The only academic flaw is ignoring its existence because that violates the oft-repeated lie that the CSA was about states' rights, rather than preserving an economic status quo.
You present a good argument, sadly it is for the symptom of a greater cause. Preserving the status quo through the preservation of slavery or any method for that matter was the southern states response to what they felt was a federal government that was disconnected with the political and social ideologies of the southern states. Now, I'm not saying slavery wasn't a issue in the civil war dismissing it would be wrong. My point is, there was a multitude of political, sociological, and economic issues that eventually lead to the civil war. I would even go as far to say slavery wasn't even the core issue. Like you said slavery is an economic issue, the removal of a large domestic product producing industry was seen as an attack on the industry owners in the south by moral entrepreneurs in the north. Fundamentally, if I were to agree with you, this does boil down to money. The states at the time, whose industry depended on agriculture and farming felt that the decision should be held to the state level for they know what is best for the people and the state. Thus, federalism idealists against anti-federalist idealist, the same ideological conflict that had been going on for 100 years, now with a new issue. Also, most of the men who fought for the south had never owned a slave and there were even black confederate regiments. In response to the respectable claims that the CSA had not done much in the respect of policy implementation, I agree; however, I go back to my original point, examining the policies and constitution of a country that had not yet fully formed or had a period of peace to create or implement new policy is premature. There is no telling what the CSA would have or could have done(in the respect of policy or constitutional changes) if they'd had won, the war never happened, or they held off. The CSA's more immediate response to the issue was slavery was because that was the political talking point of the day. Obama is all about the health care and the bailouts, that isn't the only policy he has done or planned to do, but those were the "loudest" issues of the public sphere.
In summary: The civil war was a result of multiple issues public and political, that fundamentally represented the issue of state power vs. federal power. A political and social ideology differed in a nation that at the time was not nearly as connected both literally and metaphorically. Slavery was nothing more than the political issue at the time used to reignite and represent a long fought dispute.
P.S.- white guilt white guilt white guilt.
P.P.S- we should probably finish this debate in private or another thread, for we've kind of highjacked this one.
. Not saying I'm lying to you, but look into the history of the pure food and drugs act, and you can see a massive change in the quality and efficacy of drugs pre- and post-implementation.
