Seabass wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Lincoln did not care. He just wanted to destroy the south.

The fuck?? This sounds like some of the crazy revisionism they've got in the deep South. Lincoln spent his entire political career opposing slavery.

The American Civil War was about slavery first and last. There is no doubt about it. In a way there's an element of truth in what Scott Dutchy wrote, though I would not express the situation so bluntly, and I'd look at it from a slightly different angle:

While Lincoln opposed slavery personally, this issue did not form part of his conduct as POTUS, at least not until the Confederates were defeated. His actions were motivated by one aim to the exclusion of all others: Saving the "united" part of the United States of America. He made this crystal clear in a letter to founder and editor of the the New-York Tribune, Horace Greeley, when Greeley accused Lincoln's administration of lacking direction and resolve. In part it read:

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.

Lincoln did not want to destroy the south. He did want to prevent the south's secession, and to do that he had to destroy the Confederacy by military means. In that he had no choice after Fort Sumpter.

Seabass wrote:Sure, I know the letter. I'm just sayin', the notion that Lincoln didn't care about, or wasn't opposed to slavery is wrong. And I wouldn't have used "destroy" where he did. "Subdue", "defeat", "bring to heel" work, but maybe I'm just being pedantic...

In addition to your post, and Scott Dutchy's, you need to bear post #21 in mind to read my reply in its proper context. Freeing slaves had nothing to do with what Lincoln thought about slavery. It had everything to do with the need of more soldiers. Lincoln actually wrote that he declared them to be free because he needed more soldiers, and that he realised he could not expect them to risk their lives without a quid pro quo. This is completely concordant with the letter he wrote in reply to Greeley's editorial.

Scot Dutchy wrote:The freed slaves were caught by their old owners in the share cropping schemes where they even ended up worse than they were as slaves.

Yes. The end of formal slavery made buggerall difference to the quality of life for the emancipated slaves. Lucy Worsley focused on that aspect as much as is possible in a program spanning barely one hour. I appreciate her the more for that.