• Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It was built on racism. People who voted and acted for segregation still hold positions of power, there was no need to take anything over because they’ve always been there.

      Don’t call it a comeback 🎤

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        7 months ago

        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?

            • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                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.

                • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.