When judging participants it's helpful to separate the Secession from the War. The Secession was an act to preserve the status quo of slavery by asserting what those states thought to be their self determining rights. The War was an act to prevent secession based on the notion that states, having moved from colonies of the crown to members of the union, had never been self sovereign and therefore did not have the right to leave. As war broke out the Union found it didn't have the military support that it expected and needed something to galvanize support. As Grant would later say, "when the war broke out the army dissolved. We had no army – then we had to organize one." This, after war had begun and lines had been drawn, is when the states purpose became emancipation. The average soldier didn't care about preventing secession, but they could be stoked by a crusade to end slavery. With this framing you could say that to the soldiers the War was in fact about slavery, but if we want to judge leadership and governance, slavery was profit to the Confederacy and a tool for the Union. As Reddit would say: Everyone Sucks Here.
Discussion
All viable points. On the flip side, the comment by Lincoln about preserving the union without freeing anyone was (allegedly) tailored to retain the central states’ (MD, etc) allegiance to the north, with a rallying cry of “unity”.
I’m a big believer states’ rights (or, perhaps I should say, communities’ rights - because states are still too large), but I’m a bigger believer in individual rights. And the rights of individuals are no worse abused than in a nation where slavery exists.
Next up… the prison industry 😒
Thanks for the thoughtful note 🫡