[DiogenesLamp]

Before he took office, New York was making plans to secede. When the Confederacy announced its much lower tariff rates, governors and businessmen clamored for war.

If I read the numbers correctly, it appears that independence for the South results in an immediate 237 million dollar loss per year for New England financial interests. Wasn't Lincoln supported heavily by rich New Yorkers in his bid to become President?

My recollection was that his New York speech is what convinced them to support him.

Is this that same "Wall Street" class that decries money in politics so long as it is someone's other than their own?

[PeaRidge]

11/26/1860 The New York Tribune wrote,

“If the cotton states unitedly and earnestly wish to withdraw peacefully from the Union, we think they should and would be allowed to do so. Any attempt to compel them by force to remain, would be contrary to the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence-contrary to the fundamental ideas on which human liberty is based”.

New York merchants agreed with this editorial. State census data had shown that annually that city merchants had sold merchandise to the five cotton states valued at $131,000,000, and that the total business with the five states was above $200,000,000 annually.

New York City did not welcome conflict for several reasons, including an indifference to slavery. Oddly enough, New York City was the headquarters of the abolitionist press, while also being a strong copperhead town at the same time. Two of the major anti-war Democrats in New York were Mayor Fernando Wood and a well-known painter, whose name adorns a world-famous code - Samuel F.B. Morse. Morse had formed the Society for the Diffusion of Political Knowledge and served as its president. He believed that fanatics would cause war, and he trumpeted the Peace Democrats’ anti-Administration line.

New York City’s business establishment, that annually underwrote Southern agriculture, had concern with accounts receivable. If conflict arose, New York City, America’s leading industrial powerhouse, would lose some of its most-important trading partners. Only New Orleans and Mobile shipped more cotton than New York, and the city manufactured much of the clothing worn down South. If war came, the South might just repudiate the millions of dollars that it owed to New York merchants.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "...independence for the South results in an immediate 237 million dollar loss per year for New England financial interests..."

Remember, there was no immediate shut-off of commerce or travel, or even mail, from South to North following declarations of secession.
So immediate losses would be relatively small.

The bigger picture:

1. For comparison, today's US cotton crop is circa 17 million bales worth about $2 billion dollars.

2. In 1860 the Deep South produced a record cotton crop of nearly 5 million raw bales whose export value was $192 million.
   The vast majority of that cotton went directly to European buyers, but a small portion also went to US manufacturers in New England.
   The value of US manufactured cotton products in 1860 was $11 million.

3. Total US exports in 1860 were $357 million (including specie, see page 605), making raw cotton 54% of it.
   Point is: while cotton was certainly important in 1860, it was not the be-all or end-all of the US economy.

DiogenesLamp: "Wasn't Lincoln supported heavily by rich New Yorkers in his bid to become President?"

"Rich New Yorkers", then as now were often Republicans.
But just as they are today, many "rich New Yorkers" had deep business ties in the South, and so supported their Democrat economic allies.
And normally -- then as now -- Democrats ruled, with minority Republicans just yapping around their edges.

But in 1860 the ruling Democrats split in half, and so minority Republicans suddenly found themselves a majority in most Northern states.

DiogenesLamp: "My recollection was that his New York speech is what convinced them to support him."

Lincoln's Cooper's Union speech, in February 1860, was certainly influential in persuading many Republicans of Lincoln's bonafides, but at that time, Lincoln was not yet seriously considered as a Republican nominee for President.
Several other better known candidates were thought to be leading contenders, including Seward, Cameron, Chase & Bates.
But with none of those achieving a majority, the convention turned to a darker horse, Lincoln.

By the time of the May 1861 convention, Lincoln's star was indeed rising, but still Seward won the most votes on the first ballot, with Lincoln a distant second.
What put Lincoln ahead was not New York, but rather Pennsylvania flipping from its own favorite son, Cameron, to Lincoln on the second ballot.
On the third ballot other northern states switched to Lincoln, but New York remained loyal to Seward through the last ballot.

DiogenesLamp: "Is this that same 'Wall Street' class that decries money in politics so long as it is someone's other than their own?"

In 1860, then as now, Republicans did well in more rural up-state New York, and carried the state.
But, also then as now, Democrats carried New York City, and adjacent counties, by substantial margins.
Who did "Wall Street" support?
Well, cotton was the US number one export, and "Wall Street" would want nothing to upset their apple-carts.
So, as they had in 1856, they would want to support a compromise Democrat candidate (ala James Buchanan).
Such a candidate was not there in 1860, but regardless, Wall Street would not vote for a back-woods country lawyer from the boonies of Illinois, regardless of how erudite he may have sounded at Cooper Union in February 1860.