Then please explain why 4 slave-holding states, plus the cunk of land that later came to be West Virginia, fought for the north? Not to mention that the Emancipation Proclamation DID NOT FREE SLAVES IN THE NORTH, only those in the parts of the south that were still not conquered. In other words, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves at all. If ending slavery was the goal of the war, then why didn't Lincoln free northern slaves?
Slavery is a horrible blemish on the whole country (remember that New York allowed slavery until almost 1840) and I regret that my ancestors owned slaves. However, the war was more complex than just being about slavery. Slavery was probably the biggest issue, but if it weren't for unfair tariffs, the war would have probably never happened. Slavery was on the decline -- and it just happened to decline first in the north. Anti-slavery sentiment was growing in the south, especially Virginia, by the time the war started. It probably would have died out in the whole country by 1875.
Note also that South Carolina came to the brink of secession in the 1830s, and the cause was unfair tariffs rather than slavery, which wasn't much of an issue in the north at the time.
I never said I could write well... Those who can't write, edit.
Served him how, exactly? I assume you're referring to the timing of the Emancipation Proclamation, which helped to forestall European recognition of the South and possible direct intervention on its behalf. You're saying that was a bad thing?
Did I say it was a bad thing? No.
Slavery was always the central issue, neo-confederate apologia to the contrary.
I didn't even dispute that (though I could have). The important point is what Lincoln wanted to do about it--and are you denying that he wanted to deport all blacks?
Seems to me that his main concern was control.