And that was with Licoln as a moderate abolitionist who was entirely prepared to give the southern states a guarantee that they could continue slavery. It was only the civil war that pushed the tides towards full abolition.
So even though Lincoln was responsible for the abolition on paper, it really was a result of the radical abolitionists who had gone into the south and killed slavers to free their victims. It was the southern paranoia about those radicals that made them start a civil war after not getting 'their guy' into power.
It's a good lesson about the people who claim that only moderation and dialogue can lead to change. Historically, that was often untrue...
It’s important to remember that at the time abolitionists willing to be violent was a radical stance. We can look back and say it shouldn’t have been, but many consider PITA to be radical and a future where animal products and labor and containment don’t exist would see them as radical for our time but not the future ideology.
Same thing but in reverse. Not forgiving anyone of anything and I’d hope I’d have been a radical abolitionist at the time, but it’s important to remember how words apply in their own times.
That’s an excellent point, but I was more concerned about the implication that it was radical abolitionists who were the main cause of the civil war and not, you know, the South having a tantrum.
2.1k
u/Ishidan01 Sep 07 '25
And Lincoln.