Perhaps you can provide what I was unable to?
I forgot you were a relative newcomer to these discussions. I have posted that information so many times before. It used to be easier, but googleboooks changed their way of showing excerpts.
I have been told by many people that you can find this information in the official records, but I like to use a source from 1860, which was before the war, and therefore could not be tainted by later propaganda or rewriting.
When you calculate the portion from the South against the total, it works out to 72%. (For 1859)
Yes, revenue was absolutely, & undeniably an issue, and was resolved by the Greenback fiat currency. But the confederates also introduced their fiat currency as well, before the Civil War had started.
So, revenue was an issue for both sides, not just the Union side.
Revenue was only an issue for the Southern side because the Northern side had used the Navy to cut off all trade with Europe, which was the primary source of the South's income in 1860.
The South was not trying to stop Northern trade, they were just trying to get the Northerners to stop taking money away from them. The South would have had plenty of money had the North just left them alone.
So, it would be easy to promote the narrative, true of false, that Lincoln was concerned about the revenue, wouldn't it?
It isn't a narrative, it is the actual conditions that existed for Lincoln. The South leaving cut his potential revenue greatly because *THEY* were producing most of the revenue the Federal government had previously received.
So, if Lincoln did raise the revenue issue, could it have not been to make Col. John B. Baldwin think about the same issue in respect that the southern states also faced revenue issues that impacted citizens of both sides?
The Southern states faced no revenue problem until Lincoln used warships to *CREATE* a revenue problem for them. Their leaving the Union would have resulted in about 100 million extra dollars being dumped into the Southern economy, because that is approximately how much the North was sucking out of them by the economic controls imposed by Washington DC. (Thanks to a Northern majority control of Congress.)
What do you suppose an extra hundred million dollars dumped into their economy would have done for them economically?
So, is the topic all based in one direction incorrectly, or purposely, because the desired result was to paint that it was an issue for the Union only?
I think when you are apprised of more information that you do not currently know, you will began to understand that money was a problem *ONLY* for the Union, and it is in fact the primary reason why the North had to have a war with the South.
The South's trade with Europe would have kept them rolling in money, but that money would have come out of the amount that had been previously going to the powerful people in the North.
And the powerful men of the North were not going to allow that to happen.