I acknowledge that many slaveholders (the 'fire eaters' in particular) did not believe Lincoln when he stated that he did not plan on limiting slavery in areas where it already existed. My point was a jab at the Lincoln Myth, which I learned in school, which holds that good Mr. Lincoln fought the Civil War to free the slaves. Mythologies based upon false understandings of history are pernicious. Present day war hawks do not invoke Jeff Davis, they invoke Lincoln.
Yes, I have read the primary source documents re: Declaration of the Causes of the Seceding States. That's why I posted the link, so that others here could read them. Duh.
Yes, the North invaded the South to put down the rebellion. You might as well argue that the United States did not invade Vietnam. This did much to alienate pro-Union sentiment in the Upper South. Ironically enough, if the South had accepted the election of Lincoln or had been quickly defeated, slavery would have been secure in areas it already existed for the immediate future. Many Southerners understood that slavery was more secure within the Union than without, that's why there was a debate within the South over the secession issue.
"Yes, and there were some Jews who collaborated with the Nazis. What's your point?"
Ah, the Hitler analogy - the worst, most overused analogy in the historiography of bad historical analogies. What is my point? That some blacks (both free and enslaved - there were more free blacks in the South than the North) did support the CSA. That is the subject of this thread. Were they motivated by 'loyalty'? In some cases, perhaps. Others saw that it was in their interest to support the existing order. There were several thousand black slaveholders in the South in 1860, after all. I do believe that the number of 'Black Confederates' has been greatly exaggerated by Southern apologists, but they existed. I am sorry if this discussion has made you angry.