Neo. The Only. The One.
THE ONE
Worth noting that Lincoln only freed slaves in the rebelling states (which he didn't have control of whatsoever ) and he was cool with enslaved people keeping their status in the union states (which he had complete control of).
It would be like a modern day American president deciding that the American poor should get resources, but allocating the wealth of Canada or Sweden to the American poor .
Luck was on his side.Had the war been a stalemate or a loss, then both the north and the south would've been enslaving folks until the 1900s.
A lot of fallacies in your argument but as far as Lincoln not having control of the rebelling states but having control of the union states, what exactly are you saying? He was the president, he lawfully had control of all of the states. If we want to delve deeper into it, the underlying reason behind wanting the slaves to go free was money.
Another fallacy in your argument is that Lincoln didn't want to see the slaves go free in the north. Well if by your own admission, he had complete control in the north, then why didn't he let slavery remain an institution after winning the war? If he was pro slavery in the north, why didn't he keep slavery in the north?
I think what gets lost in these discussions is that a lot of these decisions were made for monetary reasons, true, but there was an element of justice in there. It wasn't overwhelming but it was there. There were multiple US presidents who went on record before 1865 and declared that they found slavery to be... distasteful
Your next question would probably be, if they found slavery to be so wrong, why didn't they abolish it? They were president.
And that conversation gets into how the power of the president is often times limited to what he has the political capital to do. To give you a recent example, Obama was very forthcoming about his desire to see police departments change and rid themselves of racism both systemic and otherwise.
But he didn't have the political capital to tackle that no matter how much he would have wanted to. Presidents are not kings and sometimes, most times, they have to speak on things but kick them down the road to a future president who has the political capital to make such a huge nation altering change.
My point being, Lincoln wasn't the first president to want to see slavery abolished but he was the only president who had both the political capital and WILL to risk seeing the nation be completely torn apart over it. As you said, it was risky because what if the union lost? Not many people would have been willing to stake their life, their legacy on that, and I wouldn't blame them. And with that being said, it did wind up costing him his life.