PeaRidge:
"Some Northerners admitted that their reasons for calling for war were not the result of differences in principles of constitutional law, but because their profits would be lost if the South was successful in becoming independent." But you've quoted none of them here, meaning your formulation of their concerns is more likely fantasy than fact.
PeaRidge: "This was Lincoln's ultimatum to the South: pay tribute to the North or failure to do so will be interpreted as a declaration of war, by the South, against the North."
Yes, that is certainly what pro-Confederate newspapers howled at the time, but in fact, Lincoln said nothing of the sort.
Indeed, pro-Confederates of the time called Lincoln's Inaugural itself a Declaration of War.
But in reality, Lincoln's words meant just what he said:
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.
The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."
That Confederates chose to take umbrage and see threats where only peace was offered, simply tells us they were eager for war, itching for the chance to prove their own manliness and courage, hoping to repeat the great Revolution lead by Washington against the Brits.
But not a single Confederate leader could hold a candle to George Washington, or the other Founders.
And so those fools rushed into war where wiser men would have looked for other routes.
PeaRidge quoting: "3/30/1861 New York Times editorial: "The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws..."
Surprisingly, the NY Times in 1861 was a generally conservative, Republican supporting paper.
But read carefully, and you'll note that, while expressing its economic concerns, the Times does not call for war as a means to redress them.
Neither would Lincoln, or his cabinet, be looking for a military solution, whatever the economic problems might be, until or unless the Confederacy launched war against the United States.
Which they soon did.
PeaRidge: "In an earlier editorial, the New York Times complained about loss of revenue because the tariffs were no longer being collected in the Southern states...
...Over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, as well as a similar group in Boston, informed the US collectors of customs they would not pay duties on imported goods unless those same duties were also collected at Southern ports.
This threat was likely the proximate cause of the beginning of the war.
It forced Lincoln and his administration to abandon the initial inclination to turn over Ft. Sumter to the Confederates."
Sorry, but first of all, there's no evidence that Lincoln himself was ever prepared to abandon Fort Sumter without getting something valuable in return, such as his offer of "a fort for a state" meaning Virginia.
Whatever Seward may have told Justice Campbell, who relayed it to Davis' commissioners, Lincoln never said he was going to abandon Sumter "for free".
And when Lincoln's offer to Virginia's secession convention was rejected, Lincoln simply returned to the original plan of former President Buchanan -- send ships with supplies and reinforcements, if they were required.
All the rest is just pro-Confederate fantasies invented out of whole cloth to justify starting a war they couldn't win.
Sorry, but first of all, there's no evidence that Lincoln himself was ever prepared to abandon Fort Sumter without getting something valuable in return, such as his offer of "a fort for a state" meaning Virginia. I'm sorry, but what does "Let's make a deal!" have to do with whether or not states have a legitimate right to leave?
If they have a right to do so, and Lincoln refuses to let them because he doesn't find the deal satisfying, then that is corrupt.
If they don't have a right to do so, and Lincoln makes a deal to let them go, then that is also corrupt.
How do you spin Lincoln's "Let's make a Deal!" behavior as anything but corrupt? Pick either outcome, and it still works out to Lincoln being corrupt.
He's either denying them rights they do have, or he is giving them rights they don't have.