You all know what UB is saying.
It is the six degrees of separation or of Kevin Bacon.
There are multiple causes but they all end up in the bacon grease just like it splatters all over your stove top and utensils.
Even tariffs are in the grease since if the south had not been singularly devoted to cotton and other labor intensive cash crops, and been economically more diverse and industrialized like the north , tariffs would not have been an issue. But in this case the south gained policy dominance before the war.
All of the economic, political, and social factors are knee deep in the grease.
SLAVERY WAS AN ECONOMIC ISSUE ! The fugitive slave law was an economic issue, as was slavery in western territories and
All the different schools of thought are agenda driven and bias, just like the unsupported claim of primacy of the TRR as the cause of secession.
Even southern railroads needed slavery...
By 1860 the South was the third leading railroad nation in the world, trailing only the northern United States and the United Kingdom in total miles constructed. It contained 33 percent of the nation's railroad mileage and 40 percent of its population, and southern states were aggressively promoting railroad development throughout the 1850s. Indeed, southern railroads built and maintained their roads with enslaved labor, orchestrating contracts for hire on a scale of complexity and cost that seemed logical and consistent with their purposes but far in excess of any other institutions. Railroads began buying hundreds of male slaves between the ages of 16 and 35 as early as 1841, and in the 1850s were either renting or buying "hands" in groups of hundreds. One president of the Mississippi Central Railroad explained to his stockholders in 1855, "I am led to the irresistible conclusion, that in ease of management, in economy of maintenance, in certainty of execution of work & in amount of labor performed & in absence of disturbance of riotous outbreaks, the slave is preferable to free labor, and far better adapted to the construction of railways in the south."
Thanks for your comments but I was already aware that slavery was an economic issue. However, that doesn't mean it was the only cause of the war. The interpretation of the war originally put forth by Charles and Mary Beard maintained that the conflict at its core was an economic and ideological conflict between the Northern manufacturing sector protectionists and the free-trading agrarians of the South. In addition, to maintain that all the other schools of thought are all biased is ludicrous and just a convenient way to ignore them.