This is also wrong. The Civil War was about slavery. There's a speech in which a defining characteristic of the confederacy is slavery. Keep playing revisionist history.

> The Civil War was about slavery

I believe the "Civil War was about states' rights" line began in the 19th century [1], around the same time as "the number of Confederate memorial installations peaking around 1910 — 50 years after the end of the Civil War and at the height of Jim Crow" [2].

In reality, "Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery" in "Northern states [failing] to 'fulfill their constitutional obligations' by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage" [3].

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/04/12/13535...

[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/confederate-statues-meaning-...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-...

Unless you have a very subtle point that I'm missing, I think you got tripped up with the numbering of the centuries. The "19th century" started in 1801 and ended in 1900 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century) putting the Civil War itself in the late-middle of the 19th century.

Pretty sure the gp meant the 20th.

> Pretty sure the gp meant the 20th

This is correct. Sorry.

The North was willing to let the South keep slaves. Why then did the South feel it necessary to secede? A major grievance of the South was the North's failure to honor the fugitive slave act. Had the Northern states not exercised this right (weather they legally had it or not), we might not have had a civil war.

Granted, I doubt this is what the South has in mind when citing State's rights as a justification.

Furthermore, the Fugitive Slave Act would have been more honestly named the Kidnap Northerners Whenever We Feel Like It Act. No proof was required that the people abducted in this way were, in fact, escaped slaves. The threat to black northerners should be obvious.

So, this would be an example of the South using the power of federal government to impose its will on the North. It was only after it looked like they had lost the power to do that anymore, that they started a war.

>The North was willing to let the South keep slaves

Source?

>I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free.

--Abraham Lincoln

https://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/archives/a-letter-from-pr...

I'm familiar with that letter, and I guess we read it differently than each other.

For me, that's a whole lot of subjunctive "ifs" that refer to alternate realities, not actual negotiating positions or offers. When Lincoln says, "What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union" he is referring to his conviction that the Union cannot possibly be saved without an end to slavery.

If Lincoln's election did not cause the South to secede, his attempt to abolish slavery almost certainly would have.

Prior to the civil war, there were numerous compromises between the North and South whereing the South got to keep slaves. In March of 1861, Congress passed the the Corwin Amendment (requiring a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate; which is even more impressive given that 7 states had already seceded and therefore did not vote) t, which was endorsed by both presidents Buchanan and Lincoln.

I don't know if the Corwin amendement would have been ratified by enough states, if not for the Civil war, but given the timing, it is impressive it managed to amass even the 5 ratifications it did.

For what it is worth, I agree with the South's assesment that compromise was not going to be tenable long term, but the North certainly was trying.

As the certainty of a military victory became clear, along with the costs of the war, the opinion of the North began to change to a much less compromising abolishanist stance; which should not be suprising.

I think the Civil War was about slavery, but said nothing about that in my comment. Seems that your criticism is off target.

Thats not at all what the States’ Rights argument refers to, and you know that.