Some people will not study history, because facts often upset their agenda.

If keeping their slaves were the sole reason for South Carolina seceding they did not have to secede. They could have simply remained in the United States where their rights were protected under the United States Constitution and United States Supreme Court rulings.

The abolitionist in Congress, including Lincoln, did not have the political power to repeal the slavery clause of the United States Constition in 1860 as long as the southern slave holding States remained in Congress. The original 13th Amendment proposed in 1861 was to reinforce the right to own slaves already in the Constitution throughout the entire United States.

And as a historical note, the ratification process for that amendment is still open and active today, as I understand the process. Two States, both of them Unionist States, one of those being Ohio, and I believe the other was Illinois, did ratify that amendment. And there is no process that I know of for closing the ratification process, if no time limit was set for its expiration, as was done with the Equal Rights Amendment.

Anyway, back to the point. The only way that the Abolitionist could accomplish their purposes (to end slavery) was to drive the southern States representatives from the United States Congress. This was necessary after the abolitionists lost their case before the US Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision of 1857. Try reading the whole decision sometime instead of just taking bits and pieces out of it that fit an agenda. Anyway, I believe this became the objective of the abolitionist within the US Government, to drive the southern States out if they would not conform to the to abolitionist demands.

Even AFTER the WBTS was over the present day 13th Amendment to the Constitution (not just a mear little federal law) had to be passed and ratified to repeal Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 2, which in 1860 read;

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

EVEN THEN 1/3 of the United States Congress voted AGAINST the 13th Amendment. In addition, the Ratification of the 13th Amendment by the States is questionable because of the question of the status as States of several States, which voted for its ratification. It is strange that several of those States were not States before, but were States with representation in Congress to be able to vote for the 13th Amendment, but then were denied Statehood again during reconstruction. Talk about skullduggery.

In short, to claim that the War Between the States was caused simply over ownership of slaves is incorrect, because it is an over simplification of the far deeper driving forces, plots, criminal actions, and political agendas, which lead us into that war.