Lincoln: warrior, peacemaker, or both

Peacemaker or Warrior, that is the topic Dr. Philip Stone explored in his lecture on Lincoln. Or at least that is the traditional distinction one might make, peacemaker or warrior; however Stone’s thesis seemed to be that Lincoln was both. Stone clearly had a great passion for his topic, and clearly had a great amount of knowledge on the subject, but his lecture left me a bit confused about what he was trying to say, and his conclusions. The topic of Stone’s lecture seemed to be that Lincoln was a peacemaker and a warrior, and perhaps even more of a peacemaker because of his acts as a warrior. Stone also covered the escalation of violence and barbarity in the Civil War; this was perhaps the more interesting topic to address.
Stone’s conclusion was that Lincoln changed a great deal during his presidency, and embodied both the warrior and the peacemaker. However, based on his evidence I would argue the opposite. I would say that Lincoln changed a great deal during the course of the war, and at the end of his life, though he still embodied many principles of the peacemaker, he became more the warrior. In addition I would also argue that the definition of “warrior” that seemed to be implied by Stone rejects the compatibility of peacemaker. That is to say that a warrior by Stone’s definition could not also be a peacemaker. Stone described the intentional and strategic destruction of civilian property by the Union army as a national policy. “Warrior” sanctions such as these leave no room for the peacemaker title. I understand what Stone was arguing: in times of war sometimes it takes acts of violence to bring peace. To unite a country, and abolish slavery acts of war seemed necessary, and they were undertaken with the intention of bringing about an eventual peace. However, if these policies were truly those of Lincoln (for there does seem to be some debate as to whether or not they were his or not) then I refuse to accept the notion that they were truly for peaceful ends. These acts were unnecessarily violent, and could not possibly bring about peace. Humiliating and impoverishing your enemy is not the way to create true peace when the war is over, you will simply be creating negative peace, which I believe is what happened. Southerners still dislike northerners, and northerners still dislike southerners. There w=has been little forgiveness or reconciliation; in many ways we exist in a state of tension.
Stone described how the Civil War went from being rather civil, or “Napoleonic” as he described it, to being utterly savage. He described the policy of tit-for-tat retributions, systematic destruction of resources, civilian lives and property that was sanctioned and endorsed by the northern government. Stone posed the question; perhaps without really meaning to, of whether it is justifiable to incur civilian casualties as a means of speeding up the war. He mentioned the firebombing of Europe during WWII, the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, and the napalm and carpet-bombing of Vietnam. This is a complicated question, and I side on both sides of the issue. I won’t delve deeply into this, but looking at WWII I believe that the fire bombing of Europe was wrong because it was excessive, and could perhaps have been directed at disrupting concentration camps, however, I believe that the bombing of Japan may have been warranted as the projected casualties for a land invasion were 1 million.