It's the mirror image of Whig history; history has two sides, the sides mirror current political conflict, & everyone fits in nicely
the slaves. He probably knew that would never happen in large numbers, despite some favorable statements
-
-
and of course I reserve plenty of blame for slave owners who made the tremendous mistake of bringing slaves here and allowing
-
their numbers to increase. (I don't blame them for progressivism, but for their role in Brazilification)
-
also I think most abolitionists really wanted the slaves to be free within the US and for them to simply become integrated
-
most abolitionists were a bit naive about human nature and the compatibility of whites and Africans.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I don't want to say "UR WRONG" but I encourage you to scrutinize this as an example of how prog thought whitewashes history.
-
Who was going to pay for it? It would have been quite a large effort. No way that was going to happen with abolitionists
-
in control
-
The abolitionists funded Liberia. Idk why it couldn't have been scaled up. I actually don't know the history of Liberia well.
-
Not many actually went there, and I assume it was purely voluntary. Most anti-slavery people would have
-
strongly opposed rounding up all the blacks by force and shipping them out
-
I doubt it would have been any more violent than rounding them up to listen to speeches outside the Union League Club
-
I think you're underestimating the necessary political will & difficulty of forcibly moving large populations
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
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.