The Civil War was not fought over slavery. This is trivial to demonstrate.
Consider the Corwin Amendment:
The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that has never been adopted, but owing to the absence of a ratification deadline, could still be adopted by the state legislatures. It would shield slavery within the states from the federal constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress. Although the Corwin Amendment does not explicitly use the word slavery, it was designed specifically to protect slavery from federal power. The outgoing 36th United States Congress proposed the Corwin Amendment on March 2, 1861, shortly before the outbreak of the American Civil War, with the intent of preventing that war and preserving the Union. It passed Congress but was not ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures.Yeah, yeah - Wikipedia. But the article plays it straight up.
So if the war was about slavery, why did both houses of Congress pass this amendment, and why did the President sign the bill, sending it to the States for ratification? And oh by the way, Congress passed this without the Representatives from the seceding States.
And Abraham Lincoln - the "Great Emancipator" himself did not oppose the Amendment.
So the War was all about slavery, but Congress was playing 6-dimension chess or something, right?
[rolls eyes]
I'm no fan of Haley, but she is also right that the question was a liberal plant. Her response might have been bad politics in 2023, but she is 100% correct on the facts.
But while facts are stubborn things, so is the ignorance and arrogance of the media (including the ostensibly conservative media). Remember, the history of that war as taught today is retarded.

