[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "4/23/1861 According to an article in the Baltimore Sun of 23 on this date, Mr. Lincoln revealed his opposition to peace... headed by Dr. Fuller, and eloquent clergyman of the Baptist church..."

Your version of those events is apocryphal & mythological.
Here's what really happened:

"According to Dr. Fuller, 'We were at once and cordially received.
I marked the President closely.
Constitutionally genial and jovial, he is wholly inaccessible to Christian appeals — & his egotism will forever prevent him comprehending what patriotism means.'

President Lincoln pressed the delegation for their recommendations.
Dr. Fuller told the President he should 'let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independence of the Southern States.
I say nothing of Secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a government of their own, that they will never be united again with the North, and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may be averted.'19

Alexander K. McClure wrote: 'President Lincoln replied, laughingly: "If I grant this concession, you will be back tomorrow asking that no troops be marched ‘around’ it.”
The President was right.
That afternoon, and again on Sunday and Monday, committees sought him, protesting that Maryland soil should not be ‘polluted’ by the feet of soldiers marching against the South.
The President had but one reply:

"We must have troops, and as they can neither crawl under Maryland nor fly over it, they must come across it.’”20

As reported by the Baltimore Sun: 'Dr. Fuller expressed very earnestly the hope that no more troops would be ordered over the soil of his State.
He remarked that Maryland had shed her blood freely in the War of Independence, that she was the first to move the adoption of the constitution, and had only yielded her clinging attachment to the Union when the blood of her citizens had been shed by strangers on their way to a conflict with her sisters of the South.'21

President Lincoln did not back down on his need for troops and the need for them to transit through Baltimore.
'I’ll tell you a story,' President Lincoln said. 'You have heard of the Irishman who, when a fellow was cutting his throat with a dull razor, complained that he haggled it.
Now if I can’t have troops direct through Maryland, and must have them all the way round by water, or marched across out-of-the way territory, I shall be haggled.'22

The President told the Baltimore delegation:

'You, gentlemen, come here to me and ask for peace on any terms, and yet have no word of condemnation for those who are making war on us.
You express great horror of bloodshed, and yet would not lay a straw in the way of those who are organizing in Virginia and elsewhere to capture this city.
The rebels attack Fort Sumter, and your citizens attack troops sent to the defense of the Government, and the lives and property in Washington, and yet you would have me break my oath and surrender the Government without a blow.
There is no Washington in that — no Jackson in that — no manhood nor honor in that.
I have no desire to invade the South; but I must have troops to defend this Capital.
Geographically it lies surrounded by the soil of Maryland; and mathematically the necessity exists that they should come over her territory.
Our men are not moles, and can’t dig under the earth; they are not birds, and can’t fly through the air.
There is no way but to march across, and that they must do.
But in doing this there is no need of collision.
Keep your rowdies in Baltimore, and there will be no bloodshed.
Go home and tell your people that if they will not attack us, we will not attack them; but if they do attack us, we will return it, and that severely.' 23"

Source 19 = David Rankin Barbee, Lincoln, Chase, and the Rev. Dr. Richard Fuller, (Letter from Richard Fuller to Salmon P. Chase, April 23, 1861, Maryland Historical Magazine, June 1951, p. 109.

Source 20 = Alexander K. McClure, Lincoln’s Own Yarns and Stories, p. 87.

Source 21 & 22 = David Rankin Barbee, “Lincoln, Chase, and the Rev. Dr. Richard Fuller,” Maryland Historical Magazine , June 1951, p. 109 (Baltimore Sun, April 23, 1861).

Source 23 = 23.CWAL, Volume IV, p. 342. (Reply to Baltimore Committee, April 22, 1861).

This is why the story alleging Lincoln's response expressed concerns over Federal revenues is not accepted as genuine by historians.

[PeaRidge]

Your "Here's what really happened" is a school lesson plan concerning Lincoln's involvement in quelling citizen unrest in Baltimore.

The section concerning his tariff comments was left out of the lesson, and by virtue of that makes it an unreliable source. You tried to dress it up with lots of quotes and trimming, but you failed to present a reliable source for the forum.

Here is the exact quote from a contemporary source here.

In case you do not want to search for it, the source is Robert Reid Howison, "History of the War", excerpted in Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. 34, Issue 8, August 1862, Richmond, VA., pp. 420-421.

It appears that the person or persons that compiled the lesson plan you referenced actually used that source as theirs, while leaving out the Lincoln tariff quote.

The word for word quote from Lincoln re: Revenues (meeting with Dr. Fuller) is also substantiated by Benson Lossing, in his "Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War: Journeys Through the Battlefields in the Wake of Conflict", Johns Hopkins Univ Press (Reprint edition), 1997, Vol. 1, p. 420 (reprinted 1997)

These two historical resources, plus the aforementioned newspaper accounts puts the lie to your comment: "This is why the story alleging Lincoln's response expressed concerns over Federal revenues is not accepted as genuine by historians."

SUPPORTING SOURCES:
[ONE]

"The picturesque hills of New England were dotted with costly mansions, erected with money, of which the Southern planters had been despoiled, by means of the tariffs of which Mr. Benton spoke. Her harbors frowned with fortifications, constructed by the same means. Every cove and inlet had its lighthouse, for the benefit of New England shipping, three fourths of the expense of erecting which had been paid by the South, and even the cod, and mackerel fisheries of New England were bountied, on the bald pretext, that they were nurseries for manning the navy. The South resisted this wholesale robbery, to the best of her ability. Some few of the more generous of the Northern representatives in Congress came to her aid, but still she was overborne; and the curious reader, who will take the pains to consult the "Statutes at Large," of the American Congress, will find on an average,a tariff for every five years recorded on their pages; the cormorants increasing in rapacity, the more they devoured. No wonder that Mr. Lincoln when asked, "why not let the South go?" replied, "Let the South go! where then shall we get our revenue?"

Admiral Raphael Semmes, "Memoirs of Service Afloat, During the War Between The States", Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Co., 1869, p. 59.

[TWO]

When asked, as President of the United States, "why not let the South go?" his simple, direct, and honest answer revealed one secret of the wise policy of the Washington Cabinet. "Let the South go!" said he, "where, then, shall we get our revenue?"

Albert Taylor Bledsoe, "Is Davis a traitor; or, Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861?", Baltimore: Innes & Company, 1866, pp. 143-144.


[THREE]

"But," said Mr. Lincoln, "what am I to do?" "Why, sir, let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the Independence of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a government of their own; that they will never be united again with the North, and and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may be averted."

"And what is to become of the revenue?" was the reply. "I shall have no government - no revenues."

Evert A. Duyckinck, National History of the War For the Union, Civil, Military and Naval. Founded on official and other authentic documents, New York: Johnson Fry & Co., 1861, Vol. I, p. 173.

[FOUR]

In 1861, if the erring sisters had been allowed to go in peace, was not the disturbing question of the hour: Whence is to come national revenue? Had not this very consideration much to do with the policy of coercion?

"Thus," said Mr. Lincoln, "if we allow the Southern States to depart from the Union, where shall we get the money with which to carry on the Government?"

James Battle Avirett, The Old Plantation: How We Lived in Great House and Cabin Before the War, New York: F. Tennyson Neely Co., 1901, p. 18.

[FIVE]

It seems obvious that Lincoln's concern over secession, "What then will become of my tariff?" was a serious matter.

When in the Course of Human Events, Charles Adams, 2000, p. 27.

Footnoted to: Robert L. Dabny, Memoir of a Narrative Received of Colonel John B. Baldwin, in Secular (1897; reprint, Harrisburg, VA.: Sprinkle, 1994), 94, 100.

Reported in the Baltimore Sun 23 Apr 1861 edition.


credit to 4CJ for research.