The South was not represented in Congress?
Those issues cut across Party lines.
There were Southern whigs who voted for Tariffs, and Nothern Democrats who voted against them.
And it was okay for Northern papers and radical Abolitionists to talk about secession from the Southern States and try to foment rebellion among the slaves prior to 1860.
And who said that was correct?
Before you deny it remember John Brown, and the Nat Turner rebellion? Guess who put down that one? Col. Robert E. Lee USA prior to his resignation of his commission a few years later.
First, those 'rebellions' were put down and those involved executed.
Second, Robert E. Lee, did not believe the States did have a right to secession.
He only fought for the South since he could not fight against his native State.
Also Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri and one other staate seceeded from the Union over Lincoln's illegal invasion where he called up 75,000 troops to try to force the original seceeding states back into the Union.
How is that call up of troops illegal when the Constitution has the right to suppress an armed rebellion.
Even Washington sent troops against the Whisky Rebellion.
So the bottom line is that the war wasn't fought over slavery, it was fought over the right of secession. It wasn't a war of rebellion as the Southern States weren't trying to take over Washington DC and form a new government for every state. You are the one who needs to study up on your history!
No, the bottom line is that the war was fought over slavery.
The South broke up the Democrat Party over it.
Most of the States succeded over it.
The South had no right to break its commitment to the Union because it did not like the results of an election.
As for citing books, here is one.
Despite thirty years of philosphizing, denials, obfusciation, scriptural revision, and constitutional sophistries, it all came down to this: the South was terrified of large number of freed blacks, slave or free. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Civil War was about slavery, and in the long run only about slavery....In contradiction to libertarian references to 'states rights and liberty' made by many modern neo-Confederates, the Rebel leadership made clear its views that not only were blacks not people, but that ultimately all blacks-including then-free Negros-should be enslaved. In his response to the Emancipation Prclamation, Jefferson Davis stated, 'On and after Febrary 22, 1863, all free negros within the limits of the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on slave status, and be deemed chattels, they and their issue forever.' Not only blacks of the Stats in which slavery does not now exist, in the progress of our arms, ahall be adjudged to...occupy the slave status....(A Patriot's History of the United States, Larry Schweikart and MIchael Allen, pg 302)
Rebellion is defined as a war to usurp the government and establish something different. The South wanted to break away from the Union, which under the 9th and 10th Amendments it had the RIGHT to do. No rebellion there Bubba Gump. Lincoln was supposed to get the authority from Congress for declaring war, and THAT HE DID NOT DO! Its called enumerated powers!
"Second, Robert E. Lee, did not believe the States did have a right to secession."
Once again the Founding Fathers disagree with you, Read up on the Virginia articles of ratification pertaining to the Constitution, Virginia by the way was Robert E. Lee's home state. You seem to think that when the States ratified the Constitution they gave up their sovereignty/power and were amassed into this national entity called America. Wrong again, they only ceeded certain distinct enumerated limited powers to the Federal Government. They never gave up sovereignty and the major portion of power was to remain the domain of the States, once again the 9th and 10th Amendments show you're wrong.
" No, the bottom line is that the war was fought over slavery."
The North went to war to "preserve the Union". So what does that have to do with freeing slaves? Lincoln himself said "If I could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it..." Lincoln was a centralist, he wanted to centralise all power in the Federal Government. The seceeding States wanted no government interference in their internal affairs. Slavery was considered a domestic institution (internal affair) and therefore the government had no right to stick its nose into it at that time. Not to mention the admission of the territories to the union as free states. Therefore the South felt the balance of power in Congress would shift to the North. And the North didn't want the Southern States to enact free trade as it was believed that this would hurt the protective tariffs that the Northern economy was prospering under at the expense of the Southern States. So your assertion that it was about slavery is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base. Slavery was only a side bar issue, and once the war was going badly in public opinion for the Federal Government, Lincoln being a consummate politician enacted the Emancipation Proclamation as a way of getting more popularity for his views. So now what? You still believe it was about only slavery? Virginia and Arkansas, and Missouri didn't seceed until Lincoln ordered the invasion of the original seceeding States. Slavery was NOT, REPEAT NOT why they seceeded, it was about federal interference in each case!