Nonmilitary Secession
Elizabeth Arroyo (elizabeth.arroyo@mail.trincoll.edu)
Sun, 17 Apr 1994 21:53:05 ECT
Judging from the first two responses I got to the question of whether it
would have worked if the South had seceded nonmilitarily, I think I need to
clarify the question. What I'm curious about is whether people think
nonmilitary maneuvers could have worked as an *ongoing strategy*, as an
alternative plan of attack. Thus, the question is not whether seceding
without fighting was the South's original intention, but whether the North
could have been stymied and outmaneuvered by continually being presented
with resistance and refusal to engage.
For example, one person mentioned how the South maneuvered Lincoln
as regarded restocking the forts. That's the kind of tactic I'm curious
about. If every day that the Confederacy simply existed as a nation
strengthened its chances of survival, would it have been an option to
ignore the affront of the federal properties in the South for a while
longer and focus on setting up the infrastructure of the new government as
a fait accompli? As I've understood it, Lincoln did some maneuvering of
his own by restocking Fort Sumter and letting the South take on the role of
firing the first shot (which was politically useful for him).
My original posting mentioned reasons why, as of April or May 1861,
Southerners probably weren't likely to pursue such a strategy; I'm
wondering, however, if it could possibly have worked. --Elizabeth Arroyo