Although those amendments may have "changed" the status of slavery. voting by far was the least of all the factors that changed slavery. If not for social pressure the 13th 14th and 15th amendment would have not been in place. And even after passing these amendments many states did not recognize thier existence. Thus further social action had to be implemented at the grassroots level.



I would argue that it is naive to assume that is was solely the white man who freed the slave through voting. The black slaves took their own initiative and if these amendments would have not been in place despite having fought in the civil war and having been told that they would be freed from bondage, you would have seen another uprising--a black revolution.

The civil rights movement is a demonstration of this. The laws despite these fore mentioned amendments did not truly free the slaves, because although they were free from physical slavery they were not free from economic slavery (similar to sweatshops of today). Also, segregation and other racist laws continued to exists. During the civil rights movement time, (which was not brought upon through voting) the politicans knew legislation or not, the opressed were going to have thier way. You cannot truly argue that voting was responsible for their liberation. Although people of color are still not entirely equal the gains in leaps acheived was through grassroots movements not through superficial voting. Voting merely made concrete the inevitable.

This is the same issue with women suffrage, women were not allowed to vote, how could they have gone from a non voting status to voting status. It seems that your argument would imply that it was through the men's voting that push forth the law that allowed women to vote. This would assume that the men were benevolent and "permitted" the women to vote. Yes in the least sense and most trivial it did, but if not from the strong women's movement these white men would have not felt the pressure to bring about such legislation. And if women were denied the right to vote, then you would have seen another civil action or possibly a womens revolution.

Now vote if you want, that is your problem, but peoples movement is not a "trendy thing." The only reason i would vote is for a political statement in the honor of people that won out certain rights in the several peoples movement.



But is it going to create social change? No, nothing major.

This post simply does nothing to respond to mine.

The author writes: "I would argue that it is naive to assume that is was solely the white man who freed the slave through voting." But of course I never said this. I said that voting was part of the process. I never claimed it was the wellspring. I said the exact opposite--that social movements are where it all starts. But the voting booth was required in the way the to finish.

This simple observation is so irrefutably true, it's no wonder the author feels the need to put a completely different argument into my mouth.

Another straw man argument is implicit in the statement, "Now vote if you want, that is your problem, but peoples movement is not a 'trendy thing.'"

I never said that movements were a "trendy thing." I said that people who *pose* as radicals are the ones trying to be trendy, "more radical than thou." A true radical wouldn't put appearance over substance. That was my argument. I'm not dissing movements, buster. I'm dissing *YOU!*

Countless people's heroes have risked their lives to gain the right to vote, and you treat them with utter contempt without even realizing it. How "radical" is that? Not one bit! It's just a trendy pose, that's all.

"But without voting for social change it's possible that slavery would still endure to this day. Without voting for social change it's certain that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments would never have been passed." is one of your arguments in your original post, in contrary i argue that slavery would not exist today voting or not, the political forces of the slaves and other movements would have forced the system to either legistalate accordingly to their wishes or invoked a revolution. voting is a minor. it is not "required to finish." it is not an end nor a means to an end, it is merely a venue and or a tool usually used by the status quo to further thier causes.

i did not put a complete argument in your mouth, if you read it carefully it says that for the "women or the slaves, they were not able to vote, how can voting have been the requirement to finish?" It is true that the votes did not occur entirely on their own, but like i said the white males in power would not have voted for suffrage or abolishment if not from the pressure from the social movemet. The status quo is not easily moved, for them to have been moved to "vote" or legislate suffrage or abolition, would have meant that strong pressures from the left existed. Had they not have voted or legislated despite having a strong left presence a revolution may have taken place.

This was a very educational and interesting discussion and there is no black or white answers, only discussions of ideas, "dissing" me does not change that. Radical is a term people cannot place upon themselves it is a what the status quo call the people trying to change things (for better or worse, left or right). But Ideally there should not be a"radical" point of view all ideas should be heard.