Those who fought in both Blue and Grey did so for God and country. While it is reasonable to question their methods, their motives were pure.
I don't think so. More and more people were becoming uncomfortable with slavery. The British outlawed slavery in 1833. The motives of the slave holders were anything -but- pure. This was noted at the time, it is not a generational judgment.
The leading secessionists had a large part of their net worth in slaves. The FMV of slaves in the south totalled more than the FMV of the land in the south, I believe.
The slave holders hardened their hearts and fought for slavery tooth and nail. There might be some question that the common soldiers were not fighting for slavery, although they seem to have at least been fighting for white supremacy. To the extent they fought -not- for slavery, they were the dupes of the slave power.
Abraham Lincoln, who favored an end to slavery, was vilified in the south -because he opposed slavery.
The situation was -not- what you say it was.
Walt
And like I said, to question the motives of those who agitated for secession is fine and dandy, we can argue about it all day long. Once the Confederacy was formed, its men took arms for defense of their country. As such, they are not deserving of the contempt that you show for them.
Abraham Lincoln, who favored an end to slavery, was vilified in the south -because he opposed slavery.
Perhaps you could call him on the time-phone and tell him that he favored an end to slavery. He certainly favored an end to its territorial expansion, but made no bones about its existence.
Of course, now you've caught yourself in a catch-22. You can post a Lincoln quote that sounds favorable to ending slavery, which is also no doubt genuine. It may be fair to say that the lack of a national press at the time allowed him to "tailor his message to the immediate audience" -- today we call it a "lie."