Have you read rockrr's comments?
You didn't start in with the "financial interests" but with an attack on Lincoln for wanting a war. And you don't look at either the mercenary or the war-mongering aspects of the secessionist movement. How about focusing on those for a while?
The "financial interests" and "wanting a war" are completely intertwined. Lincoln absolutely needed that war. To not have a war meant that the bulk of European trade would eventually skip New York and establish a beach head in the south. It meant that cheaper European goods would directly compete with Northern manufactured goods, but without the benefit of a protectionist trade policy.
Without a war, the economics of the North were in serious trouble, not to mention the possibility of states in the Midwest eventually being brought into the economic orbit of the Confederacy instead of continuing on with the established trade through New York and Chicago.
This would eventually result in their being brought into the political orbit as well, and states which in our timeline became part of the Union would have ended up being part of the confederacy; A defacto loss of territory and ability for the Union to expand Westward.
Also you haven't really addressed the "financial interests" involved in California secession. No, it's a cheap shot at Lincoln and then, eventually, on to the regurgitated stuff about the tariff.
You guys keep bringing up the Tariff. I keep pointing out the loss of European trade to New York which would have occurred had there been no war. I keep pointing out the economic competition that would have occurred had there been no war. I point out that the focus of trade on this continent would have shifted from New York down to Southern ports such as Charleston and New Orleans.
The people who had the most to lose from not having a war were the economic interests of the North East.
...said the broken record.
Case in point: nobody mentioned the tariff on this thread until you did. Four times. Then you backtrack and say it's not about the tariff for you. But for you, it's certainly not about California secession, the original subject of the thread.
I keep pointing out the economic competition that would have occurred had there been no war. I point out that the focus of trade on this continent would have shifted from New York down to Southern ports such as Charleston and New Orleans.
That's nonsense. No war, no immediate change in trade patterns. Therefore, no economic need for war. Eventually, there might be more significant changes in trade patterns, but New Yorkers were savvy enough and competent enough not to be destroyed by changing economic trends.
You seem to think trade is a zero-sum game, the equivalent of war. Southern independence means the rise of New Orleans and the ruin of New York. But that wouldn't necessarily have been the case. That's just you, and you're projecting your own aggressive tendencies on the rest of the world.
This would eventually result in their being brought into the political orbit as well, and states which in our timeline became part of the Union would have ended up being part of the confederacy; A defacto loss of territory and ability for the Union to expand Westward.
Why bother with this nuttiness? Cotton wasn't going to remain king forever. New areas were coming into production: Egypt, India, Mexico, Brazil, China, Central Asia, Africa. Eventually, Southerners would have to make a choice between freeing the slaves to please their European customers and continuing to hold millions of people in slavery to keep their costs down. And if they freed the slaves what would they do with the newly freed people? Really, a mess was building in the South and it's hard to see why the Middle West would want to join up with that.
People underestimate the ties between the Northern states. They did that in the 1860s, in the 1890s, and they do it today. The country might have broken up further in the 1860s and it still might break up, but Ohio wasn't going to join South Carolina then any more than Idaho would stay in one country with Mississippi. They're just too different.
You think that rich and powerful people are oppressing you and they need to be overthrown and that those who overthrow them will become in turn rich and powerful and universally loved. Well, just overthrowing somebody else doesn't make people rich. That takes work and effort and know-how and persistence.
And if you do succeed in replacing the others and becoming rich yourself, why wouldn't people like you hate the people you've become just as much as they hated the people you replaced? In other words, you dream of overthrowing New York and making New Orleans or Charleston the new New York and you actually think they won't be resented as much as you resent New York. Quite a dream that.
Really, it's all there -- economic determinism, resentment, exploitation, class struggle, revolution, utopia. Why do you get so bent out of shape when people point out how much of a Marxist you are, Diogenes?