If you try to apply today's standards of "political correctness" to our ancestors of 150 years ago, then no one alive at the time could measure up.
But consider: Lincoln was a well known anti-slave politician, though his "campaign" for election in 1860 included no comments on the subject whatever.
Indeed the issue in 1860 was not whether any slaves should be freed, but rather: should slavery be expanded into non-slave territories and states?
Despite Lincoln's silence, the South took his previous anti-slavery remarks as a great affront and justification for secession.
In the process of seceding, the South seized many Federal properties (forts, ships, customs houses, armories, a mint), fired on Federal ships and forces (all before Lincoln inaugurated), and eventually took Fort Sumter by force of arms (April 1860).
Then Lincoln responded to put down the insurrection, as he called it.
None of this had anything to do with freeing the slaves, much less granting them full rights of citizenship.
For two years, it's fair to say, the South had the best of the war -- with better generals and more highly motivated troops, they were often able to overcome disadvantages in numbers and materials.
So, did the Emancipation Proclamation change the North's fortunes of war?
No, the North's improving results on the battlefield made the Emancipation even possible.
Further, it could be argued that once war began, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was inevitable.
But first the Union armies must do better in battle, and this finally seemed to happen at Antietam / Sharpsburg in September 1862.
Point is this: for the first two years of the war it was only about secession, not emancipation.
Therefore sequentially: Lincoln deserves credit for first preserving the Union, then beginning to free the slaves.
If you try to apply today’s standards of “political correctness” to our ancestors of 150 years ago, then no one alive at the time could measure up.”
That was pretty much my point ... you can’t rewrite history; it is what it is. The fact is that the posts I was responding to were extolling virtues that did not exist.
"For two years, it's fair to say, the South had the best of the war -- with better generals and more highly motivated troops, they were often able to overcome disadvantages in numbers and materials."
Sorry for the "mental typo."
Fort Sumter was 1861 of course, not 1860.
Antietam / Sharpsburg in 1862 is sometimes, but not always, called a Union victory.
But the tide of war did not definitely turn against the South until Gettysburg and Vicksburg in 1863.
Point being, the South did reasonably well for two years, then delayed defeat for another two years, despite being outnumbered in every category of men & equipment.
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation after Antietam in 1862 helped the Union side, but did not change the course or outcome of the war.
Nor did it fully free all slaves.
That didn't happen until after Lincoln's death -- 13th (1865), 14th (1868) and 15th (1870) Amendments.
Indeed, even 100 years later there was unfinished work to be done.
If you like Biblical analogies -- Lincoln was a Moses bringing the slaves out of Egypt, but could not lead them to the promised land.
That took a lot longer.
I don't think to say that's fair at all, because you're only looking at the eastern campaigns. In the first two years of the war the Union had captured New Orleans, the confederacy's largest city, cut the country in half along the Mississippi, driven them from Kentucky and most of Tennessee and large parts of Louisiana, and had an effective blockade in place. They had beaten the rebel armies at Shiloh and Iuka and Stone's River, captured one rebel army at Fort Donelson and would soon capture a second at Vicksburg. The South was losing the war from the very beginning.