"Founded on slavery" is quite a stretch. That was not the main issue that led to the rebellion.

Which rebellion? The Civil War? Yes, that was THE main issue that led to the Civil War, fullstop.

>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

No, the rebellion against Britain.

We literally had to enshrine the RIGHT to slavery into law during the creation of the constitution just to get southern state support, and that was before the cotton gin made slavery significantly more profitable. Then we gave those same states extra voting power based on how many human beings they could afford to own. Then the very institution of policing itself in America started as a way to catch runaway slaves, often in OTHER STATES that had OUTLAWED SLAVERY.

But sure, this system that obviously had a huge impact on how the country developed, how power structures were purposely designed, and how freedom even worked, TECHNICALLY wasn't the primary reason for rebelling, maybe.

> But sure, this system that obviously had a huge impact on how the country developed, how power structures were purposely designed, and how freedom even worked, TECHNICALLY wasn't the primary reason for rebelling, maybe

No technically about it. Though you're right about the rest.

There are arguments to be made that the south saw slavery becoming less fashionable in Great Britain and were into rebellion for that reason. They knew staying in Britain meant slavery going away eventually, and might have thought they could delay that better as an independent nation. Remember that the original system after independence was that state governors largely had their own little fiefdoms, and the federal government had very little power.

And they would have been correct; Britain did ban slavery before the US. First for Britain itself in 1807, then broadly in it's remaining holdout colonies in 1833.

And they did so without a civil war.

Well, there's also https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html

> His stories about George Washington, none of which I knew, are even more fascinating. Bueno de Mesquita claims, quite plausibly, that a huge part of George Washington’s motive for fighting the Revolutionary War was to protect his substantial, and critically placed, landholdings in the Ohio Valley. I’m not saying that I agree with him, but his story made me realize that a large part of my belief in GW is romantic: because I learned about him so early in life, that romantic view is harder to shake and I’ve been less willing to put GW under the public choice microscope than with any current or recent president.

> An excerpt about GW’s wealth:

>> His last position, just before becoming President, was President of the Patowmack Canal Company–the Potomac Canal, as we know it, from the Potomac River. What that canal did was bring, make it possible to bring produce from the Shenandoah Valley–which George owned–up to the port in Alexandria, which had been built by Lawrence, by the Ohio Valley Company, in which George had a direct interest, and shipped goods out. So it was a very profitable undertaking–or so he thought it would be, in the long run, for him. And that’s what motivated him. Most people think of Washington as–besides a great hero, which he certainly was–as kind of a gentleman farmer. Economists have estimated the worth in real dollars adjusted for inflation, not appreciated, of George Washington’s estate, in contemporary terms; and it’s about $20 billion dollars. He is by far the wealthiest President. He is the 59th wealthiest person in American history. Three of the American founding fathers are in the list of the top 100 wealthiest Americans in all of history: Hancock, who was wealthier than Washington–made his money smuggling; and Ben Franklin, who was not quite as wealthy, who made his money because he had a monopoly on the printing press. These are the folks who led the Revolution. These were not the downtrodden. These were not the oppressed. These were people who stood to lose huge amounts of wealth because of the King’s policies. And so they fought a Revolution. Which was, by the way, not very popular. Sixty percent of the colonists either were neutral or opposed to the Revolution.