-
Interesting to me how closely these debates over Wilentz’s op-ed retread Garrisonian debates, but usually w/o mentioning Garrisonians. +Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂
-
Maybe, after appearing to lose out to Lincoln & Douglass & antislavery constitutionalists, Garrison has won the debate in the long run. +Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +3 🙂
-
(If we define “winning,” of course, in terms of “number of people who agree with you”). +Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂
-
But what’s interesting is how invisible Garrisonians are even in the Wilentz pieces that essentially rehearse their arguments. For example +Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +2 🙂
-
.@petersagal channels Phillips and Garrison in his reply to Wilentz … but still closes with a Lincoln quote. + nytimes.com/2015/09/18/opinion/slaves-and-the-constitution.html?smid=tw-sharePermalink On twitter.com
Mood 0
-
And in @TheTattooedProf response @thejuntoblog, Phillips & Garrison aren’t named until the comments section earlyamericanists.com/2015/09/17/constitution-slavery-and-the-problem-of-agency/ +Permalink On twitter.com
Mood 0
-
At least in my Twitter feed, neo-Garrisonians on the Constitution are legion, yet w/o much explicit reference to Garrisonian legacy/args. +On twitter.com
Mood 0
-
Not sure what that means in terms of abolitionist memory, but it’s interesting. Of course, maybe I’m missing replies that do invoke WLG. -Permalink On twitter.com
Mood 0