The answer to the problem which Mr. Wilson found so difficult to solve lies in the fact that conditions in Tennessee were in no wise similar to those in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. These border States were not distinctly slave States. In all of them the institution of slavery existed, but their industrial system was not based upon it. This arose largely from the fact that cotton was not their chief staple. Tennessee, on the other hand, was a great cotton-producing State. According to the census of 1860, her annual product was 296,465 bales of 400 lbs. each. Her interest was therefore identical with the extreme Southern States. If there were to be two republics side by side, one free and the other slave, both sentiment and interest apparently demanded that Tennessee should cast her lot with the latter. When the vote of February was taken she was confronted by no such dilemma. At that time, the Confederacy had not yet been organized, and it was by no means clear that war would occur. In June, conditions had entirely changed. The Confederacy was an established fact, and actual hostilities had commenced. Neither side would permit Tennessee to occupy a neutral position. She must fight either for or against the South. This change in the issues is clearly shown in the two messages of Governor Harris. In his message of January 7th, he had sought to establish the right of secession, and justify its present or immediate assertion. But these principles had found no support in the Whig party. Their opposition defeated the proposal for a convention. The keynote to his second message is found in the following passage: “Whatever differences may have heretofore existed amongst us growing out of party divisions, as to the constitutional right of secession as a remedy against usurpations, all admit the moral right asserted by our fathers to resist wrong and to maintain their liberties by whatever means necessary.” This was a direct appeal to the right of revolution, and it found as ready a response among the Whigs as the Democrats. It was therefore this change in the issue, and not coercive means adopted by Governor Harris, that turned the tide toward disunion.