Baldwin testified under oath that he did. And Botts testified that Lincoln himself told Botts in 1861, not 1866 after hearing Baldwin's testimony.
Did Lincoln make the commment, "And what is to become of the revenue? "I shall have no government, no resources!" to the YMCA delegation. I don't know.
If he didn't, I'm certain that either the man of the cloth to whom those comments were addressed, or the man they are attributed to would have demanded an aplogoy.
One of the more repellent things about today's neoconfederates is how they begin with the line that they are just trying to defend the honor of their ancestors, and end by making monsters out of those on the other side, taking the radical line that it was "all about" money or malevolence.
Slavery was constitutional. Secession was not unconstitutional. Lincoln caused the death of over 1 million needlessly. He refused to abide by decisons of the courts, or to be a statesman and negotiate peaceful terms.
Yet I'm told that my ancestors were traitors and deserved death????? My and other families somehow deserved to have their women raped and killed by "noble" yankees, our homes burned, our cherished possesions stolen, our lands seized, simply because we desired freedom?
Whether the Sun quote is true or false isn't established. Those who use the quote may not interested in verifying it. I simply point out that the paper was quite ill-disposed to Lincoln. And of course, in times of crisis presidents have far too many pressing things to deal with to write letters to every paper that maligns them. For one thing, it doesn't pay to give those who are hostile the attention. And their may be so many critics or attackers that the country's work would never get done.
In sending out Secession Commissioners and calling for a large army, Davis gave a clear signal to Northerners that he wanted to break up the Union and get as many pieces for his own government as he could. He couldn't claim to simply be an unconcerned and innocent bystander in the dissolution of the nation.
Your thinking precedes from the assumption that unilateral secession was constitutional. But this is precisely what was at issue. There were real differences of opinion on this issue, and where such differences of opinion exist, it's up to those who want to change things not to behave provocatively.
FWIW, my comments on age weren't addressed to you. Perhaps it wasn't the best way to put the issue either: after 911 even the youngest among us who lived through 911 ought to be able to remember the uncertainty and chaos and terror of the moment and better understand previous historical crises.