If you're referring to me, I graduated law school and am now an attorney. But anyway, no one is really saying that the Civil war was not about slavery and Dred Scott because those were obviously factors. BUT, the war was not about *only* slavery as as you seem to suggest. In fact, it was *barely* about slavery. Tariffs and states rights were the driving factors behind why the Civil War took place. Does it seem rational to believe that the entire South would be willing to go to war, send its sons to war and/or sacrifice for the needs of an army just so a few wealthy people could hold on to their slaves? (Remember, that it was the vast minority of Americans that owned slaves). Does it seem rational that the entire North-which, we are erroneously taught did not own slaves-would go to war, send its sons to war and/or sacrifice for the needs of an army just so Lincoln could be a big man and free the slaves? Give our intelligence a major break here. So, your professor's argument is flawed. And just because he has a law degree doesn't make his opinion gospel.