I realise of course you refer to the American Civil War. But there are some striking differences between then and now. I imagine it would be like this; a stat

I realise of course you refer to the American Civil War. But there are some striking differences between then and now. I imagine it would be like this; a state (or more) announce that they will hold a referendum on independence, months (or even years) before the actual referendum will take place (similar to how it will take place in Scotland). This will give the President and the Federal Government time to react without having to sort to arms right away. Furthermore, a referendum is particularly what will set it apart from the American Civil War; this will be the will of the people (of that state, obviously) and not merely the will of the state (which was the case during the American Civil War, it was merely the legislatures that decided to secede, and not by referendum). This will make it much harder to justify for the federal government to intervene with military. Seeing as the process will open and peaceful, it would be seen as a considerable overreaction by the federal government to strike down with force on a seceding state. In addition because war has gotten so much more terrible, and I doubt you'd even convince the army of doing so. In short; I do not believe that you should be afraid of a military response to an independence, as long as you play fair. That's just intimidation. It would be sad to see that the only thing keeping the American states united was fear. However, I do agree with you that independence should be the last resort. But considering the last few decades, it seems many things have already been tried.