It is perfectly true that most southern whites did not own slaves, and that, among the slave owners, most owned very few slaves. The idea of often benign domestic servitude, with slaves and their owners living in close quarters on reasonably friendly terms and working side by side in the field or home, is a natural reflection of this demographic reality.
But the reverse perspective is also true. The vast majority of blacks in the south were enslaved. And the great majority of slaves were owned by the larger landowners with big plantations. For blacks, the slave gang, slave quarters, and overseer driven, large scale agricultural production for export were the dominant realities.
150 years later, the descendants of the typical riflemen in Lee's army look back at slavery and say, "we didn't own any, and that's not what my great great grandfather was fighting for." Or "My great great grandfather owned a slave family, and treated them well, and stayed on good terms after the war." And all that is probably true.
150 years later, the descendants of the typical slave look back and think Simon Legree. And that is true as well.
The two camps have opposite perceptions, and both can be right.
Perspective is right.
Today, many Southerners will tell you that the War of Northern Aggression was about States’ rights. (That’s the point of the comments that make up the thread title; see, most Southerners weren’t slave owners so that couldn’t be why they fought...)
Yankees will tell you the Civil War was fought over slavery.
Both perspectives have value.
Indeed, the two issues were intricately linked from our founding:
The 3/5ths compromise was designed to prevent an overrepresentation of the pro-slavery position in the new government. Our founders punted this issue down the decades.
The 3/5ths clause that kept apportionment down in slave areas kept representation down in the South, generally. The two issues, slavery and representation, were tied together from our start.
I believe that it’s correct to say that the average rebel fighter was fighting to protect his home and not slavery (or States’ Rights for that matter). His leaders had a different agenda. They wanted freedom from a representation mismatch that put them at a disadvantage, for sure. They also believed that the “necessary evil” would be essential to provide the economic freedom that would be an integral part of the political freedom they sought. Cotton is King.
To say that the War was only about slavery misses the point just as much as to say it wasn’t about slavery at all.
It was about States’ rights. For those making decisions in the South, that meant the war was about slavery as well.
They look back and think nothing but Simon Legree, who was a made up figure created solely for the purpose of pushing Hariet Beecher Stowe's abolitionist propaganda. It was a deliberate distortion of the norm, it was outrage drama for the calculated purpose of rousing anger and hatred.
It was as accurate as all the Hollywood movies that portray the EVIL CORPORATIONS as the most wicked entities on Earth.
It is the same ole same ole from Northeastern Liberals and their current moral fad trying to impose "Change" on the rest of the society so as to coincide with their newly enlightened condition.
Yesterday it was Slavery, today it is "Gay Marriage", "Global Warming", and "Transgender Equality."
What it is, is troublemakers telling lies to induce sweeping social movements, and they simply do not care that what they say is untrue or distorted.
The "Cause" is greater than the need for truth.