Yes, it does. The author shows Lincoln at work in a situation that limited what was possible. Thanks for asking.
By the way, before he came of age, Lincoln was rented out to local farmers, etc. by his father, who apparently kept all his wages. Lincoln said about this: “I was once a slave.” However, he thought many people start out at the command of others. The glory of this country is that, except for the black slaves, it allows people to work their way up and to become free.
“Yes, it does (make the case that Lincoln fought to free the slaves). The author shows Lincoln at work in a situation that limited what was possible. Thanks for asking.”
As stated, I have not read the book but, for the sake of this post, let’s stipulate that President Lincoln did indeed “fight to free the slaves.”
In the moral sense that can be justified. If slavery was morally wrong, what can be more justified than using guns to kill people who owned slaves? After all, the purpose of the federal government is to kill immoral people, the argument goes.
But from the view point of the United States Constitution I would argue that Lincoln was wrong to - as the book says - fight to free the slaves.
The United States Constitution - the original one - included pro-slavery provisions. Slavery was legal. In fact, of the 13 original states, 13 of them were slave states.
If Lincoln was fighting to “free the slaves” then he was fighting to overthrow the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution.
U.S. Presidents really should not take up arms to violently overthrow the United States Constitution. The peaceful amendment process is the way to legally amend the Constitution.
It has been awhile since I have heard the argument made that Lincoln “fought to free the slaves.” Maybe he did.