So you are adamant that the US Civil War was fought primarily due to the south losing the right to slavery. And thus, the southern states went to war primarily because they were going to lose the national vote against slavery? So in essence you are saying that the very country the US states originally fought to secede from, handled this as a political process without bloodshed (though it took nigh on 50 years of work by Thomas Clarkson and others such as Wilberforce to achieve it fully in the UK), whereas Americans refused the rule of law (and the anti-slavery tide that was sweeping the world due to Clarkson’s international efforts) and sacrificed so many of it’s men on the battlefield for the same concept. If that’s the case, it doesn’t say much for the US does it? Makes the northern powerbrokers all sort of respectable and the south not so…
Well, I’d say it was much more likely that southern states were banding together in a Confederacy because they saw that behind the scenes their ability to determine the economic path of the nation and their own states was being eroded by the northern states, and I’d say this had more to do with trying to establish a political beachhead and they saw war as the only option left— yes they wanted to retain slavery, so did everyone in the world initially, but the southern states had much more to lose than just slavery, and even they would have known that the international tide was turning against institutionalised slavery. But they lost. And to this day, that is still the case. The political and economic power of the US is consolidated in the north.
As in most good detective stories… if it isn’t for love, then it’s about the money. Follow the money.
Go back to why the US states fought against GB, and you’ll find that the control of banking and taxation was the core issue. To see why you have to understand who controlled the banking in the UK and Europe by then. And wished to export that to the US (they succeeded with this civil war). Little is said about this in the light of day, but most wars (no matter what the excuse used — be it religious, racial, social etc) have been about economics… not all, but most (the Crusades were not a money making venture as many paint them to be, but a retaliation, and were about survival - almost all of the nobles who led them over the hundreds of years lost fortunes or their lives). The control of money, the control of trade, the control of natural assets (land/oil) etc. As such, in this case, slavery was the obvious and convenient excuse and just a part of the equation.