The class aspect of secession is well-established. Oddly, in that respect you decline an economic interpretation, but it was widely commented on at the time, with the war being described as "a rich man's war but a poor man's fight." Smaller property holders, even non-slave owners, usually tended to have a major stake in the preservation of slavery because it was the foundation of the Southern economy and defined the Southern way of life.
The two major exceptions are notable, being the hill country of Alabama and West Virginia. In both cases, the poor quality of the land made it unsuitable for plantation agriculture, which mostly kept slavery out. They were mostly hostile to secession.
Because that's what the government has told us over and over again for the last 160 years. Therefore it must be true.
You are aping propaganda rather than looking at the actual data. You are also putting forth an argument that is logically absurd. You've been presented with the evidence that slavery was going to *BE* preserved in the Union, yet still you want to believe the propaganda that they left because they feared slavery would be destroyed.
This was clear in the debates and in the secession articles themselves if read honestly.
3, perhaps 4 secession articles, and reading it honestly is just swallowing *THEIR* propaganda. Of course they aren't going to talk about the money because they don't want people to notice that.
Virginia, for example, which you count as not seceding because of slavery, referred to "oppression" but the context matters, with Virginia declaring: "the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States."
Your problem in understanding Virginia is your assumption that they would not have objected to the Federal government attacking another state that wasn't a slave state.
Do you grasp what Virginia said, or can your mind only focus on the word "Slave"?
Virginia is objecting to the Federal government raising an army to subjugate states. That these states are slave states is incidental to the problem put forth.
THE GOVERNMENT IS ATTACKING STATES.
Did you not learn how to diagram sentences in high school or college? "slave-holding" is an adjective. It is not the Noun. It is not the target of the verb.
The class aspect of secession is well-established.
"Well established" means nothing to me. It was "well established" that Trump colluded with Russia and that he orchestrated an "Insurrection" at the capitol. Please spare me any arguments that rely on "experts said" or "everybody knows." Experts lie. "Authorities" lie.
Oddly, in that respect you decline an economic interpretation, but it was widely commented on at the time, with the war being described as "a rich man's war but a poor man's fight."
Which was referring to the fact that in the Union, a wealthy man could pay 300 dollars and could avoid service in the Army while a poor man could not.
Smaller property holders, even non-slave owners, usually tended to have a major stake in the preservation of slavery because it was the foundation of the Southern economy and defined the Southern way of life.
And you believe that because "experts" told you so.
How does a wealthy neighbor owning slaves help a man who doesn't? How are their economic interests aligned?
The two major exceptions are notable, being the hill country of Alabama and West Virginia. In both cases, the poor quality of the land made it unsuitable for plantation agriculture, which mostly kept slavery out.
Which is *EXACTLY* the case in the "territories" and is exactly why there never was going to be any significant slave presence in the "territories", and why it was therefore a lie to provoke fears of "expansion of slavery."
You could not grow cotton in the territories, therefore there was not going to be any significant slave presence in the territories. That was just a lie.