I think a few here is fond of the old Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but looking into the actions that he did during the years into the prelude of World War 2 was really interesting. At his behest, he supplied Joseph Stalin and the whole Soviet Union of military equipment and intelligence to prepare for the Nazis. I really don't think that Americans during at the time was on board with supplying another enemy, the communists, with their own handmade products just to hold off the Reich.
Let's not get started with the internment camps he did against Americans of Japanese lineage after the Pearl Harbor attacks, how the Democrats were tight-lipped about it to this day, and the communist project that the former First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt did in Arthurdale, Virginia, that was still left untold on how many people died due to starvation on that god forsaken experiment of hers.
He did have the power to provision his military to be able to assist with the humanitarian crisis he created, though. It wasn't just "justified", it was the only purpose. Foment rebellion, decrease productivity, and inspire fear.
Which is completely logical. He may have had the raw resources and manpower, but he fought a far more determined enemy. It was a good play.
As I said, only someone wholly unfamiliar with Lincoln's public and private statements over the years would think that Lincoln did not care about slavery. He flip-flopped on secession (having supported it in 1848), but one thing he never changed his mind on was slavery.
Fair enough, but just because a personal view coincided with a viable military advantage, should not be construed to mean he did it to free slaves, when there are far more compelling military arguments. At the very least, we should be able to agree that his concern for the well-being of freed southern slaves was near non-existent.
In general, expect politicians to act according to what benefits them, not any sort of principle that they purport to espouse. The nice thing about Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill is that (as much as it will trigger some of the people on this thread) they had a moral core which politicians almost universally lack.
Churchill is closer to the modern era, and I agree he had a moral core, but I think many of the more prominent politicians in the early years of the US had a strong moral core as well, likely far stronger than Lincoln. Ultimately, though, they're all human, and should be considered as such.
I don't like the cult of worship (or hatred) that surrounds so many historical leaders. This community is great, because we can say audacious things about revered and reviled figures, and sometimes have a decent conversation about it.