>>2909842I think you are looking in the wrong area for this type of information, however I will try what I can explain.
So Slavery was a Major part of the American Civil War, but it wasn't the single major issue.
At the time, the States held much more power over their own selves. (I.E. The Federal USA didn't have as much power over the individual States). This is where the "States' Rights" argument comes in.
There is also an issue of "Representation" within the Federal Government. This can easily be summarized as the South believed (and with good reason, based on the Election of Lincoln) that their voice was not enough to prevent actions the North alone wanted. In other words, the North could force the South to do whatever the North wanted so long as the Northern States banded together. The South, in that regard, were effectively ignored in the Federal Government.
Now to return to "States' Rights", the Federal Govt. was responsible with protecting States from other States. But Northern States started doing illegal actions like forcibly freeing slaves who were "owned" by Southern State citizens who traveled through the Northern States (for any reason. New York was one of the most egregious of these. According to federal law, it was not legal for "travel through" states to seize slaves and free them... but Southerners traveling to the North for trades and business were losing "their" slaves to Northern States "stealing" them. The Federal Govt refused to do their job and punish the Northern States, and as such both the Southern States "Representation" and "States Rights" were being infringed upon. (Both that the Feds were refusing to act in the interest of following the law which should have protected the Southern Citizen [and their "property"] and also that the Southern States demands for the North to be punished for their actions against the Slave Owners went ignored.
Another issue was labor. The North was quickly optimizing factories. Farmwork cannot easily...
