Or could it have been because Lincoln knew he did not have the authority to interfere with it, or sufficient support to change the Constitution to give him that authority? But accepting it where is was is a far cry from tolerating its expansion into the territories, and in that Lincoln was completely opposed.
When the Southern Confederacy was formed, not only was the revenue stream of the US Treasury broken, but the government would need to borrow.
I would disagree that the revenue stream was broken. Reduced, certainly, by as little as 5% in best case scenario, or as much as 25% in the worst case. But the majority of the tariff income would still be flowing into the government coffers. And the government had borrowed in the past.
This was certainly a dark day in the Capitol, when the Federal Government, which had earned the honor of being the only nation that had ever paid its debts in full—principal and interest—and which in 1856, with an overflowing treasury, had paid twenty-two per cent premium for its own stock, was now reduced to give twelve per cent interest, for a few millions, and to engage to protect its credit with the money.
Rather an overstatement.
Pure speculation and a total misrepresentation of the commentary. You are commenting on a point that was not being made, i.e. you are using red herrings.
The point of the sentence was that the ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. That was an appeal to the financial issues facing Southern states, not the issue of slavery in and of itself.
Do you have data that supports this conclusion?
You said: “Rather an overstatement”
But you do not deny it, now do you? Mischaracterization does not refute the point.