[enumerated]

You keep doubling down on the same BS.

Slavery was like holding a rattlesnake by the tail. Only a few wealthy southerners owned enough slaves to make it worth fighting for - and they were not the type to do their own fighting.

The southerners who actually fought, were NOT fighting to keep slavery. My great-grandfather was one of them, and we have all of his letters. He and everyone he fought with were fighting to protect their homeland from economic tyranny and invasion.

[BroJoeK]

enumerated: "The southerners who actually fought, were NOT fighting to keep slavery.
My great-grandfather was one of them, and we have all of his letters.
He and everyone he fought with were fighting to protect their homeland from economic tyranny and invasion."

I have no doubt that's true for you, meaning the statistics for how many Confederate troops owned slaves are disputed, but the commonly acknowledged number at the time was 25%, so 75% did not, and that likely included your great-grandfather.

But a problem with your argument is it ignores the fact: virtually 100% of Confederate leadership, including army officers, were indeed slaveholders, many owned large numbers of slaves and so all would suffer economically by uncompensated abolition.
And that's what they meant by your term "economic tyranny".

Plus you might remember that many Southerners from low-slave areas welcomed Union "invasion" -- in regions like West Virginia, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, northern regions of Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Missouri & Kentucky plus western Maryland, among others.
Those Southerners had no love for Confederates and were happy to see them driven out of their own Southern homelands.