I remember even as a wee lad in school thinking that attributing the entire civil war to slavery grossly oversimplified the event.
Lincoln himself did not claim the war to be a war to free slaves...instead he stated it was a war to ‘preserve the union’.
Lincoln later used emancipation as a weapon against the south...but without genuine interest in freeing slaves. How do I know that? For starters, the proclamation did not apply to any slave holding union states.
Historically speaking, in the 19th century, nations just flat did not invade other nations over ‘social issues’. I don’t think a politician or general of the era could resist howling with laughter at the notion the north would invade the south over slavery. Its silly to project 21st century values to a 19th century conflict.
I point this out often in these various civil war discussions. Most apologists can't even grasp the concept. They simply cannot conceive of a 19th century world that is different from their own 21rst century experience.
Of course, Lincoln did not "start the war", Jefferson Davis did, at Fort Sumter, followed soon by a formal declaration of war on the United States.
Lincoln merely responded to Confederate aggressions by calling up the Army to suppress it.
But of course, you already know all that, right?
Protecting slavery against "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans was the reason for Deep South secession, and abolishing slavery became a Union preserving military strategy, which fit perfectly with Radical "Black Republican" abolitionist ideology.
And you knew all that too, didn't you?
You just can't bring your self to spit it out, right?