Read the whole letter for the complete context.

===============================================

August 22, 1862
EXECUTIVE MANSION,

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.

That really shows what sucks the most about slavery. The way it suddenly ended for a bunch of folks that had little or no personal property/effects, and knew no other way to live.

It was purely a tactical decision and this quote demonstrates the cruelty of throwing sheep to the wolves with no help, or skills, or preparation. Off you go now, good luck!

Go where, and do what? It should have been handled better than that. But in the middle of a civil war, nothing makes sense.

So he is saying in this letter, that he does not care one way or the other about slavery thank you again for proving the point he wants to “save the union“ but he attacked the south. Which he viewed as part of the union of states. That does not seem like a real good way to treat your fellow countryman.

Lincoln destroyed this country, burnt half of it down the deadliest war in our countries, history, and he will be remembered for that.

I would argue that the South was over-represented. In fact from everything I've read in the history books, it seems the civil war was very much about slavery. But not because the northerners loved blacks or because the southerners hated blacks. Rather it was because of the 3/5 compromise. This gave the Southern States more power than the northern states. The northerners wanted to end that while the southerners wanted to retain/expand it.

So he is saying in this letter, that he does not care one way or the other about slavery thank you again for proving the point he wants to “save the union“ but he attacked the south. Which he viewed as part of the union of states. That does not seem like a real good way to treat your fellow countryman.

Lincoln destroyed this country, burnt half of it down the deadliest war in our countries, history, and he will be remembered for that.

The free Norbern states forced this on the Southern states from the get go. The North didn’t want to count them at all.

The next one will be know as "The war of Democrat /Communist Aggression."

I'll wait until it comes out for free!

Read "One Man's War" and get a picture of how some slaves were treated by their owners. And then how the "rescued" ones were treated by the Union that "saved" them.

He saw the war coming to his yard, and freed all of his slaves. But it was their home, and they wanted to stay. They lived there and they farmed it in tobacco. They asked if they could take up their former owner's last name and he agreed.

Those freedmen and women's greatest fear was the Union Army. And rightfully so.

It was not a tax but the tariff

1. TARIFF
Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to them. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 eras (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

It was okay, not what I was expecting. I wouldn't pay to see it.

I'm hearing "Purge" like in nature but with better acting, script, directing and bigger budget. Going to see later today. Enjoyed the Purge movies for what they were, a bit of fantasy...