Secession Without Civil War

Lincoln

Since most modern historians agree that the South seceded to protect slavery they often 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 secession need not have led to war. Moreover, it questions the underlying assumption that the immorality of slavery alone was sufficiently repellant to Northerners to prompt them into fighting secessionists for trying to maintain slavery.

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.

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 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 to form the Confederacy. 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 USA to the CSA. 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. “Preserving the Union” as an abstraction is simply not a satisfying explanation. 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 a non-negotiable moral opposition to slavery among Northerners, then they would not have permitted Virginia’s retrocession of one third of the District of Columbia…but they did.

About Philip Leigh

Philip Leigh contributed twenty-four articles to The New York Times Disunion blog, which commemorated the Civil War Sesquicentennial. He is the author of U.S. Grant's Failed Presidency, Southern Reconstruction (2017), Lee’s Lost Dispatch and Other Civil War Controversies (2015), and Trading With the Enemy (2014). Phil has lectured a various Civil War forums, including the 23rd Annual Sarasota Conference of the Civil War Education Association and various Civil War Roundtables. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Florida Institute of Technology and an MBA from Northwestern University. More from Philip Leigh

You might also enjoy these articles...

5 thoughts on “Secession Without Civil War

  1. {PLEASE replace my previous comment and use this slightly edited and revised comment.]

    1861: SIDE ISSUES ~ The States of the Confederacy did not engage in defending themselves against the military invasion and assaults by USA military invaders of their sovereign soil to defend or protect slavery. The USA did not not invade the Southern States to free any slave(s), but to subjugate and totally control the South, its governments, it natural resources, it labour (both Black and White) and its people. The invasion by USA military forces made secession relatively a SIDE ISSUE.

    The sometimes irrelevant “historical” discussions are FIRST a response to the shallow revisionist U.S. Court Historians who continue the propaganda with its continuing indoctrination to imperialism, and SECOND these endless and bogus displaced-in-context arguments serve as a chattering distraction to prevent a post-war serious examination of the devolution of American governmental forms and practices. Had the Southern States people’s goal been to retain slavery practices they could have remained a member State of the USA.

    The Southern people simply resisted the imposed violence of the USA government used to control Southern wealth, Southern political influence influence, and Southern natural resources. There is never a need to infer or expressly blame the child who fights back against a school yard bully who has assaulted him.

    There are lots of moral issues and aspects about North American cultures and government worth consideration that could teach us or have taught us a great deal about classical civil behaviour, but the slavery chatter by northerner’s and the Lincoln chatter by Southerner’s are not as worthwhile as they could and should become. The chatter by some Southerner’s often amounts to little more than a whine and the chatter by some northerner’s and American Exceptionalists has become little more than hate speech filling the airways to squelch thoughtful discourse that could expose the true nature of American imperialism for the tyranny that it is.

  2. My family is from Middle GA and two of my great great. Grandfathers John T. Fowler and Henry Howell (Faulk’s Invincibles) were at Appomattox Courthouse with the great General Robert E. Lee when he surrendered. They walked all the way back to a devastated (for lack of a better word) home that was first destroyed by the coward William T. Sherman and then stolen by Yankee Carpetbaggers. My family did not own slaves and we lost every damn thing and became sharecroppers until after WWII when my pawpaw returned from England and managed to but 20+ acres of the old family farm. We were poor monetarily, but you could never tell me that. We always had plenty of food on the table because we raised and slaughtered most of it. We shared with neighbors what little we had and they shared with us. Sunday dinner and sitting on the porch rocking listen to the older generation talking about growing up. That is my South and the South I love and grew up in. It is changing so much with all the transplants. Our statutes and symbols of our brave dead are being graffitied and destroyed by hateful intolerant people. My grandfather’s fought for States rights and to protect our homeland. Nothing more, nothing less. I love the South and I stand with her. You will never find more friendly, compassionate people anywhere (that is true Southerners with generations in their blood). The South is a way of life.

  3. If the Civil War was because of slavery, why did the Northern slaves have to wait to be freed? Historians seem to gloss over that little item.

  4. i agree with a lot of what has been said. I am a Mississippian who was born and raised there than transplanted to another state. I love my heritage but I am old and not well to do. I do keep up with what goes on in Washington and it upsets me. I had many ancestors who fought in the CSA and I not long ago found where my great grandfather was buried, after searching for a long time. i arranged to have the SCV do a service for him. The stone is beautiful with a Southern Cross of Honor as he was captured and sent to the Illinois prison, sent to Virginia, sent home in an exchange of prisoners. then went right back out fighting for the South. There were many more of my family there as they had lived there for generations. He was wounded and captured at Champion Hill area, lived not quite 1 month, didn’t make it home, died in Jackson, Mississippi June 15, 1863. Thanks to the Greenwood Cemetery Board and the Jeff Davis Chapter SCV 635 who dug up the Apr 27, 1867 Jackson Newspaper and his name was one of the few names readable from Mississippi . There are many unknown buried in that cemetery. I love my ancestors. During the CSA they were invaded and fought to protect their home and families. My great grandfather left small children, the youngest born in 1861. My grandfather was about 4 years old.

Comments are closed.