I’m confused. I don’t see anything about tariffs being the reason for secession and I’ve been told many times on this forum that tariffs are the real reason, not slavery or negro equality.
Tariffs were a long time irritant for the South. They were not the reason the South seceded. They were, however, the reason Lincoln provoked the war by sending a fleet to Fort Sumter. Without the South, the US would have much less tariff income, and the US government was already hurting for money.
In March 1861 Lincoln had told the Senate in response to their proforma question to him at the end of their session, that he didn't have anything important to tell them, so that they could close their session, which they did as usual, sine die. Sine die meant the Congress couldn't reconvene themselves until December, unless Lincoln called them into session before then (he did reconvene them about two and a half months after Fort Sumter). He used those two and a half months to get the war started, so that Congress would not have the gumption to stop the war when they reconvened. Congress reconvened on Lincoln's day of choice, July 4th. Congress passed resolutions saying the war was to preserve the Union.
The same day in March that Lincoln told the Senate that he had nothing important to tell them, he secretly asked that a plan be developed for sending a fleet to Fort Sumter. This was basically the same plan that a majority of his cabinet and military men had told him earlier would start a shooting war.
Remember that in Lincoln's 1861 inaugural speech, he basically said to the South, you can keep your slaves, but I want your tariff income. After Fort Sumter was lost, Lincoln told a group from the Baltimore YMCA who had come to Washington to urge him to seek peace, "And what is to become of the revenue? I shall have no government -- no resources."
I have a printed copy of the Baltimore Sun article where Lincoln was reported to have said that. I would post a copy of it, but my version was given to me by the University of Texas library, and on the copy they made for me it says "copyrighted" in very fine print. The words of the article themselves are no longer under copyright, but the image of that newspaper on the microfilm roll it was contained on and printed from is copyrighted.
I got around the copyright by posting links to the Baltimore Sun article printed in other publicly available 1861 newspapers. Those papers are available to the public in the Library of Congress's Chronicling America collection of old newspapers. Here is a link to copies of a few of those newspapers that reprinted the Sun article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3443027/posts?page=328#328