Thanks, but no, I consider myself a "history buff", meaning I buy & read a lot of history books, but don't write or teach it... except here, of course.
My occupation is "retired" and "self employed" in which I travel a lot -- last week to South Carolina, this week to New York, next week to Kentucky & Indiana, assuming, that is, the fellow I hired to snow-plow my driveway shows up in time... ;-)
jmacusa: "...it should be obvious that preserving slavery, even if it meant war was what the South intended.
Anything less than victory over the North and the preservation of slavery would have been a great betrayal of the thousands who gave their lives..."
An interesting study on this matter is The Hampton Roads Conference in February, 1865.
If you saw the 2012 movie "Lincoln", Hampton Roads is featured there and shows Confederate emissaries refusing to accept freedom for slaves.
But when you look up further historical details, things were not quite so simple.
In actual fact, it was only Confederate President Davis who totally rejected Lincoln's peace terms, and the key item was not so much slavery as reunion with the United States.
But slavery was discussed, to the point where Lincoln offered $400,000,000 to help pay for emancipation.
That too went nowhere.
Bottom line: even very near war's end, when Confederates still could negotiate a much better deal than they got, they utterly refused and fought on a few more months before surrendering unconditionally.
jmacusa: "...and sheer lunacy besides."
Right.