As a good ol' boy who was reared in the US Southeast it does amaze me that it's still an 'issue' in some places. When I engage these chowder heads, who to love to pontificate about the Rise of Dixie, I have noticed: a) many have no idea what the war was over to begin with (hint: slavery was not the central issue)
I have heard this said a LOT... buts its simply not true.
All claims to "States Rights" or anything else as the REAL cause are nothing but rationalizations.
Industrialized processing of cotton made slavery PAY. For decades prior to the war the primary tension between Nroth and South... in fact the ONLY polarizing issue, was the spread of the abolitionist movement in the North.
The Missouri Compromise and other fights over whether new States being admitted would allow or disallow slavery dominated national politics and political maneuverings in the decade prior to the war.
It became undeniably clear to the South that the economic and population growth of the North was going to give the North the political power to pass anti-slavery legislation...essentially forcing the South to give up the actual source of any wealth and power they enjoyed.
Although the argument ended up being FRAMED as an issue of States Rights... that was nothing but SPIN to sell the rural whites who could not afford slaves, on the idea of going to war over outsiders "telling them how to live".
This is NO Different than Bush and Cheney framing the Iraq war in terms of Terrorism and WMDs... when in fact EVERY historian will
correctly identify that Iraq was invaded over Oil Interests.
What the South CLAIMED was the issue is shown to be a lie by the events the led and spurred the conflict.
The Republican Party- back then, was the "Liberal " party, and it had been Created Specifically to promote an abolitionist agenda.
To hell with Lincoln... ANY Republican elected to the presidency at that time would be seen by the South as the death kneel for the basis of their economy.
For 15 years prior, the South had RELIED on sympathetic executives to veto any House or Senate bills that would promote abolition.
With a Republican in the white house, the South no longer had the ability to prevent abolitionist friendly legislation.
Their RATIONALE for secession was that any Federation you could JOIN, you should be able to LEAVE... But their PURPOSE was entirely to maintain the institution of slavery, which was the source of power for the powerful few in the South.
The NORTH, however, did not go to war to End slavery... but to preserve the Union. Abolition was added later as a means of deriving SOME lasting benefit for the loss of so many lives... something more immediately tangible than the preservation of the union.
But, for the North... the primary purpose to the war was not Slavery...but the Survival of the United States as a nation. If the South was allowed to establish the Right to Seceed as valid.... then, ultimately, ANY State could pull out for Any reason, at any time... and the United States would devolve into a bunch of perpetually warring little nations.
In the final analysis... the South went to war primarily over their rights to perpetuate slavery.
And the North went to war over the survival of the nation, first... and, as long as they were gonna be forcing THAT issue... they took the opportunity to ELIMINATE the primary cause of the secessionist movement in the first place... the ONE ethical rift that differentiated the North form the South politically.
And, BTW... While the South was right in the respect that
any people should have the right to self determination... the fact that the particular POINT of self determination they sought to preserve was their right to DEPRIVE other human beings of self determination made their entire position morally hypocritical.
They were WRONG. You can not CLAIM the power of self determination to defend your denial of the same rights to others.