[Genoa]

Since we’re into Southerners vs Northerners, we might want to ask again -— was the civil war between the American North and South about slavery as the standard talking heads want us to believe, or was it about state rights and the right to self-determination?

Both. Northern opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories and newly formed states was regarded as interference with the southerners' property rights and freedom of movement. But the media eliminate the part about state's rights.

[Genoa]

Actually, a lot of northerners were content to let slavery continue in states where it already existed. It was extension of slavery that was the hot button. Only the radical abolitionists wanted to eliminate slavery in the southern states.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

“Both. Northern opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories and newly formed states was regarded as interference with the southerners’ property rights and freedom of movement. But the media eliminate the part about state’s rights.”

One thingy the revisionists forget is that Northern opposition to the extension of slavery into western territories was based on the precept that the west should be for only the white man. Blacks were to be kept out and Indians either concentrated or killed. So who was the racist in 1860?

[Non-Sequitur]

Both. Northern opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories and newly formed states was regarded as interference with the southerners' property rights and freedom of movement. But the media eliminate the part about state's rights.

So then it was really about individual property rights rather than state's rights. And while the Constitution does have some protections against government seizing your property, it does not guarantee you the right to take your property wherever you choose.

[fortheDeclaration]

There was no 'right' for slavery to exist in any State.

The Constitution allowed it to exist in certain States.