I don't know USA history very well at all, but was there really an election with a dramatically low voter turn out, which eventually triggered the civil war?

I just don't understand why the sentiment seems to be that if you advocate/participate in more change than just voting, then you should not vote, and if you vote, then you cannot participate in change more than that. Like surely these things can happen in parallel? Try to enact real change, but also vote for the lesser evil until those changes actually take hold?

You can do a revolution and still vote for the lesser evil in the meantime. Not voting supports the others.

If the message is "revolutionize!" say that, don't imply to stop participating in democracy.

The collapse of a party and/via creation of a new one happened like 3 times in American history. How is banking on that more likely to help in the next 40 years than voting for the lesser of two evils?