COUNTER-FACTUAL ANALYSIS

Many may reject the whole concept of a meaningful counter-factual analysis. They may say, "it does not prove anything." Here they miss the whole point of counter-factual analysis. The value is to test our understanding of the actual history by reasonably assessing possible alternate outcomes. They may say, "we do not know all the facts or their variables." We can not have a perfect knowledge of history. Yet, to the extent that we can not assess alternate outcomes, then neither can we understand what happened? History is not fate. If we can not reasonably assess alternate outcomes, can we truly say we know what happened or why it happened?

Counter-factual analysis requires all manner of qualifications; might have, could have, probably etc. Yet, to understand the history, counter-factual analysis is one tool, when used honestly and maturely that helps move understanding forward. The point is not that any particular event would have necessarily come about. It is not about that this or that would have or could have happened, etc. It is about understanding the relationships and factors involved and, in fact, testing our understanding

We should all re-read James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" (857-858). He demonstrates how easy it is to commit the fallacy of inevitability and forget the "dimension of contingency" and that at "numerous critical points things may have turned out altogether differently."

This is also explained by Chandra Manning, in Crossfire in North & South vol. 8 no. 1, "the dangers of applying hindsight, which obscures things as they looked from the perspective of people living in the past by blocking the view either with the way we want things to have been, or with things that have happened since but which no one in the past could have known." (p91)

back