

What about “Central Banking” is “liberal”?  Just curious.

Well it's internationalist. If you read books like "Tragedy and Hope" by Quigley or "Emerging Republican Majority" by Phillips - the upper class gradually became more internationalist in outlook and often defected. Think of the Cambridge Five and what not.