I try to cut through all the bullsh*t.
I see one side was going to lose a huge amount of future revenue, and the other side was going to gain a huge amount of revenue. Therefore I regard this as a more plausible cause than after "four score and seven years", people suddenly started caring so much about slaves that they decided to start a war on their behalf.
No, it's about the money. It's always about the money.
Diogenes regards himself as an exception, so no, it must be that it's not all about the money.
Your false conclusions are built on false assumptions, such as: people claim Northerners "...suddenly started caring so much about slaves that they decided to start a war on their behalf".
If you'd free yourself from lies, then the truth is more apparent.
The truth is the Union didn't need war and didn't start it, but Jefferson Davis did and did.
That's because Davis' little seven-state confederacy (outnumbered 10 to 1) could not long survive without more soldiers and territory, and Upper South states would not, could not secede without a war, so Davis gave them a war and they soon enough seceded.
Union motives are more-or-less irrelevant, since the Union was first split up, then attacked and so could do nothing but respond.
And what drove Union response was just what they said: first to restore the Union then, while we're at it, let's free the slaves and end this nonsense forever.
But since DiogenesLamp just can't wrap your mind around mere mundane facts of history, you must, must concoct endless cockamamie nonsense to keep yourself entertained and the rest of us busy...
DiogenesLamp: "No, it's about the money.
It's always about the money."
Of course, money is always important, can't do anything without it.
But money alone won't start wars, or WWII would have begun with the great depression in, say, 1929.
It didn't and that's because other factors are required, and those are the ones which make the difference between war & peace, not money.