[IronJack]

If slavery was not an important reason for the South's succession, then why didn't the South abolish slavery on its own accord? No one was forcing them to be slave states.

Economics. The antebellum South was heir to a feudal legacy, and simply could not function economically without huge numbers of cheap laborers. With industrialization dawning, it wouldn't have been much longer before that changed though. Slavery was a doomed institution, as much or more because of technology than because of any human rights considerations.

Slavery was the focus of states' rights, that's all.

[groanup]

The antebellum South was heir to a feudal legacy, and simply could not function economically without huge numbers of cheap laborers.

And that's a good point. But what is cheaper, the care and feeding of a slave or the wage of a worker? Believe it or not there was a debate at the time and there was a valid argument either way. The only answer is that a man is free to work when and where he wants and a slave was denied that freedom. But economically, there was a debate.