Is there a legitimate historical basis for arguing state's rights as a main cause for the civil war, and not just the commonly refuted ones inherent in the "lost cause" mythos?

by DragonFlyer123

In our AP US History class, we'll be having a debate on the main causes of the civil war. We were given five total sides to argue, everyone forming groups to support those sides. I picked states rights, wanting to pick a more difficult and commonly refuted side to argue. However, when doing research, I find that there are either more arguments against states rights then there are for them, and the one that are for them are often fallacious or ignorant of history, or not very in-depth. So I decided to ask the question here, hoping to get a more comprehensive answer.

Now, the question I ask is not if the south seceded because of states rights, but rather if the war was an inevitability due to the south's overarching struggle for states rights since before slavery was a commonly discussed issue. Is it possible to support the view that states rights were the main cause of the war, with slavery being the main symptom of them? If so, how would one support that view without being ignorant or fallacious, in a manner similar to the "lost cause?"

Georgy_K_Zhukov

Now, the question I ask is not if the south seceded because of states rights, but rather if the war was an inevitability due to the south's overarching struggle for states rights since before slavery was a commonly discussed issue.

Nope, it is pretty well demonstrated that the opposite is true, namely that states rise as a political doctrine is intrinsically tied to the issue of slavery, and can't really be separated. I would point you to this more in-depth analysis that I wrote for more information on this.