There was a difference between being "anti-slavery" and being an Abolitionist. Being anti-slavery was noble but of itself didn't necessarily help one slave. Being an Abolitionist meant you'd crossed the line from "I'm against it" to "Not on my watch!" And that's where we are now.

Jun 5, 2020 · 9:26 PM UTC

34
487
22
2,281
Load newest
Replying to @marwilliamson
Perhaps the shift from thought and word - to deed?
Replying to @marwilliamson
9/10 sugar sacks were "free men" produced -- it was consumer choice and tech progress that made slave labor unlucrative. To analogize this, both a decrease in violent crime (is happening) & the *publics* willingness to solve things before escalating to police will bring reform
Replying to @marwilliamson
You need your own show ma'am
Replying to @marwilliamson
And if you were Irish and a new immigrant it meant going to war
Replying to @marwilliamson
almost no one was an abolitionist. the vast majority of the North wanted blacks gone from the USA altogether
Replying to @marwilliamson
It's scary how I hear you saying this in my head, the way you say "abolishONist"
Replying to @marwilliamson @Kayrosis
Thank You Marianne for explaining the distinction! Abolitionists is where we are at.
Replying to @marwilliamson
@MaxParthas 👁️
Replying to @marwilliamson
William Wilberforce of England fought for years s such.
Replying to @marwilliamson
You are so beyond on point. Why do you understand civil war era history’s so perfectly
Load more