[DiogenesLamp]

There may be an arguement that states seceded over slavery, but the federal government did not wage war over slavery. It waged war to bring those states back into the union so they can continue to supply the textile barons with bottom-priced cotton.

My argument has long been this: If they have a *RIGHT* to secede, then their reasons for doing so do not matter.

A right isn't a right if you are only allowed to exercise it for approved reasons.

And yes, the South was a money stream for the powerful industrialists in the North who had evolved control over the government.

The War was about that money, and they didn't really care about the slaves.

[JimRed]

A right isn't a right if you are only allowed to exercise it for approved reasons.

Prime example: the second amendment in New Jersey, New York and numerous other states. Permission from the almighty state required to exercise it. A right which can be denied is no right; it is a privilege.

[Svartalfiar]

The War was about that money, and they didn't really care about the slaves.

Yup. If the North had really cared about slaves that much (besides using the emancipation as a way to get Southern slaves to rebel), they would have freed all the slaves in the North when the war started / before it. Delaware and Kentucky (maybe others, I'm not exactly sure when the last slaves were freed in MO or MD) held slaves until the 13th Amendment (SEVEN MONTHS after the war ended).

Additionally, several "Indian Territories" weren't considered as fully under Federal control, so their slaves weren't all freed until over a year after the war with specific treaties. The Creek were the last slaveholders within these US, not freeing theirs until 1866JUN14.