Again you are misconstruing things. There was no practical way to expand slavery into the territories, but banning it from them means two things.
1. It means the Southern states would *NEVER* have allied states or their congressional representatives that could help them control the Northern policies of taxing Southern production, and Spending it in the North.
2. It also means that the violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution which the other states engaged in by banning slaves in their states would become official. In effect, making them second class citizens in the territories, in their own minds.
It also gave official moral sanction to the claim that the Southerners were "evil", and nobody wants to live with that.
Your comments stating the south fought simply because the north invaded is simplistic in the extreme. We’re back to asking 20 questions: 1) Why is the South fighting? - because the North invaded. 2) Why did the North invade? - because the South seceded. 3) Why did the South secede - because they were afraid the North would interfere with the “peculiar domestic institution” 4) What “peculiar domestic institution” are you referring to? - Slavery
When your goal is to lead everything back to slavery to fit your desired narrative, the road will always lead back to slavery no matter where you start the discussion, but this is more a matter of *YOU* being disingenuous than a real connection.
How about you ask yourself why the North would *WANT* a bunch of slave owning states in their Union? Hmmmmm? The North initiated the large scale violence. What in the South was worth so much blood to them?
The Union allowed the Philippines to leave. The Union allowed Cuba to leave. The Union still offers Puerto Rico the opportunity to leave. Why on Earth did they want to force evil slave owning states to remain? Why didn't they want to be shed of them?
So long as those Southern states remained, it was *IMPOSSIBLE* to ever abolish slavery, and so clearly the Northern goal did not care about Abolishing slavery. They cared only about holding on to those Southern states.
Why?
So you’re conceding that the South did care about expansion of slavery into the territories. I mean, South Carolina did explicitly say that this was one of the reasons they seceded, but I’m sure they would be glad to know that you concur. Your claim that there was no practical way to expand slavery into the Territories is perhaps true in 1860, but is no way true as the years spin out. To give a practical example, we grow a lot of Cotton in Arizona, and it started in 1885 when Arizona was still a territory.
Slavery is not MY narrative, it is the historical narrative. Why do you persist in ignoring the clear words of the people who actually seceded (at least of the 4 “teeny-tiny” minority states who actually made a claim as to why they were seceding)? Why do you continue to offer an unprovable (conveniently for you) alternative that they were somehow hiding their real reason? Why do you think that slavery was a more palatable reason to Great Britain, when they were opposed to slavery?
As far as comparing the Southern STATES to Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rico, do I really have to point out to you the difference between a state and a these areas? I mean, let’s compare Virginia, one of the founding states of the US whose delegates signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, with Cuba, a country that was never a part of the United States. I hate to break this to you, but Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico are not states, and, shocker, the governments that seceded were (and are) states. Do I really have to explain to you the difference? You’re reaching, DL.
In your final paragraph, you say “...so clearly the Northern goal did not care about Abolishing slavery” When will you learn to take Yes for an answer. You keep on harping about the fact that the North did not fight to abolish slavery, when that has been agreed to multiple times. So, the nth + time (I would say last, but I’m sure you will bring this up again), the North fought to maintain the Union. BTW, the mere fact that the North didn’t fight for slavery, doesn’t “prove” that the war wasn’t about slavery. 2 sides can fight for different reasons.