Welcome!

Talk page for User Just10A.

The sentence over which we disagree now reads, "The reasons for the Southern states' decisions to secede have been historically controversial, but most scholars today identify preserving slavery as a central reason for the outbreak of the conflict." As I noted when I changed "a" to "the," there is no other possible central reason. This sentence I just quoted is not supported by authority. I could find one, but I think it would be unnecessary, because it is almost universally agreed that preserving slavery was the central reason for secession.

It is technically true that Central source of escalating tension" in just the decade before the war ≠ "Central reason for the war." Sound similar, not the same. But the decade before the war led up to the war. It's not as if the escalating tensions from 1850 to 1860 were beside the point, and a new reason developed out of the blue after Lincoln was elected. For practical purposes, they do mean the same thing. But let's not argue about this paragraph, because my first paragraph is sufficient to justify "the" rather than "a." Can you tell me another reason for secession that is in the running for being the central reason? Of course you can't because there was no other. Maurice Magnus ( talk) 00:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

1.) Hostilities such as your last sentence are not necessary, nor will they be tolerated in the future. I have not addressed you at all with such language.

2.) I agree with you that you could probably find an authority supporting that opinion. I have no idea why you don't, since citations are so important, but thats your decision. I do note it is a strange position to take however.

3.) I would like to begin by pointing out that if you re-read your second paragraph, you are again equating 2 similar, but not the same, terms. "Reason for the war" and "reason for secession" (what you say in your second-to-last sentence) are different things. They are very very very similar, but they are not the same. One addresses the intent of BOTH parties, the other only addresses the intent of a single party. I don't mean to be so pedantic, but it's important.

The answer to your question lies at the same place as my #2 answer: in the sources. Other opined central reasons by scholars are referenced in the source already in the article (currently reference #18 on the article page). Some of them include "over-zealous idealism" between the parties at the time and "petty partisan politics" and that without them, there "would have been no war." And there are more to be found.

I want to say that this isn't my opinion. I'm not advancing some vendetta here. I understand that this is a charged topic and I find slavery as uncomfortable as the next user. However, these are the works of legitimate credited historians (who I did not even add to the article by the way, they have long been referenced in that portion). I do not think the current language of the sentence diminishes its meaning in any way. It is quite clear about the role of slavery in the war and the very prominent role it played. The current language simply acknowledges the view of credible historians and is in line with later language that references that view. The only real argument for excluding these legitimate academic views is on the basis of essentially pseudo-censorship because this topic is so politically charged and emotionally repulsive. While this feeling is understandable, it has no place on an explicitly objective and uncensored site such as Wikipedia.

Everything I've said is not my opinion, but cited. I find it hard to have a problem with that. Just10A ( talk) 02:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

In response to 1.), I did not intend hostility; I intended merely to discuss the issue. But I see now that what I wrote could be taken as a personal attack, and I apologize for that.

In response to 2.), I agree. I will try to find an authority that states that most scholars today identify preserving slavery as the central reason for secession, and, if I do, I will change "a" back to "the." You claim that there are exceptions among scholars, but that is consistent with "most." I cannot research this for about a week, because I am away from home and will not have access to my Civil War books until then.

The sentence at present refers to "central reason for the outbreak of the conflict," but it would be more accurate to say that slavery was "central reason for the secession." (I omitted "a" or "the" because in this paragraph I am not discussing that question.) The conflict broke out because the South wished to secede and the North wished to preserve the Union, and both sides were willing to fight for their positions. I'll make that edit now, because I don't anticipate that you'll disagree about it. Maurice Magnus ( talk) 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for a civil discourse! It is only one word, and I know anything that remotely resembles Lost Cause can invoke passion. Just10A ( talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I didn't have to wait to consult my Lincoln books; I found support online for changing "a" to "the." See what you think. Maurice Magnus ( talk) 17:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply