Ethan, you write, "A lot of babbling and cynicism without much of any real discussion over the facts. People like Napolitano and DiLorenzo have gained my respect with their views on the Civil War due to their academic, sourced, and intellectual approaches. So when DiLorezno places a primary cause of the war being tarriffs and shows primary evidence for it, I tend to believe him."
I don't know what "primary evidence" you're referring to, but I'd be happy to respond to it when you cite it. Here's my short take on the facts.
1. The tariff was not the main motivation behind secession. Phillip Magness at IHS, a former adjunct professor and published historian on the topic of the Civil War—and a historian DiLorenzo himself has favorably cited for his work on Lincoln and colonization—has the most exhaustive discussion of the legislative history about the Morrill Tariff:http://www.academia.edu/345403/Morrill_and_the_Missing_Industries_Strategic_Lobbying_Behavior_and_the_Tariff_1858-1861
In summing up his assessment at his blog as it concerns the causes of the war, Magness writes: "It’s an argument we’ve all heard before: tariffs really 'caused' the Civil War. The claim is unequivocally in error and was the historical biproduct of a conscious Confederate diplomatic strategy to draw the free trade-oriented Great Britain to its side in the war despite the latter’s antislavery disposition." http://philmagness.com/?p=753
2. In South Carolina's Declaration of the Immediate Causes of Secession, the central grievance is the "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
3. Mississippi's Declaration also talks, almost exclusively, about slavery: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. . . . [A] blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
4. Georgia also made slavery the center of its cause for secession: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
5. Libertarian historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, another reference DiLorenzo cites favorably in other areas, argues in his seminal book, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Open Court, 2013 ):
“We can simplify our understanding of the Civil War’s causes [by asking] two separate questions. Why did the southern states want to leave the Union? And why did the northern states refuse to let them go?” For Hummel, the “answer to at least the first of these questions necessarily revolves around what Southerners called their ‘peculiar institution’: black slavery.”
Hummel regards Lincoln the worst president in US history, and his is the best book-length libertarian treatment of the war, but he makes clear, because there is no denying it, that the original secession was principally over the fear that the Lincoln administration would interfere with slavery, although after Lincoln mobilized for war, Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee seceded mostly over the principle of voluntary union.
This should be no surprise, as the Deep South was about half slaves—yes, about half.
To think that a political system wholly shaped by a systematic assault on the liberty of half the population would be less concerned with that institution than with the tariff is absurd and ahistorical.