Road to Disunion: Why the South Left 

A lot of reasons. I'd suggest reading Shelby Foote's Civil War: A Narrative - series if you are actually interested in understanding your question. However, the way you wrote it implies that you know that is not a possibility. Just remember that countries (or the North and the South in this instance) go to war for political reasons. The people who go to war do not necessarily go in full agreement. Consider the War in Iraq. Do you think the amount that died in that war were there only because they thought Saddam had WMD's? People of all shapes, colors, and political beliefs went to war in Iraq for all sorts of reasons, many simply being that they were in the military and no longer had a choice unless they wanted their life destroyed by the government. Likewise, think about politics at the time of the War in Iraq, there were an incredible amount of societal, political, financial etc. reasons that even politicians agreed with going to the war. Many who now fight between each other trying to distance themselves of decisions they made with hindsight being 20/20. Finally, despite the heroic nature of politically correct historians who garner applause stating that the Civil War was 100% due to Slavery. Which is just as incorrect as the person who says the war had nothing to do with it.

Poor Southern Whites were tolds that their sisters and daughters would be force to marry (and merry) Blacks if Yankees abolish slavery.

I civil war was political, once secession was a go and war was inevitable, if you were able it was considered honorable to fight, if you didn't you could be ostracized from society, called a coward for not defending southern honor! To say it was strictly to preserve slavery is ignorant and short sighted! Do your research before making that statement!

@@scott1395 "War is politics by other means. " And in the Confederacy; you didn't get ostracized. You got drafted. But once you are there, sticking it out is a commitment. Desertion and surrender are viable options in the 19th century.

I don't think that's true. My understanding is that men and boys volunteered in droves.

It's interesting that you say "the history of protective tariffs...was a major contributor" and not "protective tariffs were a major contributor." Tariffs might have inflamed sectional discord in the past, but they were, at best, a secondary issue in 1860-61.

The tariff rate had been trending down for decades prior to the war. Not only that, if the southern states had not seceded they could have fought any increase in the Senate.

@Bible Research Tools SC KNEW Jackson meant what he said. That General Jackson would treat SC like he did the British in New Orleans and Florida! SC understood Lincoln! They knew what Abe thought of Slavery! They took him at his word. What SC didn't understand was the men of New England. 😉🇺🇸

Slavery was the sole issue. The tariff of 1857, the lowest tarrif ever, was proposed by the South, and enacted in order. However to replace the federal services lost through succession, the South had to issue a comparable tariff after secession. And while some hard core anti-federalist wanted to be able to nullify fed laws, the laws they worried the most about related to slavery.

@@neilpemberton5523 and the Democrats controlled the Senate, so as you suggested no tarrif or slavery abolition initiative would have been passed; the South wanted to seced in order to expand and felt they could gaslight a Lincoln victory by lying about him being a threat to slavery. Lincoln was against expanding slavery but as a racialist, he was not proposing abolitionist. And in fact was concern about how American society and culture could absorb Freedmen.

The audio is restored at 4:02

Brandon Tube Andrew Jackson, during the Nullification Crisis over the tariff with South Carolina, told them that secession could not be considered and that any of the Carolinians suggesting secession would be hanged for treason. Do you still think any state did or does have the right to secede? If so, I refer you George Washington's Farewell Address, where he thanks the nation--the one, sovereign nation for his two terms in office.

nora22000 Where in the Constitution does it say that George Washington and Andrew Jackson are the sole arbiters of constitutionality?

@@ZM7241994 Right next to the part where the right to secede is written.

@Iratespartan13 I'm going to presume this was meant as a rebuke so forgive me if you are on my side. The right to secede is not written, but neither is it written that a state cannot secede and thus secession falls under the reserved powers mentioned in the Tenth Amendment. Secession was the founding principle of the American Revolution and for the Founders to deny it to the States would've been hypocritical. Assuming the Founders did forbid States from withdrawing from the Union(which can only be voluntary or it ceases to be a union) it would make little difference as such a restriction would be nullified by natural rights.

The Tenth Amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Not to repeat myself, but secession wasn't prohibited to the States and thus falls under the reserved powers. To further this I point to how New England openly talked about secession at the Hartford Convention in 1814 and James Madison , Father of the Constitution, was not only alive at the time but was also the President. I'm not aware of any letter or document where Madison condemned the convention for being unconstitutional. He had plenty of reason to hate New England as it was heavily opposed to the War of 1812 and even refused to send their state militias as Madison had requested. The Confederate Constitution didn't mention the right of secession as it went without saying as it did in the United States prior to 1861 and even after plenty of Americans, such as abolitionist Lysander Spooner, argued it's legality. I'm going to quote the preamble of the C.S.A. Constitution "We the People of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." The Supreme Court was never meant to the sole or final arbiter of Constitutionality(such thinking came only after Lincoln) and the Supreme Court that made the ruling was mostly handpicked by Lincoln himself so, no surprise, they're going to see things similar to him. I haven't read that ruling yet but I have heard it was one of the most ridiculous conclusions ever reached by the Supreme Court and boiled down to "Might makes right."

Spoken by politicians and not by the common citizen! I've said it forever, the civil war was a rich mans war. Pushed by politicians and wealthy plantation owners who were one in the same! The poor common man died for it!