[DiogenesLamp]

But at the same time the Congress of the Southern Confederacy has adopted a tariff reducing the duties on imports, the consequence of which will be that the importations will abandon the ports of the North and enter those of the South, and will then find their way to the interior by the Mississippi river and the railroads of the border States.

And that right there is the cause of the war in a nutshell. A free South would be a grave financial threat to the financial interests of the monied men of New England.

It wasn't the loss of Tariff income to the Federal Government. Although that was very significant, it wasn't enough by itself to launch a war. It is the loss of 200-400 million or more to the Northern Economy *and* the potential to have Competitors in the South that would cost them even more business, that made the problem serious enough to initiate a war to stop it.

[PeaRidge]

Isn’t it interesting that lots of folks harp endlessly about slavery but never mention the word Mississippi.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to PeaRidge: "And that right there is the cause of the war in a nutshell.
A free South would be a grave financial threat to the financial interests of the monied men of New England. "

Nobody claims that Southern secession would have no negative affects on Northern economic interests.
But that is far from claiming that such interests were the cause of Civil War.
They were not.

The cause of war, pure and simple, was the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.
Absent that Confederate assault, there would be no war, no "Anaconda Plan", no blockade of Confederate ports, none of it.
There would also be no secession declarations by Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas.
Reason: from Virginians' perspective war was necessary for them to declare secession, and that's what Fort Sumter gave Virginians.
Other Upper South states had decided to follow Virginia's lead in first refusing to secede and then declaring secession after war began at Fort Sumter.