Historian James Oates on Lincoln from The New York Review of Books 5/23/19

Most historians now agree that the slave states seceded to protect slavery.  Gone are the days when the so-called revisionist historians argued that the South least the Union in defense of states rights or because of high protective targets that favored Northern industry over Souther agriculture.
Today's scholarly disagreement is over why the North preferred war over disunion.
Fundamentalists vs. Neorevisionists according to Oates.
Neorevisinists: slavery not so important as preserving the Union and reserving new territories for free white labor.
Fundamentalists: Antislavery was fundamental in choosing war.
In reviewing Freehling's book Oates points out that historians agree on Lincoln's "growth" toward a stronger anti-slavery position over the years, but mainly after he became President and not so much in the 1850's.  He says that Freehling's view of Lincoln's 1850's anti-slavery was "wafer thin."  So Lincoln shouldn't have alarmed the Southern disunionists.  Fault then lies with the Southern disunionists rather than with Lincoln's anti-slavery posture.
"Up to the moment he took the oath of office as president, Lincoln revealed his deep-seated conservatism by stressing the lawlessness of secession rather than any profound concern over slavery."
Oates thinks that Lincoln's views did not differ from those of the so-called radicals.  If that's so, then why was he nominated in 1860 since I have always read that to win the Republicans needed to win certain states and they needed a moderate to be nominated rather than a Seward, who was perceived to be more radically anti-slavery that Lincoln?
Oates says that Freehling's Lincoln adopted emancipation slowly and painfully, who valued the rule of law over antislavery, and only under the pressure of war.
Freehling differs from the revisionists only in seeing the horror of slavery.
Freehling's approach makes it hard to understand the South's revulsion at the Lincoln's election in 1860, or so Oates thinks.  It does seem true that Lincoln's moderation was seen by the South as no different from those who espoused immediate emancipation.