Successful Southern secession through passive resistance?

[stewacide]

I don't know a lot about the subject, but it's always seemed to me that once the American Civil War started the South had already lost: it was just too unfair a fight, and there was no way the North's pride would allow it to end the war short of complete victory.

What I've long wondered is why didn't the southern secessionists simply adopt a policy of non-recognition of federal authority? (beyond their being stupid hotheads). If they'd simply declared their independence, elected secessionists legislatures, and stopped sending representatives to Washington, paying taxes to Washington, observing federal law, etc, etc. how long could the federal government maintain the fiction of a small-u united states?

So, does this make any sense? Could and would the federal government try to occupy the South in response? How would the states that only got on-board after Ft. Sumpter respond? Even if Lincoln wouldn't accept the South's fait accompli could he possibly maintain his authority for long with a third of the country in quiet revolt? And how would/could de facto independence be made official down the line?

 

[hairysamarian]

What I've long wondered is why didn't the southern secessionists simply adopt a policy of non-recognition of federal authority?

Because it was the 1860s, not the 1960s. Civil Disobedience? The Federal Government would have marched in, occupied the rebllious capitals, arrested the would-be secessionist government, and probably would have shot those who stopped being "Civil" about it. A lot fewer people would have died, of course, which would be a nice side effect, but the end result is still a single nation under the Union.

 

[Marja]

Secession was only a means to an end. And that end was to preserve slavery. And passive resistance - though it may free some from bondage - cannot keep anyone in bondage.

Although Lincoln was initially unwilling to support abolition, if the planters had tried to adopt passive resistance, I imagine the North and the Appalachians would become safe areas for escaped slaves, and some plantations in the rest of the south would see mass escapes. So the planters would need to rely on fear and violence to prevent escapes, and they would need to invade the Appalachians to bring them back under the control of the state governments, and that leads right back into civil war.

 

[stewacide]

re: hairysamarian

The federal government would occupy the South with an army of perhaps ~10k at its disposal?

And what if the federal authorities did arrest the whole of the secessionist govenments? Do they then arrest those elected to replace them? And the next cohort and the next? At some point the Northern public would begin to recognise the whole situation as ridiculous and futile, and question the logic and righteousness of trying to force a government on people who clearly didn't want it.

The '60s comparison doesn't seem to do this scenario justice mostly because the passive-dissenters in this care are the large majority. A better analog would be the Indian independence movement.

 

[stewacide]

Secession was only a means to an end. And that end was to preserve slavery. And passive resistance - though it may free some from bondage - cannot keep anyone in bondage.

Although Lincoln was initially unwilling to support abolition, if the planters had tried to adopt passive resistance, I imagine the North and the Appalachians would become safe areas for escaped slaves, and some plantations in the rest of the south would see mass escapes. So the planters would need to rely on fear and violence to prevent escapes, and they would need to invade the Appalachians to bring them back under the control of the state governments, and that leads right back into civil war.

I mean a policy of passive resistance toward the federal government of course. How does that in any way interfere with the slave system, unless the federal government does something REALLY radical in retaliation like an emancipation proclamation (which I think would be ASB in this scenario; IOTL it took years of industrial-scale war to bring the North to that point)

 

[hairysamarian]

re: hairysamarian

The federal government would occupy the South with an army of perhaps ~10k at its disposal?

That might seem sufficient, if the South were truly resisting only in a passive manner, but more likely the Federal Government would recruit a larger force, volunteer or otherwise.

And what if the federal authorities did arrest the whole of the secessionist govenments? Do they then arrest those elected to replace them?

Yes.

And the next cohort and the next?

Yes.

Because it won't take long to find the guys who are willing to play along with the Feds. Do you imagine a commitment to the southern cause of 100%, or even near that? The Federals would have a loyal government installed long before public reaction in the north became a problem. Remember that they did essentially the same thing IOTL with the war going on full blast. Found some loyal folks and essentially appointed them to the State legislatures and sent them to Congress. It would have been much easier if they hadn't had to fight a war at the same time.

The '60s comparison doesn't seem to do this scenario justice mostly because the passive-dissenters in this care are the large majority.

Not large enough, especially when only one side has an army as in the proposed scenario. Again, I think the OTL example of being able to reinstall loyal legislatures despite fierce military resistance supports that.

 

[Blackfox5]

There is very little involvement of the Federal government in the everyday lives of US citizens in the 1860s. Most things of importance were done by the states, paid with local taxes. Passive resistance isn't going to do a whole lot beause it will be very easy for the Federal government to collect customs duties and occupy what few properties it actually has.

The next step would be for the federal government to take control of what government property they have - post offices, arsenals, and what have you. Move anything of value out of the Confederacy (like arsenals) and keep the post offices running.

The other issue is that there were still many people in the South who remained pro-union. "Passive" resistance probably means all the pro-Union areas in the Appalachias, Texan Hill Country, and others still accept the Federal government. Only a matter of time before they organize to ignore the Confederate government and send their representatives to Congress, accept US postmasters, pay taxes, etc. They can also organize militia, keep out Confederate officers, and allow the Federal government to assert its authority in some places at least.

In such a scenario, the Upper South will stay in the Union anyway. There is no firing on Ft Sumter, so Lincoln never calls up troops, so there is no second wave of secession. So the Confederacy is left with the Lower South. A few Federal troops - noting there is no resistance - quickly control the ports of Charleston, New Orleans, Galveston, Mobile, etc and begin collecting taxes. Soon pro-Unionists across the Confederacy notice that the Confederate government is a paper tiger not able to enforce its laws. More areas begin to asset loyalty to the Union like northern Alabama and parts of Texas. Soon lots of business men in New Orleans and other former Whigs begin to defect and cooperate with the government. As more pro-Union sentiment rises and pro-Union people identified, the Federal government begins to "purge" patronage jobs that would be in the South and appoint the pro-Union people recently identified. As Federal authority expands, lukewarm secessionists realize the jig is up, and begin to defect as well.

The Confederate government - starved of most of its potential revenue, loss of control over significant portions of its territory, and unable to enforce its laws - essentially collapses or becomes a joke.

By sometime in 1862, most of the Lower South is again back in the United States.

 

[zoomar]

The other issue is that there were still many people in the South who remained pro-union. "Passive" resistance probably means all the pro-Union areas in the Appalachias, Texan Hill Country, and others still accept the Federal government. Only a matter of time before they organize to ignore the Confederate government and send their representatives to Congress, accept US postmasters, pay taxes, etc. They can also organize militia, keep out Confederate officers, and allow the Federal government to assert its authority in some places at least.

In such a scenario, the Upper South will stay in the Union anyway. There is no firing on Ft Sumter, so Lincoln never calls up troops, so there is no second wave of secession. So the Confederacy is left with the Lower South. A few Federal troops - noting there is no resistance - quickly control the ports of Charleston, New Orleans, Galveston, Mobile, etc and begin collecting taxes. Soon pro-Unionists across the Confederacy notice that the Confederate government is a paper tiger not able to enforce its laws. More areas begin to asset loyalty to the Union like northern Alabama and parts of Texas. Soon lots of business men in New Orleans and other former Whigs begin to defect and cooperate with the government. As more pro-Union sentiment rises and pro-Union people identified, the Federal government begins to "purge" patronage jobs that would be in the South and appoint the pro-Union people recently identified. As Federal authority expands, lukewarm secessionists realize the jig is up, and begin to defect as well.

The Confederate government - starved of most of its potential revenue, loss of control over significant portions of its territory, and unable to enforce its laws - essentially collapses or becomes a joke.

By sometime in 1862, most of the Lower South is again back in the United States.

While it is probably unlikely a fledgling SCA government would permanently adopt "passive resistance" in the face of federal troops continuing to occupy and control all federal property in the south, if they did, this is the likely outcome of such a policy. Barring unanticipated military action by either side, the leaders of the southern secession movement would run out of steam (and money) before the federal government runs out of resolve not to recognize or accept southern independence. Radical secessionists would eventually lose local and state elections in the deep south and slave-holding unionists would negotiate rentry of the states into the union.

 

[jkay]

Something alot like that WAS tried. It was the Nullification Doctrine, an excuse to ignore a law (in that case, ISTR, a tariff, by a South Carolinian, Calhoun). Jackson dealt with it successfully, and sternly.

 

[hairysamarian]

Something alot like that WAS tried. It was the Nullification Doctrine, an excuse to ignore a law (in that case, ISTR, a tariff, by a South Carolinian, Calhoun). Jackson dealt with it successfully, and sternly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

I had forgotten entirely about that. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[stewacide]

Is there some middle ground, that denies Lincoln the casus belli to call up the troops, but which would prevent the Union government from asserting its authority effectively?

E.g. federal officers and army re-supply convoys are harassed by irregulars while the secessionist governments maintain an official policy of peaceful separation? Customs houses and post offices burned, their employees tarred and feathered, that sort of thing? Would the federal government go on re-supplying e.g. Ft. Sumter by sea indefinitely?

How exactly did northern attitudes to secession evolve in this era? Was there much stomach for subduing the South by force before it 'fired the first shot'? Also would not a heavy-handed Union response draw in the upper south anyway, given they'd be vastly outnumbered (as slaveholders) were the lower south to secede, and can see the writing-on-the-wall for slavery.

 

[mowque]

The South had no Gandhi.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The secessionists never did this because it wasn't really the culture of the times for anyone. When these guys were defeated in a real war they resorted not to passive resistance but to paramilitary terrorism, and it worked much better than it should have. Their idea of not-army resistance was the first Ku Klux Klan and the 1870s paramilitaries, and if they don't resort to a real war, they'd turn to paramilitaries, not Gandhi-type tactics.

 

[MAlexMatt]

That might seem sufficient, if the South were truly resisting only in a passive manner, but more likely the Federal Government would recruit a larger force, volunteer or otherwise.

A Federal government which tries to re-annex the South after a peaceful secession is very quickly going to lose support in large swathes of the remaining Union. Several states which fought IOTL for the Union will simply declare neutrality.

 

[Snake Featherston]

re: hairysamarian

The federal government would occupy the South with an army of perhaps ~10k at its disposal?

And what if the federal authorities did arrest the whole of the secessionist govenments? Do they then arrest those elected to replace them? And the next cohort and the next? At some point the Northern public would begin to recognise the whole situation as ridiculous and futile, and question the logic and righteousness of trying to force a government on people who clearly didn't want it.

The '60s comparison doesn't seem to do this scenario justice mostly because the passive-dissenters in this care are the large majority. A better analog would be the Indian independence movement.

It also doesn't do it justice because instead of massive resistance, if the South eschews an attempt at forming real armies of soldiers they'd invent the Ku Klux Klan or something like it and wage a shadow-war instead. Non-violence was not remotely connected to the reality of Southern culture of the time, and it really didn't appear in the North of this time either.

I mean a policy of passive resistance toward the federal government of course. How does that in any way interfere with the slave system, unless the federal government does something REALLY radical in retaliation like an emancipation proclamation (which I think would be ASB in this scenario; IOTL it took years of industrial-scale war to bring the North to that point)

This means a completely different US culture that would never have taken over Florida or the bulk of Georgia, let alone reached a position to wage something like the ACW.

Is there some middle ground, that denies Lincoln the casus belli to call up the troops, but which would prevent the Union government from asserting its authority effectively?

E.g. federal officers and army re-supply convoys are harassed by irregulars while the secessionist governments maintain an official policy of peaceful separation? Customs houses and post offices burned, their employees tarred and feathered, that sort of thing? Would the federal government go on re-supplying e.g. Ft. Sumter by sea indefinitely?

How exactly did northern attitudes to secession evolve in this era? Was there much stomach for subduing the South by force before it 'fired the first shot'? Also would not a heavy-handed Union response draw in the upper south anyway, given they'd be vastly outnumbered (as slaveholders) were the lower south to secede, and can see the writing-on-the-wall for slavery.

The answers are no, the South used a shitload of irregulars IOTl, this is what they did in the lead-in to the war, the Feds wanted to do this, they evolved only in being temporarily unanimously committed to war, yes, yes, as the rather light-handed approach of OTL led to the CSA gaining four more states.

 

[Snake Featherston]

A Federal government which tries to re-annex the South after a peaceful secession is very quickly going to lose support in large swathes of the remaining Union. Several states which fought IOTL for the Union will simply declare neutrality.

Unfortunately any secession as per the OTL model isn't and won't be peaceful, so this is a no-go.

 

[Johnrankins]

The secessionists never did this because it wasn't really the culture of the times for anyone. When these guys were defeated in a real war they resorted not to passive resistance but to paramilitary terrorism, and it worked much better than it should have. Their idea of not-army resistance was the first Ku Klux Klan and the 1870s paramilitaries, and if they don't resort to a real war, they'd turn to paramilitaries, not Gandhi-type tactics.

Not only did no one do this but they would be among the LAST people to come up with it. The South was already overagressive before the Civil War including the caning of Charles Sumner and "Bleeding Kansas".

 

[MAlexMatt]

Unfortunately any secession as per the OTL model isn't and won't be peaceful, so this is a no-go.

And a million other alternate historical premises we discuss here aren't really all that realistic.

And yet we discuss them anyway.

 

[Snake Featherston]

And a million other alternate historical premises we discuss here aren't really all that realistic.

And yet we discuss them anyway.

People also point out when PODs require wholesale personality transplants on a societal scale like this one does every time people bring up the humanly impossible category of PODs.

 

[stewacide]

I still don't get why a 'velvet divorce' is impossible or even unlikely. Surly white anglo-Americans on both sides of the divide weren't anxious to start killing each other over something as abstract as a supposedly-voluntary federal union!

I don't know enough of the history to argue the point, but I strongly assume that we're viewing events in light of the 'holy war' the Civil War evolved into, and not from the POV of the man-on-the-street as things just got rolling. Besides radical-abolitionists and federal apparatchiks why does the average Northerner really care if the South stays or goes? Particularly if the South makes a pain of itself (without doing something as stupid as firing on federal troops as IOTL) I think the attitude in the North would be good riddance to them!