Okay, so I believe the Civil War was not over slavery, at least not in the way that modern liberals like to portray it as. Here's my argument.
The south had, for a long time, been opposed to and been exploited by tariffs, and this was at a time when the federal government's revenue primarily relied upon tariffs. The southern economy had an extremely weak industrial base, so if they wanted to sell their cotton they couldn't do it locally, not generally.
The north, on the other hand, had a strong industrial base, and the majority of the tax dollars were spent there (bridges, roads, whatever).
When a southern farmer wanted to sell his cotton, he had to pay money to the government which would primarily be spent in the north. Putting a tariff made industrial goods from Europe more expensive to southerners, basically this allowed the north to do a shittier job of providing industrial goods; put simply this was protectionism, which protected the north from European competitors at the expense of the south.
Obviously, this was a shitty deal for the south. Around 1860, the only barrier to the more populous north raising tariffs could be one of two things
-Democrats having 50% of the seats in the Senate
-Democrats having the oval office
If the Democrats had neither of those, there was no barrier to the northern politicians exploiting the south further beyond compassion… By the way, the north raised tariffs as soon as the civil war ended, surprise!
When the south lost their 50% in the Senate AND a Republican president got into office there was no way for them to prevent a hike in tariffs. President Lincoln promised in his inaugural address not to interfere with existing slavery, so there was not going to be a compelling threat to the existence of slavery for at least another 4 years, probably 8. The immediate crisis for the south was tariffs.
-The south could see that the north was going to go after slavery eventually, but there was no immediate threat to it
-SPost too long. Click here to view the full text.