Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has pardoned a white ex-Army sergeant convicted of murder for fatally shooting an armed demonstrator in 2020 during nationwide protests against racial injustice.
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.
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.