No time today, but I'll summarize your argument here as saying that slavery was the Southern Fire Eaters' excuse, not their real reason for advocating secession.
You say: their real reason was, they just didn't like those haughty New Englanders' attitudes.
Oh, attitudes about what?
Ahem, uh, oh, well..... about slavery.
Right, slavery, it always comes back to slavery.
Pretty much. Just like anti-slavery feelings weren't the real reason that most Northerners kept pushing the slavery issue. W. C. Fowler (author of The Sectional Controversy published in 1864) noted an incident when he met an old friend who was at that time a prominent Northern member of congress. The congressman was leaving a heated meeting regarding abolition and other sectional issues. Fowler asked why they were encouraging abolitionist petitions. The Congressman replied: "The real reason is that the South will not let us have a tariff, and we touch them where they will feel it."
For more on the economic factor in the war, see my post 355 to PeaRidge. :-)
No, you always force it back to slavery, because you don't have a moral leg to stand on if it is debated on any other question.
The facts which are becoming clear to me is that the New England business interests saw an independent South as a grave threat to their finances, and they therefore used their influence to push Lincoln into forcing the South back into the Union.
Slavery was just the cover story. The real motive was money. Money the North would lose on shipping, acting as financial middlemen, lost from competition, lost from more free trade, and on tariffs revenues that would have to be made up by the North. (forcing them to carry their fair share of the load)
As was pointed out earlier by Charles Dickens:
"Union mean so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North."...
"Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it."
Even an Englishman across the pond could see what was going on.