Lincoln made it clear to the voters in 1860 that he never had any intention of doing that. See my quote from the Lincoln/Douglas debates up above.
I look at Lincoln cynically. You take everything he says as honest and true. You can't think of him as a conniving manipulative bastard, but I can. I can see him the way you see him, but I can also see an alternative version of him as an evil man.
The problem with him being a good man, is you shouldn't be able to find examples of him doing evil things.
Over the years I recall reading things about Lincoln that are not mainstream. Insights into his character that do not comport with him being a good man.
Back in the 1970s, I read a book about Lincoln, and in it was mentioned some of his shenanigans in rigging his election to the Illinois legislature. (bribing voters, getting them drunk, re-directing his opponents bribed/drunken voters into voting for him instead.) (Also there was quip from him where he remarked that a n***er boy's member was so long he could use it for a razor strop. This left me with the impression Lincoln could be vulgar.)
I no longer recall what the name of that book was, but it had fascinating details about Lincoln, and this was long before I ever thought to question what I had been told about the civil war.
The point is, I could see Lincoln as a man rather than a god. He wasn't perfect, and he could be profane.
This view allows me to see him relieving Captain Mercer of command and giving the ship to Lt Porter as a trick, not a mistake. (Not even the New York Times believed it was a "mistake". They thought it was a clever trick.) It allows me to see Lincoln going back on his word to voters in 1860 (about blacks voting) as a cynical ploy for power, and not a change of heart. It allows me to see the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed nobody under Union control, as a cynical ploy, not an honest belief.
If you look for examples of Lincoln pulling dirty tricks, you can find them. The way he rigged the election at the wig wam is another example.
If you cannot conceive of the man behaving badly, you will simply accept all the explanations for him doing these things as "innocent."
You can't see the real man. You can only see the myth.
And yet again, you are applying our standards to those times.
Would you equally despise George Washington, if you knew the truth about his first election?
In 1755 young George Washington was just 23 and ran for election to the Virginia House of Burgesses, from Frederick County, VA.
He lost that election because, it was said, he didn't provide enough booze for voters before they voted.
In those days, the custom was known as "swilling the planters with bumbo".
Washington learned his lesson and ran again in 1758.
This time, he wasn't physically even at his home in Mount Vernon but was a British army colonel in command of British forces of the French & Indian War in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
So, Washington's political campaign in Frederick County, VA, was managed by his friend and supporter, Col. James Wood.
Wood made certain that voters were provided with plenty of food and booze, and so Washington easily won that election, and never lost another election.
So, what do you think, does that make Washington just as "evil" as Lincoln?
Another example you often cite is the 1860 Republican convention at Chicago, in the Wig-Wam.
Do you realize that Lincoln was never in the Wig-Wam, was not even in Chicago for the convention?
Lincoln was at home in Springfield, 200 miles away.
Lincoln's instructions to his supporters were to not tie his hands with campaign promises.