You persist in acting as though Northern Democrat papers would not have equally had Northern interests in mind as Northern Republican papers. The paper is not saying what matters to the South, that is correct. But they're making clear what matters to the North - which is money.
Lincoln echoed that thought as well.
So if one side doesn't really care about slavery and is perfectly willing to make whatever compromise over slavery, how can the other side be seceding over and later fighting over slavery? It wasn't threatened anyway.
x: Some actually didn't. Many Northern Democrats were closer to Southerners than to Northern Republicans when it came to slavery. Northern Democrats did not favor high tariffs, and they had their own donors who didn't want high tariffs either. NYC importers didn't want high tariffs.
Its crazy to think they would have been elected in the North if they did not represent Northern interests. They may have been closer to Southerners than to Republicans when it came to slavery but obviously the Republicans weren't very far off either since they did draft, introduce and in Lincoln's case endorse the Corwin Amendment. They too were quite prepared to offer up express protections of slavery. They too were only really interested in the money. You say they - ie Northern Democrats - did not want high tariffs. Buchanan was a Northern Democrat and he was only too happy to sign the Morrill Tariff. So clearly some Northern Democrats very much did want the Tariff.
x: Seriously? Do you know anything about history? The victors weren't going to "bargain" with the losers about the fate of the freed slaves. Winners and losers had been killing each other only a year before, and the winners weren't in the mood to bargain. The losers had made clear that they didn't want to concede anything to the freedmen, not even real freedom. You demonstrate once again that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't worth arguing with.
They were prepared to provide express protections of slavery effectively forever in the US Constitution beforehand. After the war, they were prepared to make a deal to hand control over the Southern states back to White Southerners knowing it would mean the end of any push for civil rights for Blacks in order to get a Republican president. Clearly it is you who doesn't know anything about history. I accept your surrender in this discussion.
You don’t take time into account. What people are willing to support or concede varies with circumstances. Buchanan’s low 1857 tariff had caused fiscal problems, so it was accepted that the tariff would have to rise. Southerners did not noticeably object to that until after Lincoln’s coming victory sparked secessionist sentiments.
Lincoln and Congress were willing to offer concessions on slavery in 1861 to stop and reverse the secessionist wave. It didn’t work. They weren’t going to offer those same concessions later, or any concessions on slavery after 1863. In 1866, after four years of bloody civil war, Republican attitudes toward the freedmen were evolving, but they were in no mood to make the concessions on Black rights that white Southerners wanted.
In 1876, Republicans withdrew federal troops from the South to resolve a disputed election in their favor. By that point, they were disillusioned with the experiment of Reconstruction. By that point, too, the Democrats were stronger than they had been. Democrats already controlled the House. The Senate was split and on its way to Democrat control. Reconstruction wouldn’t have lasted in any case. Black voting rights weren’t automatically or immediately voided by the withdrawal of troops, and segregation wasn’t yet fully imposed, though. That was to come in the future, so the arrangement of 1876 wasn’t as much of a betrayal as it’s been made out to be.
Timing also mattered for Southerners as well. At various times, many Southerners in Congress supported navigation acts, fishing bounties, and higher tariffs. Sometimes it was part of a compromise, but some times they really thought such policies were necessary or would help build up the country. Among the Founding Fathers, there was a feeling that slavery was on its way out. There were even efforts to abolish slavery in Virginia as late as 1831. That wasn’t the case in 1860, and it certainly wasn’t the case in the Deep South. Compromises that might have reconciled North and South earlier weren’t going to bring the seceded states back in 1861.
Needless to say, race relations have also varied over the years, and weren’t the same in 19th century America as they are now. Slavery and racial questions were impossible to avoid in the Southern states in 1860, however easy it is for revisionists to ignore those questions now.