Cause of Civil War

First of all, I feel the need to point out that there never was a civil war in the USA. By definition, a civil war is where 2 or more factions are fighting for control of the same government. The War For States' Rights was not about control of the US government, but about our desire to govern ourselves as an independent nation. That desire still remains strong with us.That having been said, I have put down as much information about the War For State's Rights as I have on hand, and will continually add to it as I get more. Information about Battles and Campaigns, Distinguished Military Units, Statesmen, Soldier's Lives during "the conflict", Officers, Weapons, Prison Camps, Blockade Runners, Spies, Slavery Issues, and many other categories. I am a Confederate all the way to the bone and would love nothing better than to list only triumphs by our Glorious Nation, but this would not be fair to history. All of my information can be easily verified by anyone who disputes any of it. Those who have actually studied history (or at least paid attention in history class, assuming they had a good teacher like I did - thank you Mr. Simms) know that the War For State's Rights was not about slavery (as the occupational government would like you to believe), but about where (at its most basic level) governing laws, and regulations should come from. This site will, undoubtedly, go through many updates and revisions as time goes on, though I will ONLY post truthful and accurate information. I am not a racist, skinhead, hate-monger, or any of the other labels usually associated with those who dispute the distorted Yankee version of this period in the history of our two countries usually are.
Now, without further ado, on with the information (which will be continually added to as my limited free time allows):

Everyone agreed that states had certain rightsbut did those rights carry over when a citizen left that state? The Southern position was that citizens of every state had the right to take their property anywhere in the U.S. and not have it taken awayspecifically they could bring their slaves anywhere and they would remain slaves. Northerners rejected this "right" because it would violate the right of a free state to outlaw slavery within its borders. Republicans committed to ending the expansion of slavery were among those opposed to any such right to bring slaves and slavery into the free states and territories. The Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857 bolstered the Southern case within territories, and angered the North.[59]Secondly the South argued that each state had the right to secedeleave the Unionat any time, that the Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Northerners (including President Buchanan) rejected that notion as opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers who said they were setting up a "perpetual union".[59] Historian James McPherson writes concerning states' rights and other non-slavery explanations:While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the state's-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? State's rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle.[60]