Lincoln's position is irrelevant. This is straight from South Carolinas declaration of succession:
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
The South believed they had a fundamental right to govern the institution of slavery how they saw fit. They viewed banning slavery as an overreach of government.
So yes, Lincoln wasn't a one man crusade against slavery from the beginning, he moreso abolished it as a geopolitical tactic. But that doesn't change the fact that the South was fighting for their right to keep slaves.
The problem with defining secession is "for" slavery is that it's complicated. I don't say that as an out, it just was. 7 state seceded initially after Lincoln's election, SC was just one of them. They specifically mention slavery as rationale. My state, FL, was third and didn't mention it at all. 4 more states joined after Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops. Their rationale was the US gov't shouldn't compel states to stay in the Union. One of my favorite quotes from this phase was Tennessean who voted first to stay in the Union, then after Sumter voted TN out because "Lincoln... made a rebel out of me." 4 more slave states opted to stay in the Union. Also, some of the leading rebels, Davis, Lee, were actually opposed to secession and only supported it once it had become fact. It's super complicated, much more than the single paragraph in most history books give it.
Nah more like democrats who massively REE'd over their loss of cheap labor
Lincoln's position is irrelevant. This is straight from South Carolinas declaration of succession:
The South believed they had a fundamental right to govern the institution of slavery how they saw fit. They viewed banning slavery as an overreach of government.
So yes, Lincoln wasn't a one man crusade against slavery from the beginning, he moreso abolished it as a geopolitical tactic. But that doesn't change the fact that the South was fighting for their right to keep slaves.
The problem with defining secession is "for" slavery is that it's complicated. I don't say that as an out, it just was. 7 state seceded initially after Lincoln's election, SC was just one of them. They specifically mention slavery as rationale. My state, FL, was third and didn't mention it at all. 4 more states joined after Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops. Their rationale was the US gov't shouldn't compel states to stay in the Union. One of my favorite quotes from this phase was Tennessean who voted first to stay in the Union, then after Sumter voted TN out because "Lincoln... made a rebel out of me." 4 more slave states opted to stay in the Union. Also, some of the leading rebels, Davis, Lee, were actually opposed to secession and only supported it once it had become fact. It's super complicated, much more than the single paragraph in most history books give it.
The emancipation proclamation wasn't signed until a union victory appeared inevitable