Yes. I understand their difference. And slavery is really bad, it should be ended.
I just do not understand why would they go to a war because of that.
Just like I would not approve of child labour/ or other social issues, does it mean I would approve of going to war because of that?
And why the North feels so concerned? Is it of their business to interfere in the matters of the South? (I am not sympathizing with the South, I am just questioning as an outsider).
if anything, the North was JUSTIFIED in interfering with the South: Lost Causers and Neo-Confederates always call it "the War of Northern Aggression" and say it was about "states' rights". which states' rights, you ask? TO OWN SLAVES, to make the very idea of free states null and void (thanks, Roger Taney; it lifts my heart to know you're being gnawed on by Satan for your betrayal of your fellow humans), and to give themselves an overwhelming electoral majority for a population THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER HUMAN. and let's also not forget that THE SOUTH attacked Sumter for the HEINOUS crime against humanity of BEING RESUPPLIED WITH FOOD
sorry for the text-based shouting; i just feel REALLY strongly about this and have argued with so many Lost Causers (or, rather, the same ones over and over on Historum) that i've garnered quite alot of information for the argument proving that the South was in no way justified in its rebellion, especially since they got off easy--iirc, NONE of their leadership was executed after the war, which is alot more than can be said of most other failed rebels in history