While secession to maintain/preserve "State's Rights" is a true/accurate reason, the primary "State's Right" that the states that seceded to form the CSA wanted to preserve was the institution of slavery. So it is a circular, "chicken/egg", argument, about which is the primary driver, "State's Rights" or "Slavery"? Without the preservation of "State's Rights", there wouldn't be any slavery. Without the desire to preserve slavery, there wouldn't be any reason to invoke "State's Rights" as the justification for secession.
From a socioeconomic perspective, the majority of people who serve in the military today, and who have served in the military throughout our history, have come from the middle and lower class, probably because we are more numerous, wealth distribution isn't a Bell Curve, and because the upper class can more easily afford to buy direct or indirect exemptions.
