In the context of the conversation to which you replied, the "specifics" to which I refer are things like the Corwin Amendment.
People on your side simply cannot wrap your minds around the significance of Lincoln Supporting the Corwin Amendment, and the fact that it passed the Senate.
To a rational man, it demonstrates clearly that slavery was not the issue to which the North objected. We have been told all our lives that the war was over slavery, and yet here is proof positive that slavery was not an issue for the North, and apparently not for the South either, because they didn't jump at this offer from the North.
So when you remove slavery as a bone of contention, what then is left?
These are the "specifics" that your side cannot look at.
“To a rational man, it demonstrates clearly that slavery was not the issue to which the North objected.”
How many times do I have too spell it out?
THE SOUTH FOUGHT TO PRESERVE SLAVERY!
THE NORTH (AND ABOUT 100,000 SOUTHERNERS) FOUGHT TO PRESEVRE THE UNION!
And still more cockamamie nonsense.
There's no record to suggest Corwin was "orchestrated" by Lincoln, "offered" to Confederate states or "rejected" by them.
The record clearly does show Corwin passed under and signed by President Buchanan, directed towards & accepted by Union slave-states like Kentucky & Maryland.
It also shows that Senator Davis himself, before January 21, 1861 when he left the Senate, worked on his version of Corwin's idea.
Indeed, no secessionist was ever recording as promising that if the Union simply dropped Morrill, or spent more money in the South, then they'd be happy to return.
That should tell us all we need to know about what secessionists said was their biggest concern: slavery.