Secession of the Confederate States of America

[FooDSt4mP]

Hey guys, did you know actions can be persuaded by a confluence of situations and beliefs, and that it is impossible to know the motivations of a large group since each member has it's own motivations?

So it's impossible to know that most people walking in a grocery store are there for food rather than lawnmower engines?

You could be fairly sure of that, but you couldn't know most people walking around the mall are there for food.  The civil war was a little more complicated than that.  My point was you are oversimplifying, but it seems that's your tendency.

[1715182997]

1715182997

[NghtRppr]

You could be fairly sure of that, but you couldn't know most people walking around the mall are there for food.  The civil war was a little more complicated than that.  My point was you are oversimplifying, but it seems that's your tendency.

If you don't like my analogy then all you need to do is explain why. There's no need to make this personal or get nasty. I'm just trying to understand your point.

So, the Civil War is complicated, fine. That's not the end of the story, though. My point was that it's still possible to ascertain majority opinions through testimony and actions. Why should we ignore that?

I think it's fairly clear that the north didn't invade the south because they thought southerners were possessed by devils, because they wanted to eat them for food, and a myriad of other non-reasons. I'm asserting that another one of those non-reasons was to free black slaves.

Life is complicated. You can be confident in that. However, that doesn't mean we can't say anything at all about human motivations.

[FooDSt4mP]

But you were provided an account from someone's family history that says it was a motivation for some.  That makes it a reason, not a nonreason.  What try to deny that the belief existed?

[NghtRppr]

But you were provided an account from someone's family history that says it was a motivation for some.  That makes it a reason, not a nonreason.  What try to deny that the belief existed?

I'm not denying that it was a motivating factor for some minority of people. When I say it wasn't a reason, I mean that had all other reasons been taken off the table, the war wouldn't have happened because of abolition.

In other words, if the south would have seceded and at the same time, freed all slaves, the war still would have happened because it wasn't about freeing slaves.

[FooDSt4mP]

In other words, if the south would have seceded and at the same time, freed all slaves, the war still would have happened because it wasn't about freeing slaves.

That statement is not provable.  History only happened one way.  You are still trying to reduce the irreducible.  We've already established the succession by the southern states was motivated largely by support for slavery.  In fact, that was in the first paragraph you wrote to start this thread.

But sure, if the situation was different, some things might have been the same.

[NghtRppr]

That statement is not provable.

I think we can establish a certain likelihood or probability though. I can't prove that had the south been given modern weapons, tanks, machine guns, grenades, etc, they would have won the war but that seems rather probable.

We've already established the succession by the southern states was motivated largely by support for slavery.  In fact, that was in the first paragraph you wrote to start this thread.

Remember, my thesis is that the war wasn't fought for the abolition of slavery i.e. the north didn't invade the south because they wanted to free slaves. The fact that the south seceded in the first place because of perceived threats to the continuation and expansion of slavery doesn't take away from that fact. I think most people can't see beyond that though and tend to think that if they left the Union for a reason then they were forced back in for the opposite reason. That's common sense but also wrong.

It's spelled "secession", by the way.

But sure, if the situation was different, some things might have been the same.

Especially when the things that change weren't the main motivating factors.

[FooDSt4mP]

That statement is not provable.

I think we can establish a certain likelihood or probability though. I can't prove that had the south been given modern weapons, tanks, machine guns, grenades, etc, they would have won the war but that seems rather probable.

We've already established the succession by the southern states was motivated largely by support for slavery.  In fact, that was in the first paragraph you wrote to start this thread.

Remember, my thesis is that the war wasn't fought for the abolition of slavery i.e. the north didn't invade the south because they wanted to free slaves. The fact that the south seceded in the first place because of perceived threats to the continuation and expansion of slavery doesn't take away from that fact. I think most people can't see beyond that though and tend to think that if they left the Union for a reason then they were forced back in for the opposite reason. That's common sense but also wrong.

It's spelled "secession", by the way.

But sure, if the situation was different, some things might have been the same.

Especially when the things that change weren't the main motivating factors.

+1 spelling for you

They may not have invaded to free slaves, but them wanting to free slaves caused the secession in the first place.

Regardless, I'm bored with this, so I guess you win.  Congratulations.

[NghtRppr]

They may not have invaded to free slaves, but them wanting to free slaves caused the secession in the first place.

I acknowledged that in my essay.

Regardless, I'm bored with this, so I guess you win.  Congratulations.

I'm not here to "win", whatever that means. I'm just here to put my beliefs to the test. If they can stand up to scrutiny, then good. If they can't, the sooner I find out the better.

[realnowhereman]

Your first sentence is in contradiction to your conclusion.

The American Civil War was fought primarily for two reasons, neither of them being the abolishment of slavery. On the southern side, the war was fought for political independence in order to continue and expand slavery.

So the south were fighting for the non-abolishment of slavery then?

If the North weren't planning to abolish slavery what were the South fighting against?

[NghtRppr]

Your first sentence is in contradiction to your conclusion.

The American Civil War was fought primarily for two reasons, neither of them being the abolishment of slavery. On the southern side, the war was fought for political independence in order to continue and expand slavery.

So the south were fighting for the non-abolishment of slavery then?

If the North weren't planning to abolish slavery what were the South fighting against?

Do you not understand the difference between the abolition of slavery and the non-abolition of slavery?

My thesis is that the war was not fought for the abolition of slavery. The fact that the south seceded and then fought to remain independent because they wanted to avoid the abolition of slavery doesn't account for the reason why the north provoked war. The north didn't enter into the war because they wanted to free slaves.

Focus your attention on the sentence in bold. That's the only point of contention. If you can prove otherwise, do so.

[FooDSt4mP]

The direct cause was the secession, which was itself caused by non-abolishment supporters flaming the state's rights debate.  Slavery was the catalyst that started the war.  The south knew the north wouldn't stand for the schism.

[NghtRppr]

The direct cause was the secession, which was itself caused by non-abolishment supporters flaming the state's rights debate.  Slavery was the catalyst that started the war.  The south knew the north wouldn't stand for the schism.

That doesn't contradict anything I've said. However, if you think that the north was invading the south to free slaves rather than to keep the south in the Union, you're wrong.

Welcome back to the discussion.

[FooDSt4mP]

The direct cause was the secession, which was itself caused by non-abolishment supporters flaming the state's rights debate.  Slavery was the catalyst that started the war.  The south knew the north wouldn't stand for the schism.

That doesn't contradict anything I've said. However, if you think that the north was invading the south to free slaves rather than to keep the south in the Union, you're wrong.

Welcome back to the discussion.

That depends on your definition of the north.  Some soldiers did choose to fight for that very reason.  The leaders were more concerned with the schism, but they didn't do the actual invading, did they?

[NghtRppr]

That depends on your definition of the north.  Some soldiers did choose to fight for that very reason.  The leaders were more concerned with the schism, but they didn't do the actual invading, did they?

The majority of northern soldiers fought to preserve the Union due to a sense of duty, honor and patriotism. Do you disagree? If so, why?

[Anonymous]

Politicians go to war to increase their power. Nothing else motivates them.

[Longmarch]

Additional point: The Union forces were not entirely volunteer.  Conscription is roughly equivalent to slavery.

[FooDSt4mP]

That depends on your definition of the north.  Some soldiers did choose to fight for that very reason.  The leaders were more concerned with the schism, but they didn't do the actual invading, did they?

The majority of northern soldiers fought to preserve the Union due to a sense of duty, honor and patriotism. Do you disagree? If so, why?

I agree with that statement.  Those are in fact the virtues a good soldier takes up.  It says nothing if his reasons other than he has some.

[NghtRppr]

I agree with that statement.

Then the debate is over. We agree.