Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has issued a full pardon to a former U.S. Army sergeant convicted of murder for fatally shooting an armed demonstrator in 2020 during nationwide protests against racial injustice.
Honestly, I wonder how much more damaging Booth’s assassination of Lincoln was than we had realized. Would Lincoln have treated the South more appropriately than Johnson did?
Likelier if traitors had been disqualified from holding offices of power. There was a movement behind him for the presidency. He had a chance. Instead, we got a line of some of the worst, yet most forgettable presidents, for decades.
Lincoln wanted to send the freed slaves back to Africa. He wasn’t as good of a guy as history class made him out to be.
You cannot simply apply modern ethics to the views and actions of people in the past like that. Nuance is required. Our thinking as a society changes over time, and our views as individuals are inherently constrained by what we experience and learn, and by the views of those around us.
For his time, Lincoln was progressive. He was an abolitionist who brought about the end of US chattel slavery.
Lincoln was a centrist. John Brown was a progressive. The radical wing of the Republican party wanted to give the freed slaves their own land so they could earn a living and let them vote, and there were enough of them in Congress that it nearly happened. Even in the context of the times Lincoln was kind of backwards. He was more concerned with placating the southern states than giving black people rights.
John Brown was an extremist. This isn’t to demonize him, he was obviously in the right to fight against slavery, but unfortunately systemic progress happens within the system. Extremists can help create the environment for that systemic change to happen, but they can also stymie it depending on their methods and the prevailing ideas of the time. John Brown’s contribution was important, but he was never going to be a reasonable candidate for national office.
Calling Lincoln a centrist because there existed a more radical wing of his party is nonsensical. That’s like saying 1 is not a positive number because 2 is further from 0. Not a single southern state supported him, to the point that his election triggered a war over slavery. He was very firmly an abolitionist, which was certainly a more popular position than it had been previously in American politics, but was far from centrist.
Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist. He said so himself. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”.
His priority was preventing (and, later, winning) the war to maintain the union. He didn’t seem to care about slaves at all.
He was right smack dab in the middle of the slavers and the abolitionists. He just wanted everyone to get along. He was a centrist.
Honestly, I wonder how much more damaging Booth’s assassination of Lincoln was than we had realized. Would Lincoln have treated the South more appropriately than Johnson did?
Not just that, but imagine Frederick Douglass as the first black president.
Was that…likely to have happened?
Likelier if traitors had been disqualified from holding offices of power. There was a movement behind him for the presidency. He had a chance. Instead, we got a line of some of the worst, yet most forgettable presidents, for decades.
Lincoln wanted to send the freed slaves back to Africa. He wasn’t as good of a guy as history class made him out to be.
You cannot simply apply modern ethics to the views and actions of people in the past like that. Nuance is required. Our thinking as a society changes over time, and our views as individuals are inherently constrained by what we experience and learn, and by the views of those around us.
For his time, Lincoln was progressive. He was an abolitionist who brought about the end of US chattel slavery.
Lincoln was a centrist. John Brown was a progressive. The radical wing of the Republican party wanted to give the freed slaves their own land so they could earn a living and let them vote, and there were enough of them in Congress that it nearly happened. Even in the context of the times Lincoln was kind of backwards. He was more concerned with placating the southern states than giving black people rights.
John Brown was an extremist. This isn’t to demonize him, he was obviously in the right to fight against slavery, but unfortunately systemic progress happens within the system. Extremists can help create the environment for that systemic change to happen, but they can also stymie it depending on their methods and the prevailing ideas of the time. John Brown’s contribution was important, but he was never going to be a reasonable candidate for national office.
Calling Lincoln a centrist because there existed a more radical wing of his party is nonsensical. That’s like saying 1 is not a positive number because 2 is further from 0. Not a single southern state supported him, to the point that his election triggered a war over slavery. He was very firmly an abolitionist, which was certainly a more popular position than it had been previously in American politics, but was far from centrist.
Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist. He said so himself. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”.
His priority was preventing (and, later, winning) the war to maintain the union. He didn’t seem to care about slaves at all.
He was right smack dab in the middle of the slavers and the abolitionists. He just wanted everyone to get along. He was a centrist.