I’m really enjoying how @kcarterjackson describes the tensions between Black and White abolitionists during slavery, especially because I think it informs the struggle today.

There was compromise in the 1830s. Today, what exactly is it that Dems offer folks seeking to defund?

In terms of coalition building, what is it that national Democrats offer to Black activists who use the slogan “defund the police”?

I don’t see where national Democrats are urging urban Democrats to support freedom budgets at the municipal level so as to demonstrate solidarity.

Tactically speaking, why should modern abolitionists relent on their political stances without any tangible concessions?

My argument is that there are tangible concessions that could be put on the table if liberal Democrats were savvy and actually valued progressive allies.

If I were a liberal Democrat who valued Black Lives and wanted to maintain a coalition with progressives (for operational unity at the national level), I’d compel Democratic mayors to:

1) Adopt freedom budgets
2) Resource Black neighborhoods
3) Stop closing Black schools

With this approach, you could arrive at the same place with a slight shift in narrative.

But instead, we have national Democrats like @WhipClyburn who’s taken every opportunity to castigate erstwhile allies instead of actually working together to achieve operational unity.

Now of course, @kcarterjackson’s main thesis is that many Black abolitionists came to reject the pacifism of their White abolitionist allies because the moral suasion approach didn’t actually produce results (i.e. White slavemasters voluntarily abolishing slavery on their own).

Interestingly enough, pacifist/nonresistance White abolitionists (like William Lloyd Garrison) opposed Black abolitionists’ militant tactics and slave uprisings. This is echoed in today with pacifist/nonresistance Democrats who oppose Black abolitionist tactics & urban uprisings.