Secession Without Civil War

Since most modern historians agree that the South seceded to protect slavery they conclude that the Civil War was “all about” slavery. The inference, however, overlooks the possibility that the Southern states could have been allowed to depart in peace. Within the lifetimes of most readers, for example, the Soviet Union peacefully disintegrated into its constituent countries as did Czechoslovakia.

Even though it was partly motivated to defend slavery, one secession example from American history demonstrates that such action need not have led to war. Moreover, it questions the underlying assumption that the immorality of slavery alone was sufficiently repellant to Northerners that they would fight secessionists for trying to protect it.

In 1846 about one third of the District of Columbia seceded. Originally the District was a ten-mile-by-ten-mile square. About a third of the one hundred square miles were southwest of the Potomac River in what was originally—and presently—Virginia. Most of the sector’s residents wanted to secede from the District for two reasons. First, they were not treated fairly from an economic perspective. Public buildings, for example, could only be erected on the “Maryland” side of the Potomac. Second, they correctly anticipated that the District might someday outlaw slavery.

District_of_Columbia,_1835

In February 1846 the Virginia legislature agreed to absorb the District’s southwest sector if Congress approved. Five months later Congress authorized that the region could be returned to Virginia if its voters agreed by a referendum. The referendum vote was affirmative and the land returned to Virginia in September 1846.

The principal reason that the Virginia retrocession gained congressional approval and did not result in war is that the economic consequences to the Northern states were immaterial. Such was not the case fifteen years later after the first seven Gulf states seceded. The main reason that Lincoln and other Northerners wanted to “save” the Union lies in economics, not abolitionism.

If the Confederacy were to survive as a separate country, there is no doubt that its import tariffs would be much lower than those of the United States. President Jefferson Davis announced in his inaugural address, “Our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit. It is…[in] our interest, [and those of our trading partners] that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon interchange of commodities.” Later Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin offered France a special tariff exemption “for a certain defined period” in exchange for diplomatic recognition. During the entire war Confederate tariffs raised less than $4 million as compared to other war taxes of over $120 million.

A low Confederate tariff presented the remaining states of the truncated Union with two consequences. First, the Federal government would lose the great majority of its tax revenue. Articles imported into the Confederacy from Europe would divert tariff revenue from the North to the South. Additionally, the Confederacy’s low duties would encourage Northern-bound European imports to enter in the South where they could be smuggled across the Ohio River or the other vast boundaries of the Northwestern states to evade U. S. duties. Tariff compliance would become minimal thereby causing the Federal tax structure to collapse. Second, as a result of its lower tariff, residents of a Southern Confederacy would likely buy most of their manufactured goods from Europe as opposed to the Northern states where prices were inflated by protective tariffs.

Thus, after the opening shots at Fort Sumter the Northern states chose to fight to “preserve the Union” because they wanted to avoid the anticipated economic consequences of disunion. In January 1861 The Philadelphia Press editorialized, “It is the enforcement of the revenue laws, not the coercion of the state that is the question of the hour. If those laws cannot be enforced, the Union is clearly gone.” Author Charles Adams reasons:

If trade were to shift to the Southern ports because of a free trade zone, or extremely low duties relative to the North, then [the] great cities [of the Northeast] would go into decline and suffer economic disaster. The image painted by these editorials [from newspapers of Northeastern cities] is one of massive unemployment, the closing of factories and businesses, followed by unrest, riots, and possibly revolution. The inland cities of the North would also go into decline, like Pittsburg, where duty-free British steel and iron products would cripple the American steel industry.

Ward Hill Lamon who was Lincoln’s legal partner for five years before the war and his personal bodyguard during the presidency explained why Southern secession was such a frightening threat to Northerners:

[Cotton] formed the bulk of our exchanges with Europe; paid our foreign indebtedness; maintained a great marine; built towns, cities, and railways; enriched factors, brokers, and bankers; filled the federal treasury to overflowing, and made the foremost nations of the world commercially our tributaries and politically our dependents. A short crop embarrassed and distressed all Western Europe; a total failure, a war, or non-intercourse, would reduce whole communities to famine, and probably precipitate them into revolution.

On the eve of the Civil War New England based cotton textile manufacturing was America’s single biggest industry. In 1860 its goods were valued at $115 million as compared about $73 million for wool and iron, which were the number two and three ranking manufacturing industries respectively.

A valid study of the causes of the Civil War requires an examination of the reasons the Northern states chose to fight instead of letting the cotton states seceded peacefully. The North’s economic self-interest is too often minimized and even ignored by modern historians. If the chief explanation for the war was moral opposition to slavery at the North as a non-negotiable principle, then Northerners should not have permitted Virginia’s retrocession of one third of the District of Columbia…but they did.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Secession Without Civil War

  1. Gary Senteney

    Phil,

    Another insightful perspective on the Civil War. I continue to thoroughly

    enjoy your “Dark Civil War History”. I become more and more aware of

    how nationalistically our “public school” history has been put together for

    us to consume and digest with no counterpoints.

    Keep up the good work. I am enjoying you lastest “Confederacy at Flood Tide”

    Gary Senteney

    Reply
    1. Phil Leigh Post author

      Thanks, Gary. I will be speaking to your group about the book in December and hope to see you then.

      Reply
    1. Phil Leigh Post author

      Modern historians don’t seem to want to spend much time trying to figure out why the North *chose* to fight. What do you think explains their reluctance?

      Reply
      1. Timothy Gesouras

        Perhaps the reason for avoidance of this question is that it would have unfortunate implications for the “One People” nationalist myth that Lincoln put into effect. Historians don’t blame Poland for Nazi Germany’s invasion and cite is as a cause for WW2.

        The “Historians” are not out for the truth or debate.

        If the motives of the attacker (The Union) were questioned, people would find that it was a war to prevent secession and self-determination despite disagreeing with the defenders'(The Confederacy) labor force practices. Today’s Progressivses and Conservatism regularly justify this event for more power and self-aggrandizing as a means to make Lincoln their guy for vapid virtue signaling due to PC culture affecting our discourse. Just read and watch Tom DiLorenzo’s statements on the depths the so-called “Lincoln Cult” will go to in order to attack anyone dissenting.

        Here is an example: speaking of the Nazis, The late Harry Jaffa in his books not only compares Lincoln to Christ but juxtaposes Confederate Leaders to the Third Reich’s worst of the worst. He says Hitler would support of Seccesion and State Interposition (Nullification), based on an obscure Ex-Nazi quote. Besides the obvious Godwin’s Law fallacy, I see this played out for anti-Confederacy debate arguments frequently.

        [I know it’s a bit of a stretch for 19th century faction for another more powerful 20th century force, but no doubt about it that the Confederates would be mortal eniemes of the Nazis due not only to how they viewed government and state but both Black and White Southerners would be viewed as “Undermensht”. They just about disagreed on everything.] I don’t understand what you are saying here — Phil Leigh

        Now there is two problems with this:[What? – Phil Leigh]

        1. Citing an Ex-Nazi is not exactly a reliable source as it’s unlike totalitarian governments to allow people the freedom to be critical of government policies and ask local officials at the various states to challenge obnoxious laws.

        2. Hitler himself contradicts this in his book Mein Kampf, admiring Otto Von Bismarck of centralizing power and mocking the so called sovereignty individual states claimed to have. Taking the same position as the nationalist interpretation of the constitution. You have to wonder which side of the war hitler would support.

        That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

      2. Phil Leigh Post author

        The Europeans were initially skeptical of the Emancipation Proclamation because the USA government had been telling them explicitly that the war was not about slavery.

        Ordinarily I don’t take accept comments that invoke Hitler or the Nazi’s, but I make an exception this time.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s