That's a Democrat paper in a manufacturing town. It's what mattered to them. What mattered to the Northern states in general was the union and the nation. But the Union Democrat isn't saying anything about what mattered to the South. They didn't say that tariffs or Northern profits were what motivated to the rebel states.
You make the same mistake as BroJoeK in assuming Northern Democrats were somehow not Northerners....or did not represent Northern interests.
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.
White men who lead both regions can sit down and bargain when it comes to Blacks.
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.
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.