Now,don't get wound up too tight over this.
FWIW,  slavery wasn't limited to the South. Laws required slaves be returned if they did manage to escape to a place where slavery was illegal.
The War was NOT about slavery. Make note of the date of the war, April 12, 1861, and the
Emancipation proclamation,  January  1, 1863

Now, in the letter to Horace Greeley, read what he said.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

If I was gonna whip your butt for talking about my sister, you'd know that before I threw the first punch.

READ, and stop believing what you were taught.
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 to 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 the 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.


If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,



Somewhat contradictory to the history teachers..

And, slavery wasn't in the north...

The reasons for the war are a long conversation. The northern industrialists were playing games with legislation and screwing the South, and im sure that since you saw WHEN the declaration was made versus the start of the war and Lincoln's statement that If he could preserve the union and NOT end slavery, Then to say it was just about slavery would be kind of a stretch. I know, it's what we were taught. That letter wasn't part of any history class I was in. Like most things, there is more to the story.

And, SINCE Lincoln's desire was to save the union and SINCE he said he would save the Union if it meant slavery continues then Why DIDN'T he juwsay Fine, keep your slaves?

Maybe there was more to it...

Well, that certainly explains Lincoln saying he would be okay with slavery continuing as long as the Union,,,      
Really, making flag jokes?

Now,don't get wound up too tight over this.


Aaaand, well, im on your side, but, dude, kinda went off the tracks a bit.
I couldn't quite follow the whole thought process.

I've been all over the net for the last coupla hours. I earlier stated that, well, go look.....
And, IF you have any intellectual honesty and curiosity, look for stuff that contradicts what we were taught.
Why?
Have we ever been lied to?
History classes TAUGHT that we were attacked in Nam.
Nobody ever hid fifty midgets behind an elephant.
But the war was just because of slavery.
And I've read some very compelling things,, and I have Observed Reality that has given me reason to question nearly everything.
Nearly all my life I answered the question

Slavery.

Now, I see  there was a lot more to it.

Here's a pretty balanced view on the causes of the Civil War... by Gordon Leidner...
(It is short and worth reading.)
http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/causes.htm

Gordon has been a lifelong student of the Civil War and the American Revolution. His accomplishments include:
   Member of the Board of Directors for the Abraham Lincoln Institute
   Author of 4 books on Abraham Lincoln, including the popular Abraham Lincoln: Quotes, Quips, and Speeches
   Author of a new biography of Abraham Lincoln entitled Lincoln's Gift: How Humor Shaped Lincoln's Life and Legacy
   Author of several academic articles on Lincoln’s role as a Transformational Leader
   Author of many published articles on the Civil War
   Guest Lecturer at The Smithsonian Institution and Johns Hopkins University
   Guest Commentator on various radio programs
   Former president of the Lincoln Group of the District of Columbia
   

And I have found statements that were supported by historical fact, manipulations, tariffs and unfair behavior economically beating the
Undeveloped South down and saying that there would have been war, slavery or not. That it's still debated this long after, Lincoln's own statements, that slavery could continue if that's what it took to save the Union.
That's him saying,
Keep your slaves, dont secede,can't we all just get along?
The question is, what drove states to feel the need to secede?
Was it because the Northern Industrialists had united and boycotted against the slave owners? Keep in mind that slaves existed in the North , but I would expect that the degree of it was very different.
I've found plenty to read. And I have years of experience watching the people who don't want you to know how things work slap a handy veil over things. It's reasonable, its compassionate, but is it really the whole story?
Spend time looking for information that would challenge the teachers.
Look at legislation,
Pretty easy to stir people up against others who are engaged in behavior
you can demonize. Yet, the Union army wasn't, for the most part, concerned about slavery.
Excerpt from your article

It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery.

The reason s for secession are the key.
I'm not saying that I know all the reasons, I'm just saying that, once again,te official answer .just doesn't cut it.

Doesn't it seem odd that the soldiers weren't for or against slavery and Lincoln's own statements that if saving the Union meant slavery continues that he would accept that?
I've read what you think, Web, but what have you gone hunting to read that contradicts that?

I've been trying to get you guys to actually use search terms that would lead to information about legislation/ policies, things that would tend to create friction,, things that would explain why men would go off to war.
Row even POSTED that most of the soldiers hadn't joined to keep or eliminate slavery, so what were the early problems? Try reading this. I've learned quite a bit since this started.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=20107


Look up some of the stuff mentioned.
The people who were getting rich off of slavery , the beneficiaries of the tariff s, probably werent as much against slavery as they were upset that the states they were getting rick off of were about to declare themselves a separate country and start writing their own laws and working out trade agreements from the streng position of
Source of supplies/raw materials
That the industrialists
Needed...  
How nice of a cover is that? Omission of important information,insulating legislative misbehavior, governmental bullying, blame it ALL on slavery....
Yep, I've learned a lot in the last two days...