Funny I must have missed the history lesson where Lincoln ran his 1860 campaign as an abolitionist. I must of had a appointment or something.
Well, you clearly missed your grammar lessons, so I guess you "must of" missed something in your neoconfederate history lessons as well. Perhaps you missed the lesson about Lincoln's Cooper Union address (which was nominally directed at the expansion of slavery in the territories, but also squarely condemned slavery as an institution). Or maybe you missed the Lincoln-Douglas debates (or did you think that his debates with Douglas in 1858 were irrelevant to his campaign against Douglas in 1860?). Or maybe you missed Lincoln's "house divided" speech. Or maybe you missed the various "Declarations of Causes" by the seceeding states, each of which (hmmmm, if Lincoln was pro-slavery, I wonder why the states would secede upon his election). Must I go on?
Thank you for admitting that Lincoln was not an abolitionist and had no intention whatsoever of interfering with slavery where it already existed. This indicates that you are well aware that the secession of the Southern states was unjustified and was nothing but a hissy fit for losing the election.
I bet you have the gall to call yourself a Republican. And you probably consider Federalist George Washington a proto-Confederate.