[quote]Fought over state rights.[/quote]The North initially fought to preserve the union, and later abolition. The South seceded and fought to protect their peculiar institution of slavery. Furthermore, states' rights was always a shaky excuse considering the South widely supported the Dredd Scott SCOTUS decision and the Fugitive Slave Act, both of which were federal intrusion on state rights. In addition, the South vehemently condemned Northern states' attempts at nullifying the latter, which is ironic considering they believed themselves to have the power nullify any federal law they deemed unjust (see the Nullification Crisis). Not to mention the interference from Southerners concerning popular sovereignty in the territories (Bloody Kansas). Point is, the South only cared about states' rights when it benefitted them.

[quote] Point is, the South only cared about states' rights when it benefitted them.[/quote] I'm going to give you two options. A, and B. In scenario one, option A kills you, and option B lets you live. In scenario two, option A spares you, and option B ends your life. A and B stay exactly the same through both scenarios, while the scenario obviously does not. Make your choices.

That's nice. Still doesn't change that the South didn't care about state's rights as some noble principle.

It does explain pretty clearly that you would do the same, and so did the north. It's in human nature to want what benifits them. Remember the 3/5 compromise? The north wanted to count slaves for taxes on the south but not population, to keep power away from them. The south wanted exactly the opposite. Both wanted slave population to count where it benifitted them.

So, the state's rights angle doesn't hold water then. Gotcha.

[quote]Nope. Fought over state rights.[/quote]...to own slaves.

But state rights was the main topic

[quote]But state rights was the main topic[/quote]Yeah, the right to own slaves.