Nooooo… once again: Lincoln never said "rebellion" until there was rebellion.
And Lincoln never "invaded" until long after Confederates declared and began waging war against the United States.
DiogenesLamp 'quoting' Lincoln: "What shall I do for a revenue?"
A fake quote with no provenance at best taken out of context and merely expressing the basic idea that government, like everybody else, must concern itself with its income.
The fact is Lincoln's government found plenty enough revenues to wage & win the Civil War, and his concern for such matters is entirely appropriate.
When states exercise their power to leave and reassume their sovereignty, it isn't "rebellion." Again, Salmon P. Chase. "Secession isn't Rebellion."
And Lincoln never "invaded" until long after Confederates declared and began waging war against the United States.
Anderson invaded Sumter in December of 1860. The property ceased to be that of the US government when South Carolina voted to secede. Lincoln also sent a force of riflemen to strengthen his garrison in April of 1861.
A fake quote with no provenance at best taken out of context and merely expressing the basic idea that government, like everybody else, must concern itself with its income.
I have actually found what I regarded as a pretty good source for that. Of course I have forgotten where I put it, but I may run across it again.
But the point here is that the vast bulk of the Federal "income" was the consequence of the Southern trade routed through New York. If the South left and established it's own trade while cutting out New York, Washington would be revenue decimated.
The fact is Lincoln's government found plenty enough revenues to wage & win the Civil War, and his concern for such matters is entirely appropriate.
Bonds, Wealthy industrialists, Forced monopoly on trade, inflation, and all sorts of borrowing.
Without the blockade of ships preventing the South from trading with Europe, the North would have been economically devastated.