I have never disputed that slavery was wrong and should never have been practiced in this country, but it wasn't the central motivation for starting the civil war.
If Lincoln is to be believed, his motivation was a belief that the states were under some obligation to remain under his control. That like the hotel California, they could checkout any time they want, but they could never leave.
The idea that states were obligated to remain permanently attached to people whom they wished to be rid of, was debated at the time. Many believed a Union voluntarily joined could be voluntarily left. Others believed that independence, once surrendered, was permanently forfeit.
Lincoln singlehandedly imposed his view on everyone else.
And the disposition of slavery got tossed in there near the middle of the war.
That's not Lincoln.
That's some stupid tagline somebody came up with a few years back.
Peaceful secession by mutual consent was a possibility, but that's not the path the Confederates took.
The idea that states were obligated to remain permanently attached to people whom they wished to be rid of, was debated at the time. Many believed a Union voluntarily joined could be voluntarily left. Others believed that independence, once surrendered, was permanently forfeit.
That is a false dichotomy. What you're ignoring is the secessionists refusal to work for their goals within the existing system. Many places in the world today work for independence by mutual consent. Why was that so hard for the secessionists to do?