Re: Abolition is overemphasized by modern historians

"S Witmer" <witmergreen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:acc3b1b7-e186-41b5-8221-58458709e393@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Aug 27, 6:21 pm, "F~A~R~V~A: Morning \(The Death of Night\)"
> <flyhighfreeeb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

By 1860 the Dem party had divided unto 2 factions due to the huge amount
of 
hysteria being disseinated by the anti-slavery propagandists who were 
working to divide the country with what was really a marginal issue. Dems
in 
the north, who had never had any actual contact with negroes, but had
sucked 
up all of the divisive propaganda, broke from their party and formed an 
anti-slavery faction, providing an op****tunity for the new GOP to elect 
moderate abolitionist Lincoln. They could just as well have used the
womens 
sufferage issue.  Both northern and southern Democrats had a nominee for 
president in the 1860 election. Lincoln was elected by a smaller
percentage 
of the electorate than was Bill Clinton who received 43% compared to 
Lincoln's 39%.
In modern times, foolish & impressionable US voters are being manipulated 
into voting against the best interest of their nation with propaganda
about 
man-made global warming.
Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American

voter.