Nonmilitary Secession

Elizabeth Arroyo (elizabeth.arroyo@mail.trincoll.edu)
Wed, 13 Apr 1994 15:48:47 ECT

I've been wondering if anything has been written--no doubt it
has--on whether the South had the option of a non-military secession. That
is, could they simply have declared that they were withdrawing from the
Union? Stopped sending money and legislative representatives to the
federal government, and started setting up their own ? After all, the
federals couldn't have put every white resident of the South in jail for
this.
I realize some of the problems that would be involved. First of
all, even if it would have been feasible, there would have been a number of
reasons why Southerners of, say, 1861 would have looked toward a military
solution. They were affronted by the existence of federal property (forts)
in their newly-seceded country and the call for 75,000 troops. They had
endured decades of what they considered Northern provocation, meaning that
many people in this militaristic culture were actually spoiling for a
fight, not looking to avoid one, and most believed they could win easily.
Perhaps they could have waited out the federal government on issues such as
the forts, but the greater inclination would have been to fight. (Also,
Confederates saw themselves as the true heirs of the American Revolution,
which of course involved fighting for independence. And finally, I don't
know how many historical precedents they would have had for a
diplomatically-arranged separation.)
As for the feasibility of a non-military separation: If a Southern
government did announce a secession by means of what a 20th-century
observer would call passive aggression, the federal government would have
the option of coming down in large numbers and being an oppressive
presence, by such means as using the charge of treason to throw leaders in
jail and confiscate property. (And white Southerners were quite concerned
already about Northern interference with a particular form of property,
slaves.) It would be a lot easier for Southerners to organize a resistance
to such a presence before it got there.
Maybe I've answered much of my own question, but I'd like to hear
what others might have to say on this. Thanks--Elizabeth Arroyo, Trinity
College