I agree with you 110%, Evelyn. While I admit there's an argument to made about fringe overlap of the issues causing both things, still they are separate acts. To say that the South fought a war to hold onto slavery is to ignore entirely the fact that she was invaded. Did the Union invade the Confederacy to free the slaves? Oh, please; of course not. The Union invaded primarily to stop secession and hold onto the Southern lands. Did the Confederate States, including my beloved Texas, secede over the issue of slavery? Yes'm, it had more than a small part to do with it. I don't see how any Southron can deny that; nor do I see any valid reason for denying it. People on both sides fought and died for many reasons; but very few of them were risking their necks purely over setting slaves free or holding onto them. Fewer still thought about it from the same "moral position" we would today.

It so easy to oversimplify this whole complicated part of history; and to ignore that there was a huge element of emotion involving the word "home or homeland", as well as self-image, involved in why soldiers on both sides were willing to risk death and dismemberment.

I don't have a problem with saying secession was due in no small part to issues about slavery; I have a problem with people who are so shallow in thought as to honestly believe either secession or war was about only slavery for either side. It's like saying the colonies only fought England over tea. :(