And, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in land the Union did not control. It didn’t free slaves in any of the northern states (such as Delaware and Kentucky) either. Some have speculated that it may have been intended to not only seize the issue but also to possibly foment a slave rebellion in the south.
Victors do indeed write the history books.
While we’re at it, we may as well recognize that there were 4 slave states that did not secede, and name the other two: Maryland (yes, THAT Maryland) and West Virginia which seceded from Virginia to remain with the union much the same as I would suspect Inland and Southern California to secede from California if the latter decided to break away.
IMHO it's best to put away absolutes when determining who was right and who was wrong in the south or in the north, or which policies had real effects, etc.
Yes, most people in the south didn't own slaves. The highest percentage of a family owning a slave (thus counting everybody in the family as a slave owner even if technically only the father owned a slave) even in Alabama is 35% to 40% -- ever (say if a family tried it for a generation, didn't like it, and gave it up by the next generation or two, that 35% to 40% stat still counts the family as having owned slaves even if it was for a small portion of that family's history). I've read it's more like 5% of white families in the entire nation. So I agree with the sentiment of not blaming the entire white race for slavery, even white southerners. But, and this is important, the percentage of slave owning is higher if we're talking about the political and business leaders of the CSA, particularly at the time of the secession, and particularly the ones to push for secession. So I don't judge my fellow white Alabamians for slavery (including the ones who lived here back then), but I do judge the Dim leaders in Alabama and other CSA states back then for pushing for slavery even to the point of secession. If you read the Dim party platform in 1860, constitution of the CSA, and the "cornerstone" speeches of the Dim CSA president and Dim CSA VP defining what the new CSA government was about, it's very clear that preserving slavery was one of the main reasons for the CSA's existence. The Dim leaders of the CSA deserve the judgment they're getting today .... even if the majority of southern citizens hated slavery (some because of Christianity and some because cheap slave labor suppressed wages and farmer profit of non-slave owning small farms), and even if today's educational establishment want you to forget that the CSA leaders were Dims. It'd be analogous to if someone a few centuries from now judged our country today: the Dim leaders today deserve blame for the abortion and pedo they're pushing and legalizing, but don't judge most Americans today over it because we hate it and try to stop it.
As far as the average southern Joe fighting for the CSA, that's a mixed bag. Yes, the average Joe knew at the time that the CSA was in large part about preserving slavery -- the CSA leaders made it clear. But I'll cut the average CSA soldier slack for often not having a choice but fight. Some were drafted, some had their families threatened, and some fought for the CSA to protect their homes and home states from the total war the Union generals promised.
About the Emancipation Proclamation. I'm in 100% agreement that it should not be confused with the 13th Amendment, it didn't free every slave, it didn't apply to Union states (or originally neutral states like Kentucky that couldn't help but pick pick the Union side after the CSA attacked Kentucky). But don't talk like the EP had zero effect either. (Again, the logic of absolutes is faulty logic.) The EP did quell outside help for the CSA (i.e. England slacked off on helping the CSA because by then England was proudly abolitionist). Don't underestimate that one aspect of the EP -- trade with England was still a big deal in the 1860's. And there were places in the south where slaves were freed after American forces won in that area, particularly if the town was almost completely deserted by local leaders. (In the minds of some Union generals the EP cleared up what martial law should do regarding slaves -- free them). Just because some Union generals didn't do that with martial law (particularly in cases where some local leaders stayed and agreed to help Union forces run the town smoothly) doesn't mean the EP didn't have an abolition effect in many areas. Think of the EP as moving the abolition needle enough to have real effects in freeing many slaves even if abolition wasn't honored everywhere as the absolute law of the land until the 13th Amendment.
And losers do indeed write the myths.