Lincoln did quite well as a railroad lawyer. He managed to get his hands on some prime land as a result of his railroad work. I’m not saying he was any more or less scrupulous than any other railroad lawyer.
As for federal facilities, do you think the new United States would have acquiesced to the British maintaining military and government facilities in the US? They actually tried to do that to collect on debts owed to English citizens but in the end, the facilities were denied and the cases settled in court.
Lincoln was trying to negotiate peace. He was persuaded to break it off and use Fort Sumter to force a confrontation. To SC, this was a foreign fortress in the middle of their most important harbor. Sumter could have been evacuated but that was not put on the table.
I will agree we can’t know if Lincoln’s post-war policies would have been implemented despite Radical Republican opposition. I can only go by his stated intentions and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being honest.
The victor always rewrites history to make his cause look just and the enemy deserving of every punishment inflicted. That applies to Reconstruction as well, which I blame for more racial animus than any other single cause.
Actually posession was settled by the Treaty of Paris. Out of that came the agreement of who owned what. What the Confederates did was just seize what they could get their hands on and try to force the surrender of anything they couldn't. And when starvation didn't work they resorted to bombardment. That's not a peaceful solution for anything.
Lincoln was trying to negotiate peace. He was persuaded to break it off and use Fort Sumter to force a confrontation. To SC, this was a foreign fortress in the middle of their most important harbor. Sumter could have been evacuated but that was not put on the table.
I think you've got that a bit muddled up. Lincoln did want a peaceful solution but he wasn't willing to accept the legality of the Southern secession. The South wasn't willing to settle for anything less. So right at the beginning there wasn't anything to talk about. Lincoln tried to maintain the status quo; not reclaiming anyting already taken by the Confederacy but not giving up anything more either. The Confederacy wasn't willing to do even that. So they resorted to war to get what they wanted.
I will agree we can’t know if Lincoln’s post-war policies would have been implemented despite Radical Republican opposition. I can only go by his stated intentions and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being honest.
I agree Lincoln's intentions were clear - "Let 'em up easy". But faced with fanatics like Stevens and Sumner he would have had a hard time accomplishing that. He may well have gotten part of what he wanted, which would have been better than Johnson who got nothing.
The victor always rewrites history to make his cause look just and the enemy deserving of every punishment inflicted.
The loser always rewrites their history to make their cause a just one and their defeat due to anything other than their own actions.
The US did acquiesce to the British maintaining military facilities in the US.