You would be, on both claims.
Lincoln's famous remark that if he could preserve the Union without freeing one slave he would summed up his attitude.
No, Lincoln summed up his attitude at the end of that letter when he said, "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." But I noticed that you posted part of the quote, in keeping with the Southron penchant for half quotes, misquotes, and quotes out of context. What Lincoln actuall said was this:
"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt."
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
Somewhat different when put into context, wouldn't you say?
As regards his true attitude to slavery, he was a colonist. He wanted every single one of them put on boats and relocated back to Africa. He most certainly regarded blacks as irredeemably inferior to whites.
A gross overstatement. Lincoln supported colonization, but so did Robert Lee who paid passage for some of his slaves to Liberia. He did not want every single black deported to Africa, but in fact spoke against those who saw emancipation as a threat to whites. And he was unrepentently, irreversably opposed to slavery unlike men like Robert Lee or Thomas Jackson or Jefferson Davis who believed slavery was the best place for blacks. When compared with those men, Lincoln looks better and better.
I didn't overstate or understate the case on Lincoln and slavery at all. His clear objective was "preserving the Union" - not freeing slaves.
But hey, let's just make this simple. There were four slave states in the North and Lincoln let them keep their slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was aimed at the South, but slavery in the North was just ducky.
It was all about tariffs and Lincoln's obstinate devotion to the American System.
And also, I take issue with your "typical southern distortion" nonsense. Although currently in the South, I just moved back after 15 years in New York City and New Jersey.
My view on this matter has nothing whatsoever to do with fidelity to the south but rather with criticism of Lincoln, who was a total politician who ruled with an iron fist. Many nations rid themselves of slavery peacefully through compensation. The Industrial Revolution just a few years later would've ended it period. Lincoln wanted to collect the huge tariffs on the South and that was that, and he did so at a price that was far, far, in excess of even what he imagined.
Now that aside, did Lee have his own slaves? Both Fitzhugh Lee and General Long (both biographer of Lee) seem indicate that he did.
As for the Liberia claim - I have not heard that, but if he did, he did it as the executor of his father-in-law's will.
Lee never owned Arlington or the White House Plantation. At his father-in-law's death, Arlington went to his oldest son Custis and the White House Plantation to Rooney Lee. That is why Custis sued the government for the return of Arlington and the Washington memorabilia that disappeared during Arlington and the White House's occupation.
Washington Parke Custis allowed 5 years for the training of his "former" slaves in business so they could support themselves. In 1863, Lee took time from the war to sign the emancipation papers.