Replies

That's one theory. A more accurate one is that Mad King George III was not so fanatical about shedding blood to impose his will as was Abraham Lincoln. King George acquiesced to their independence after having lost around 15,000 casualties. Lincoln would keep the war going until 750,000 people were dead.

That's not a theory at all but a fanciful interpretation of history. But say for the sake of argument King George had been willing to wage a far bloodier war. Do you truly doubt that the Founding Fathers would not have fought to the death to prevail? They were, after all, fighting for their liberty which seems to me to be a far greater motivator than fighting for slavery.

Do you truly doubt that the Founding Fathers would not have fought to the death to prevail?

You naively think that will power is the only necessity for victory. You should read about the Spartans at Thermopylae.

When one side has so much more people to throw at you, you are going to get vanquished, unless you have some sort of substantial leverage to even the odds.

No. The Founding fathers would have all been killed had George III decided to send his full force against them. We must thank his forbearance more than anything else.

They were, after all, fighting for their liberty which seems to me to be a far greater motivator than fighting for slavery.

So were the Confederates. They already had slavery, and Lincoln repeatedly told them over and over again, "If you like your slavery, you can keep your slavery", so "slavery" wasn't even on the table as a motivation for either side. The North claiming it was about slavery was just another propaganda effort to dehumanize the other side in the manner the US Government attempted to dehumanize the Germans in WWI.

The Confederates were also fighting for their liberty, but they just didn't have enough men to oppose someone who had four times their population.