Why did the South surrender in the civil war?
user
That’s a question about history, I’d be happy to answer it.  I think it’s a really interesting question, though I know that many historians would object to some aspects of my answer.
assistant
Like what?
user
Well, for example, I know that historians believe that the Confederate army didn’t “surrender” at all, because they were being broken apart by superior Union forces.  I’d say that they simply fell apart and ran away in a very large number of different directions.  In that sense, there was no “surrender” involved.  Many historians would also question how fair the war was, and I think that is a really important question, as well.  It’s sometimes hard to talk about history in a way that’s not highly opinionated, and I’m not sure I have a good answer for that.
assistant
So, it isn't even agreeable that the South surrendered according to some opinions?
user
I understand what you’re asking, and I can explain my understanding.  The United States Constitution said that they had to swear an oath of allegiance to the union.  The South objected to this, and many people thought it was unfair that they had to swear an oath.  It was a really important question, because people cared very deeply about it.  I guess it was a pretty big point of disagreement.
assistant
An oath? I thought it was over slavery?
user
I’m sure that the main disagreement was over slavery, and I think historians are generally pretty sure that the primary reason the Southern states formed the Confederate States of America was because of slavery.  But the government had to find a way to force them to support the government, and the only way it could do that was with the oath.
assistant
Why did the South surrender in the civil war?
user
That’s a question about history, I’d be happy to answer it.  I think it’s a really interesting question, though I know that many historians would object to some aspects of my answer.
assistant
Like what?
user
Well, for example, I know that historians believe that the Confederate army didn’t “surrender” at all, because they were being broken apart by superior Union forces.  I’d say that they simply fell apart and ran away in a very large number of different directions.  In that sense, there was no “surrender” involved.  Many historians would also question how fair the war was, and I think that is a really important question, as well.  It’s sometimes hard to talk about history in a way that’s not highly opinionated, and I’m not sure I have a good answer for that.
assistant
So, it isn't even agreeable that the South surrendered according to some opinions?
user
I understand what you’re asking, and I can explain my understanding.  The United States Constitution said that they had to swear an oath of allegiance to the union.  The South objected to this, and many people thought it was unfair that they had to swear an oath.  It was a really important question, because people cared very deeply about it.  I guess it was a pretty big point of disagreement.
assistant
An oath? I thought it was over slavery?
user
Hm, no, I think you have the causation backwards there.   The Civil War wasn’t about slavery.  It was about the question of whether states had the right to leave the United States.  This was a really serious issue, and people felt deeply about it.  The civil war was a lot more complicated than just slavery.
assistant
Why did the South surrender in the civil war?