1. This whole argument illustrates why dunking on the hapless @DineshDSouza - who never says anything, even when he's generally in the right, without including an easily-checked falsehood - loses the forest for the trees.
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1136990695892426752 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
2. No serious historian disputes that, broadly speaking, in 1860 the Democrats were the pro-slavery party, or that the Republicans were the anti-slavery party. (Both parties were internally divided on many slavery-related issues). D'Souza being wrong (again!) doesn't change that.
4 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @mummesota @DineshDSouza
Not entirely true. The Whigs collapsed & were replaced by a literally nameless opposition coalition. The Republican Party was a new organization out of the ashes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Yes. That part is absolutely true. The Whigs included the anti-slavery faction, but were never a naturally anti-slavery party. The new Republican party made it central.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.