What the South wanted is irrelevant to the war. Why did the North invade?
...and they realized they were losing political power since slavery was not being allowed to expand into new states.
Duh. They were paying almost all the bills, getting called "deplorables" by the obnoxious elite of the North East, and could do nothing to stop the money flowing out of their pockets and into those of the people who controlled Washington DC.
I've already shown that slavery couldn't actually expand into new states, so that was a phoney argument just meant to scare people into opposing the creation of allied states that would vote in the South's interests.
It really was all about who controlled Washington DC. You are almost there, but you still think slavery had something to do with it.
It was really just political alliances using the power of government to acquire and keep money streams.
Would North Carolina have supported Utah’s “state right” to legalize polygamy?
It was a condition to be admitted as a state that Utah couldn't have polygamy. But let's say for the sake of this goofy attempt at analogy that Utah was admitted with polygamy intact, and then it got frightened that the Federal government would take it's polygamy away, and so it decides to leave the Union, and then the Federal government decided to launch a war against it to force it back into the Union.
Would North Carolina side with Utah? Based on their secession statement, I would think "Yes they would!", but it's a lot less practical to do so without some sort of contiguous border on which they could share defense.
The only “state right” that united the Confederacy was the right to own slaves and to take them with you anywhere you traveled in the USA.
So we have constantly been told ever since I first heard of the Civil War, but in point of fact, had they seceded, they wouldn't have been able to take their slaves anywhere in the USA, so how does that fact fit into your theory?
You say they only wanted to own slaves. Didn't they own them? What did the United States do to bother them over that?
What is different about them owning the slaves in the USA, versus owning the slaves in the CSA?
What's different?
When secession was announced in Charleston, the city went through a massive building boom. Ships were lining up at their docks, all hotels and boarding houses were filled to capacity, construction of new warehouses and docking facilities were commenced, and the entire city was booming with fresh money.
So what changed? Same slaves remained slaves as would have remained slaves in the USA.
What changed was all the laws hamstringing their trade.
*THAT* is what changed. Nothing else changed except the Laws passed by Congress which were holding back their economic development for the benefit of the Northern political block that had more power in Congress.
They have an amazing ability to see how the federal government lines the pockets of the politician’s cronies today, how special interests exercise political influence funding campaigns and lining the pockets of certain politicians, how politicians pork barrel for their districts, how the federal government doles out specific tax breaks and subsidies to favored corporations........yet cannot see any of that before. Newsflash! Political corruption and crony capitalism were not invented in the last generation. The same things happened then.
Obama favoring blue states, lavishing subsidies on car companies where the UAW had its members, lavishing subsidies on “green energy” companies yet at the same time running “Operation Chokepoint” to discriminate against and try to shut down industries it didn’t like (vaping, payday loans, guns, fireworks, etc). The richest counties in America being the ones where federal government leeches gorge on taxpayer money?
None of that is new. That’s exactly what was going on back then. Yet these so-called Conservatives have an amazing ability not to see it. The South then was treated like the “flyover states” under Obama only worse.