You are looking at one side of the equation. Lincoln was opposed to slavery, it is true. He did look forward to the day when it would end, but he did not consider it his duty as president to end it. His stated goal of the war, and for the North in general, was to preserve the Union. That remained the goal throughout the war, and the actions taken to end slavery were taken to further the cause of Union victory. The end of slavery as an institution were a happy result of the Union victory. So in that Sears, McPhearson, et.al. were correct.
But from the southern viewpoint, the single most important reason for the rebellion was defense of the institution of slavery. For them, it was a fight for slavery.
Unlike some in the Civil War debates... I don't have a dog in the fight...so I am not trying to justify or vilify one side at the expense of the other side.
I am talking about the historical evidence on both sides regarding the negative and bitter reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation. Both sides (and the letters and editorials confirm this) believed that Lincoln changed the terms of the conflict. That instead of the conflict being about the "preservation of the Union" versus "states rights", the war had been suddenly been bottomlined to a fight solely against slavery with the North being for the freeing of slaves and the South being against it.
That's the gist of my post.... that's what the editorials and letters confirm about the period of Sept 1862 to May 1863... (and these letters and editorials are not just found in Sears, Furgusons, or Stockpoles' books... they are found in many other books as well.)
for the NORTHERN soldier the WBTS was about "preserving the Union".
for the VAST majority of SOUTHERN soldiers the WBTS was about just ONE thing = FREEDOM for the southland, from the hatefilled,arrogant,self-righteous damnedyankees.
that is still the reason for the southron nationalist movement= southrons, of all sorts, are sick unto death of the intrusive,hypocritical,socialist-leaning,arrogant damnyankees "sticking their long noses into our affairs".
southrons just want to be left alone!
free dixie,sw
An awfully sweeping statement. I know you could find a number of contemporary statements, many from people in very high positions, to support your contention.
However, the more I read of state or regional histories, whether it's about people here in North Carolina, or the very interesting situation in Oklahoma, the more variety I find among the opinions of both political leaders and ordinary people. There's some support for every sweeping generalization, and usually equal support for its opposite. That ought to be a warning to us.
If I were a college student today, I'd be tempted to write my term paper with the thesis, "The single most important reason for the rebellion was defense of the institution of slavery male hormones."
The only one, it might be added. Of course, the same thing would have resulted had the Confederacy won.