Point A: There you have the number one reason for the conflict - distribution of resources. Now distribution of resources is definitely a good reason for a war, and hundreds of wars were started that way.
AND
There you have the number two reason for the conflict - distribution of wealth. Now distribution of wealth is definitely a good reason for a war, and hundreds of wars were started that way.
True. But you're too eager to prove you're right to look more into this subject. The South felt they couldn't continue their agricultural growth without slavery (and there is literally thousands of documents proving such). So...it's a slavery issue at the core of the economic issue. Yes, the government "appeased" the Southern Slave-holding states by enacting the Missouri Compromise, but in general the country was leaning towards abolishing slavery as a whole, and they didn't want to go to war (much like Europe + Hitler during the 30s). Eventually, said appeasement could no longer continue, and while the country was WILLING to let the Southern slave-holding states continue to hold slaves, the debate about the rights of new states were very difficult to figure out. By the law of the Constitution, we should have let the states themselves decide, but that's what led to "Bloody Kansas" and arguably the beginning of the war.
I can't believe I typed all this when you won't read it and will just post some inane stock "Fuck you idiot" response, but you're a fucking idiot so that's not surprising.