This must be the holy grail of lost causerdom. Notice that they all point to the same source(s) (sources that point to one another in a circular-logic pseudo self-affirming style) but cannot provide one first (or even second) hand reference. Notice also that the alleged quote varies from assertion to assertion.
Baldwin fought for the Confederacy and came up with his account after the war had ended.
On another forum, it was mentioned that Lincoln briefed his secretaries after the meeting about what had been discussed.
I don't know if that's true, but if anybody's enterprising it would be a nice project.
It's also pointed out that this is "hearsay" evidence of the sort that courts dismiss out of hand.
And yes, the "quote" is related in different versions.
In Dabney's version of Baldwin's account it comes across as a non-sequitur -- Lincoln won't give up Sumter (as Baldwin lectures him about doing) because it would mean the loss of revenue.
But really, how much revenue was anyone going to be able to collect from one fort in a hostile part of the country?
x:
"But really, how much revenue was anyone going to be able to collect from one fort in a hostile part of the country?" We have debated this at great length, clearing up, I think, much confusion.
Our pro-Confederates claim that virtually all Federal revenues came from the export of Southern cotton & tobacco, and that's why Fort Sumter was so important.
Of course, it's nonsense.
Federal tariffs were never collected on exports but only imports, and in early 1861 95% of those came through non-Confederate ports.
Indeed, of the 5% of Federal revenues from Deep South ports, 80% of that number was one port: New Orleans.
Federal import revenues from Charleston, South Carolina, home of Fort Sumter, amounted to one-half of one percent of the total:
Of course, US export earnings necessary to pay for its imports did come largely from slave-grown cash crops -- roughly 58% in total.
However during the course of Civil War and afterwards those exports turned out to be non-essential to both the Union economy and that of our European trading partners.