Frankly, much of this could simply be dismissed as counter-factual theorizing based on a string of logical fallacies, but I'll avoid that since you so far seem to be making a good faith attempt at discussion. I will say, however, that you are advancing ideas that are not supportable based on the historical record or begin with historical truths and extrapolate out of them ideas that have no logical basis.

Your moral judgments are your own, and you're entitled to them, but your expressions of them mirror a politically driven narrative regarding Lincoln based on a myopic interpretation of the historical record, the origins of which you might want to investigate. (Start with a Lincoln Day address by Governor Warfield of Maryland in 1907.)

Finally, at various points here you conflate "Lincoln" and "white people." I'm ignoring most of that as a fallacious condemnation of Lincoln for the flaws of others.

Fair Question

The question to which I referred assumes the course of action you criticize Lincoln for not having taken was actually possible. It was not; therefore, your question is unfair. I've already explained why it was not possible but will be glad to detail it for you further if need be. More could be said, but that is enough.

Lincoln / Frederick Douglass

You seem to have an idealized image of Frederick Douglass that is on some level insulting to him, and you have an inaccurate view of the relationship he had with Lincoln.

Lincoln and Douglass were two sides of the same coin. They both understood clearly the meaning of pragmatism and the limits of their ability to effect change. Moreover they understood and lived their lives by a guiding principle that real change that benefits people takes time. That is, they understood the situational realities they faced and avoided the pitfalls of seeking ideological purity above all else.

Douglass had engaged in many of the same kinds of compromises with so-called principle that Lincoln did as he sought to advance his agenda, which was at first largely a personal agenda. As an escaped slave, he took the advice of his New England benefactors and fled to Ireland while those working on his behalf secured his legal manumission through payment to his former owner. He had once derided the US Constitution as an inherently flawed foundation of a slave republic and later recanted and reversed entirely his argument, in part because he realized using the legal system established to seek his goals was more effective over time than denying that system's legitimacy. In so doing he angered many former friends, some of whom would later be renowned for their acceptance of secession if it meant ridding the nation of slavery not by ending it but by excision of the offending parts.

Lincoln's "simply tolerating" Douglass is your own, flawed interpretation of a real relationship that was very different and far more complex than any few lines offered here could describe.

Paternalism

Once again, there is situational reality and there is fantasy. The reality was that several million people were enslaved by a system that both exploited them and provided the means by which they sustained life. People who have never known anything but that system need help and cooperation to be able to become a part of the larger society. A truly paternalistic attitude would claim that this was not possible and that this help would be perpetual. That is not what is being suggested here.

What will never stop amazing me about the criticism you offer is its twisted bent of logic. Those who express this critical view of Lincoln you do assail him for, essentially, not doing enough. Yet when it is explained what he actually did do, what he was trying to do, and why he was doing what he was doing, the explanation is passed off as paternalistic. You can try to have it both ways if you want, but it does little for your position.

Douglass, et al wanted slavery eradicated. At the same time they wanted the lives of those who would benefit directly from its end to have the ability to live lives of their own and seek their own version of the proverbial American Dream.

Now, there are those who have deluded themselves into believing this was a relatively simple thing. You imply it in your question about why Lincoln didn't just end slavery and enact equal rights. Passing the laws is not enough and passing them when the foundation for their enforcement is not present is sheer idiocy. All of that takes time, effort, an enormous amount of money, and at least a decently sized segment of populace willing and capable of further that enforcement. In historical timeline, Congress spent relatively little time on the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They were, after all, fairly simple statements. And then they created the Freedman's Bureau and failed to fund it properly, then charged the army with enforcing the Reconstruction Acts and forgot to notice that the army as a whole gave less than a full damn about securing black liberty and were more interested in punishing "the secesh."

And it was a disaster of epic proportions. Yet, for some reason, the idea remains that what needed to be done was just end slavery, pass a law or two, and let former slaves go about the business of getting on with their lives.

Lincoln's aim by mid-1862 was in dismantling the system. Abolishing slavery in and of itself was only one element of a vast system. Think "capitalism" and try to imagine, realistically, ending a capitalist system in a couple years by a dictatorial proclamation. It could be done, certainly, and a lot of people would end up dead as a result.

Hero

Why is Lincoln seen as a hero to blacks? Books have been written on this subject. The evolution of historical memory and commemoration is not something that can be explained easily or with absolute certainty.

The start of the explanation, however, begins with what Lincoln represented, which has already been stated. He was the first President even to allow for the idea of an end to slavery during his term of office. For the most part, those initially freed by his actions and the later actions of Congress who furthered their own agenda by couching their initiatives in the language of the bloody shirt embraced Lincoln as their own and elevated his status to a godlike proportion. His being murdered, importantly by someone who sought to perpetuate slavery, gave him the mark of a martyr.

From there, the road takes many paths.

To put it in the words of Frederick Douglass:



Note that these remarks come from the same speech in which he referred to Lincoln as the "white man's President." Ironically, this passage is taken out of context often by DiLorenzo, et al to perform a "partial and imperfect glimpse" of what he intended to say.

To the question of what blacks were to do with Lincoln's memory, he added:



Lincoln, the President

Presidents who are not acting as dictators are bound by laws, and laws prevented Lincoln from doing the moral and just thing in the manner desired by so many. Further, just what the moral and just thing to do was not agreed upon even among abolitionists, slaves, or, in hindsight, former slaves. To lay the entire question at Lincoln's feet is wrongheaded and ignores the bald fact that he, more than any American office holder before him, initiated with knowledge aforethought a series of events that would, eventually, lead to the election of President Obama, who will also be bound by laws.