contrarian:
Lincoln’s pretext for attacking the southern confederacy was South Carolina’s attempt to reclaim Fort Sumpter[sic] in Charleston Bay. Since South Carolina had democratically seceded from the USA, and the Fort was part of South Carolina, they had a perfect right to take it. It was Lincoln who sent military forces into Virginia in the first Battle of Bull Run. Lincoln was the aggressor, the Confederacy simply defending their homeland.

Rather, there were irreconcilable views which could only be settled by bloodshed. While the South considered itself justified in firing on Sumter, the North considered it an act of war. Irreconcilable differences. Refer to the various disputes during the 1850s: Kansas-Nebraska, etc. Recall Senator Sumner of Massachusetts getting beaten to unconsciousness in the Senate chambers, a beating that a Representative from South Carolina administered. While that hardened the North, John Brown’s attempted slave insurrection at Harper’s Ferry hardened the South. Irreconcilable.

Two points about “states’ rights.” 1) Secession is trumpeted as a right of the states. There are strong doubts that secession was decided upon in a fair and democratic manner. IIRC, in no state that seceded was a statewide vote taken to determine secession. Secession was decided in conventions, with carefully selected delegates. It appears to me that the slaveowning elite packed the conventions. It appears to me that the 90% of white Southerners who did not own slaves were disenfranchised in the convention votes for secession. Freeholders had much less interest in secession than slaveholders.

2) While the South crowed about states’ rights, they were more than willing to have the states’ rights of the northern states trampled on in recovering fugitive slaves.

I had family on both sides who gave their lives in the conflict. Had there been wiser leaders in the 1850s, perhaps conflict might have been avoided. If wishes were horses… By the time Lincoln became President, the differences were irreconcilable.