The direct death toll of the civil war is put at 750,000 people, and this death toll was not caused by the Secretary of War "speaking out of turn." It was caused by Abraham Lincoln launching a war of conquest against people who did not want to remain under the control of Washington DC.
You can’t seriously be so ridiculous as to expect that supply ships aren’t defended when sailing into hostile territory?
Those weren't supply ships, they were warships, and their orders were to attack the confederates if the confederates resisted their efforts to put supplies into Fort Sumter. (which they were absolutely going to do.)
The "Star of the West" was a supply ship, and even at that, the government had secretly loaded it up with troops and munitions intending to reinforce Fort Sumter.
Lincoln did NOT call for the Corwin amendment. He consented not to oppose it, on the grounds that it had no effect on the Constitution, which, as a conservative, he believed respected states’ rights.
Announcing he would not oppose it gives the green light to party members to vote for it. Lincoln went further. He wrote to all the governors of the seceded states informing them that the Corwin Amendment had passed the congress and was now in the process of being ratified by the states.
He was operating under the mistaken impression that the only thing they cared about was protecting slavery. The Corwin Amendment was not successful because the Southern states wanted to control their own economic policies and this amendment did not offer that.
This, thus, provides no counter-evidence to all the other positions he took to limit the spread of slavery.
There was never going to be any spread of slavery. It was economically unfeasible. The repeated assertion of the "spread of slavery" was just a psyops tactic to get people to worry about slavery, but the real goal was to limit the Southern states ability to obtain allies that would vote with them in congress.
Nobody really cared about the slaves. (except people who were regarded as "kooks" during this time period.)
The reality is it was the Confederacy which wanted to force slavery on the new territories, and enlist every state in helping it maintain its obscene oppression.
You have been taught nonsense. Here is a modern map of cotton growing.
The cotton grown in West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California can only be grown as a consequence of modern irrigation systems which did not exist in 1860 and would not exist for another 40 years at the earliest.
There would have been *NO* expansion of slavery. That was just a lie told to keep political power.
Well, Lincoln didn’t oppose the tariff reductions of 1857... and soon-to-be confederate states only generated half of the customs, so nonsense.
They generated 72% of the total. They had 1/4th the citizens of the Northern states, but they were producing nearly 3/4ths of the total tax revenue for the nation.
You’re arguing that they what they plain and simply did, because you don’t believe it served their economoic interests, ignoring the simple fact that they fought like bloody Hell to force Utah, New Mexico (including Arizona), Kansas, Nebraska (including Wyoming) and California to become slave states.
Why? Ask yourself why they would want states that cannot actually make use of slavery to become part of the Union, and that would vote with the existing slave states?