[misnome]

Yes, abolition happened afterwards. Congratulations, you can argue pedantically, perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.

The war happened overwhelmingly _because_ slavery was going to be abolished.

[jeff_petersen]

> you can argue pedantically

This isn't a minor detail, it's actually quite important.

> perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery

Don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said and I would appreciate it if you'd be a bit more intellectually honest here. The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery. They did not secede because abolition actually happened.

[misnome]

> The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery

In what way is "work to end slavery" not completely identical, but just different words, to "work towards abolition".

You may think you are just arguing pedantically, but this exact language is leading people to believe that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Just because it hadn't yet happened does not mean it can be an important, or even primary motivator.

[jeff_petersen]

Here's what you said:

> The war happened overwhelmingly _because_ slavery was going to be abolished.

That's not the same as "working toward abolition."

> this exact language is leading people to believe that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery

[citation needed]

> Just because it hadn't yet happened does not mean it can be an important, or even primary motivator.

I said that a desire to keep the institution of slavery was the primary motivation. That is not the same as them reacting to abolition, which would violate causality.

Please try to be more civil rather than slinging around insults and accusations.