could you explain it? thanks a ton

[Schine]

In the nineteenth century, the non-Garrisonian majority of abolitionists and the majority of suffragists strove to convince others that the political changes they advocated were not radical, that far from undermining the accepted distribution of power they would eliminate deviations from the democratic principle it was based on. Non-garrisonian abolitionists repeatedly disavowed revolutionary intentions. As for the suffragists, despite the presence in the movement of some socialists, and eventually of some Black, immigrant and working women, the movement racial prejudice and nativism were not an aberration and did not conflict with the movement limited goal of suffrage. But far from saying as presentist historians do, that white abolitionists and suffragists deliberately compromised principles of equality and the equal right of all to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, suggest the opposite: the majority of abolitionists and the majority of suffragists showed what those principles meant in their respective farthest acceptable boundaries around them.