It's like when they claim that secession wasn't about slavery even though ALL of the declarations of secession mention slavery throughout (ironically, they don't mention "states rights" or tariffs) and the Confederate Constitution stated: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Did Lincoln not intend to accommodate slavery, you would have a point. But since he did, you are just being hypocritical.
The South was no worse than the North on the issue of slavery. The North was going to let it keep going indefinitely, and indeed, it existed in five Union states all throughout the war.
Why do you sort constantly focus on slavery? It's the only moral claim you have, and you simply ignore the fact that it is a false claim.
You take away your slavery "fig leaf" and you are left with a very horrible and immoral act by the North against the South.
THAT is why you keep trying to force the conversation into a referendum on the wickedness of slavery. It is the slender thread upon which all your moral justification hangs, and even then your argument is a lie.
There was no intent to do anything about slavery when the Union invaded.