You are apparently laboring under the misconception that Abraham Lincoln was a New Yorker, rather than an Illinoian (or an Illinoisian or an Illinoisan). Why would he care about the particular interests of New York City businessmen?
If Lincoln were as cynical a politician as you think and if it were all about the money, why didn't he throw in with the slave states? His friend and fellow Whig Alexander Stephens did so with a vengeance. If they would have all the money and the power it would seem like a logical move for an opportunist.
It was therefore in New York's best interest to hype the horrors of slavery so as to manipulate people into siding with their coalition.
More fantasy. Why would it be in the best interests of New York businessmen to antagonize the South if they were making so much money off it? Why would New York businessmen who lived or died from trade favor high tariffs? Then, as now, New York businessmen were flexible and capable of working with whatever party was in power.
The one thing he absolutely would not tolerate is the possibility of it becoming the majority power, and able to stop the money stream going into New York.
That is also foolish. Southern or Southern-oriented Democrats controlled the government for most of the period 1800-1860. They didn't do anything to keep New York from being the nation's largest port and financial center. Nor were they likely to do so since New York's well-being did not disadvantage them.
Overheated rhetoric aside, there were sound geographic and economic reasons why New York predominated. Your constant demands of moving trade away from New York look like the "crony capitalism" that you claim to oppose.
And seriously, it's hard to know just what you are talking about. What was going on in the 1840s and 1850s was very different from what people wanted or expected or feared in 1860, yet you talk as if attitudes and interests and realities were the same throughout.
All the overheated rhetoric about evil New York was a result of the animosities aroused by slavery. New York and the Cotton states had gotten along well enough before that.
P.S. What gets lost in all the talk about the tariff is that the country was running a deficit after 1857. Not a large deficit by today's standards (or even by Civil War standards), but large enough to cause concern. There was going to be an upwards revision of the tariff in order to reduce the deficit, and there was less argument about that than some people today realize.
I use "New York" as a synechdoche to describe the larger influence cartel that took control of Washington DC for the purpose of passing legislation that favored the continuation of money flowing through the hands of this Cartel. (Same cartel that is running Washington DC today.)
If Lincoln were as cynical a politician as you think and if it were all about the money, why didn't he throw in with the slave states? His friend and fellow Whig Alexander Stephens did so with a vengeance. If they would have all the money and the power it would seem like a logical move for an opportunist.
The slave states were the cash cow for the cartel. They didn't have a majority, and so they no longer controlled the money flow of Washington DC. Why would he throw in with the lesser power? I dare say Lincoln was smarter than Alexander Stephens.