Slavery was the north’s business, which is why they banned it in their territory. Lincoln was elected on a platform to restrict slavery to the states where it existed, banning it from the territories, as had been done under the articles of confederation.
The ultimatums from the south claimed a special southern plutocrat right that slavery be permitted in northern states, or the territories. That was their final, take it or leave it position.
So no, the rebellion was not about states rights, because the rebels were opposed to a state’s rights to regulate or ban slavery within its own borders. It was about the plutocrats rights to force slavery on unwilling slaves, and on unwilling white people, who were, and would be forced to protect the plutocrats slave property from that nasty freedom thing.
What else was in that platform Lincoln was elected on?
The 12th declaration of the Republican Platform 1860 (emphasis mine):
That while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
What did the Confederacy think of high tariffs to develop industry?
Article 1 Section 8 of the Confederate Constitution (emphasis mine):
(1) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.
(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.
The South had it right.
[donmeaker said}The ultimatums from the south claimed a special southern plutocrat right that slavery be permitted in northern states, or the territories. That was their final, take it or leave it position.
The Southern states never requested slavery be permitted in the Northern states, they simply requested their Constitutional rights be resepected. As to the territories in question, here's Thomas Jefferson's take:
of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one state to another would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burthen on a greater number of co-adjutors. an abstinence too from this act of power would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress, to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men composing a state. this certainly is the exclusive right of every state, which nothing in the constitution has taken from them and given to the general government. could congress, for example say that the Non-freemen of Connecticut, shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other state?
And here's what James Madison thought:
But whatever may have been intended by the term "migration" or the term "persons," it is most certain, that they referred exclusively to a migration or importation from other countries into the U. States; and not to a removal, voluntary or involuntary, of slaves or freemen, from one to another part of the U. States. Nothing appears or is recollected that warrants this latter intention. Nothing in the proceedings of the State conventions indicates such a construction there.[1] Had such been the construction it is easy to imagine the figure it would have made in many of the states, among the objections to the constitution, and among the numerous amendments to it proposed by the State conventions[2] not one of which amendments refers to the clause in question. Neither is there any indication that Congress have heretofore considered themselves as deriving from this Clause a power over the migration or removal of individuals, whether freemen or slaves, from one State to another, whether new or old: For it must be kept in view that if the power was given at all, it has been in force eleven years over all the States existing in 1808, and at all times over the States not then existing. Every indication is against such a construction by Congress of their constitutional powers. Their alacrity in exercising their powers relating to slaves, is a proof that they did not claim what they did not exercise. They punctually and unanimously put in force the power accruing in 1808 against the further importation of slaves from abroad. They had previously directed their power over American vessels on the high seas, against the African trade. They lost no time in applying the prohibitory power to Louisiana, which having maritime ports, might be an inlet for slaves from abroad. But they forebore to extend the prohibition to the introduction of slaves from other parts of the Union. They had even prohibited the importation of slaves into the Mississippi Territory from without the limits of the U S in the year 1798, without extending the prohibition to the introduction of slaves from within those limits; altho' at the time the ports of Georgia and S Carolina were open for the importation of slaves from abroad, and increasing the mass of slavery within the U. States.
[donmeakerwrote]So no, the rebellion was not about states rights, because the rebels were opposed to a state’s rights to regulate or ban slavery within its own borders. It was about the plutocrats rights to force slavery on unwilling slaves, and on unwilling white people, who were, and would be forced to protect the plutocrats slave property from that nasty freedom thing.
The Southern states had no problem with another state regulating slavery within their borders. They did have a problem with states not respecting Constitutional rights regarding fugitive slaves. And the unwilling white people you refer to didn't want black people around them. Period. The war was about state's rights - the 10th Amendment is very clear, but Lincoln and crew didn't want to let their cash cow go.