but land ownership and church community as institutions were also vital to that heritage.

true, I never denied that, I just didn't think it was relevant to our discussion

issues of federal authority and state's rights as major components of the civil war and simply state it was about the south wanting to own slaves.

No one ever claimed that the civil war was only about slavery, as far as the states rights issue is concerned, that is a complex issue in which both southerners and northerners supported both state and federal authority depending on which argument best supported their interest. States rights was more of a rallying cry than an actuall issue. A more accurate phrase would be sectional issues because both sides were taking positions that supported their sectional interest. The south didn't give one damn about states rights when it came to the fugitive slave act or the Dred Scott decision whereas in both these instances the north suddenly did support the authority of the states. Furthermore, the context for the civil war was whether of not slavery should be allowed to expand into the newly acquired western territories. No practical political leader in 1860 was prepared to abolish slavery where it existed.

Of course the implication of this is that preventing slavery from expanding would have created unbalance in the senate but that would have been at least a generation or two into the future before the federal government would have had a large enough majority to actually abolition slavery had not the Civil War sped up the process.