His video is great. Some of the comments on the page let you know why we are in this situation. People complaining about minorities having a voice and insisting that the war was over state's rights. Correct, the state's right to own slaves. It really makes you wonder how people literally deny the truth. It can only be that they simply don't want to find it...
You still beating this dead horse? For Pete's sake, there is AMPLE evidence it was about more than
just slavery. Slavery was absolutely the overriding factor, but to deny state's rights was also one of the significant straws that broke the camel's back is ridiculous. Can you not understand that people can believe slavery was an evil institution and that the non-admittance of additional slave states was the driving factor for secession, yet also factually state that state's rights & the balance-of-power in the senate were also big factors?
Sure, for the slave-holders the biggest desire for both the continued addition of 1 slave state for every 1 free state, and ultimately for secession was to prevent having slavery outlawed. But for those who did not, and never had hope of owning a slave, or didn't even want one, the issue of state's rights was a HUGE factor. There is proof of this in the battles between northern & southern politicians decades prior to the Civil War.
Rather than post a TLDR novel, let me suggest you simply look up:
Tariff of 1828
Tariff of 1832
Ordinance of Nullification
The United States Force Bill
The Nashville Convention
The Kansas-Nebraska Act- Tensions had been high since the 1820's at least due to tariffs/import taxes that blistered the South & helped the North. And the taxes were being used on projects in the North. This act was the one that put the nail in the coffin. Was not about tariffs, but whether "popular sovereignty" would be continued in our Westward expansion. The overwhelming issue determined by the popular sovereignty doctrine was whether those territory's settlers would be allowed to choose by popular vote if they would allow slavery or not. Contentious debate between those Northern delegates who wanted the Federal Gov't to decide (and to decide no-slavery), and Democrats, mostly Southern, who wanted to retain popular sovereignty would throw gas on the fire.
It passed the Senate easily. The floor debate in the House was handled by Alexander Stephens, of Georgia, who argued that the issue was whether republican principles, "that the citizens of every distinct community or State should have the right to govern themselves in their domestic matters as they please," would be honored. The vote in favor was 113 - 110 due to Northern Democrats joining with Southern Democrats to pass it.
The Whig Party of the North pretty much collapsed over this, leading to the formation of the Republican Party whose platform more vigorously opposed either just further expansion of slavery, or both that and the abolition of it in the existing slave states. Refusing to accept the passage of the KN Act, they took the fight to the Northern public in particular, not only to speak out against slavery, but to also increase fear in the North that the South might gain insurmountable power over the government. It worked. Of course Kansas became a nasty battleground between free-soilers and pro-slavery advocates that resulted in the violence that came to be known as Bleeding Kansas, Bloody Kansas or The Border War.
Elections were held, with pro-slavery advocates winning, but never validated as it was claimed 95% of the pro-slavery votes were fraudulent (probably were). A later election was won by free-soilers, with Kansas admitted to the Union on a vote of the Senate after Southern delegates resigned to join their secessionist states.
So, yes...the overriding reason for the Civil War and the secession that preceded it was slavery, both due to plantation owners with political power wanting to protect their ability to own slaves and maybe expand into new states, and to also not lose balance-of-power in the Senate. For the greater than 95% of white southerners who did not own any slaves, they were primarily motivated by what would happen to them if 4 million slaves were suddenly freed and given the same rights. They were scared about what happened with John Brown, & in the Nat Turner rebellion where 56 escaped slaves killed over 55 people before they were captured. If 56 with no rights and no ability to buy weapons could kill over 55, how many could thousands or even millions kill? This thought was of course preached to them by plantation owners and their politicians/allies. In addition there was an element of racism that made them also chafe at the thought of blacks being made their equals. They were also convinced cities, services, etc. would fall apart with sudden abolition resulting in chaos.
So sure, even the 95% who didn't own slaves could be argued to have fought over slavery, but not in the sense they wanted to own them, but that their safety/lives depended on the slave-owners maintaining control and order. It is also true that for them state's rights had long been an issue that affected them via the aforementioned unfair tariffs/taxes imposed on them by the North.
