'Abraham Lincoln: Wrong on Slavery, Wrong for Us.'
What if today's campaign tactics were applied to the election of 1860?
Crazed by this Presidential race, ad bloggers Make the Logo Bigger and Jetpacks ponder this question. Here's the fruit of their labours, "paid for by Friends of Douglas."
Contemporary context gave history both personality and a face. We laughed, we cried, we wondered -- ever so briefly -- what could have been.
Indentured servitude for me? Plantation micro-management for Steve? (Well, I guess one could argue that slavery was on its way out, even without that wee shove we dubbed the Reconstruction.) Propaganda aside, just how big of a deal is an election, anyway?
Comments
Maybe that's how Lincoln won.
All that money went to The Friends of Douglas representing the Northern Democrats while Lincoln's other opponent for the Presidency was John Breckinridge for the Southern Democrats so the fool Democrats could split themselves even further than they were about to split the country.
So Lincoln could win with less than 40% of the vote.
Given that Lincoln was not then in favor of freeing slaves, he might have had fact check dot org point out the discrepancy.
Hey, wait a minute. I don't micro manage! ;)
Steve -- I'm sured you would've made a charming slave owner.
Tom -- LOL at factcheck-dot-com.