• jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I’m not American, so I don’t really know that part of your history.

    Edit: he was assassinated for wanting to give black people citizenship is what I’m reading…?

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 minutes ago

      A primer on the American Civil War, as understood by a natural born citizen of the state of North Carolina and a graduate of said public state’s school system.

      The United States in the mid-1800s 1. did not yet span the entire width of the continent, this becomes important later and 2. could broadly be divided into two regions: the South, characterized by an agrarian economy featuring large plantations growing cash crops like cotton and tobacco via the labor of chattel slaves, and the North, with a more industrial economy that had abolished slave labor.

      In the North, you get a lot of the day’s moralistic movements as they existed at the time. You see a lot of the Christian sects like the shakers, the early roots of the temperance movement, and most relevantly, abolitionism. People who wanted to see slavery abolished at the federal level. This became a popular political cause in the North and you start seeing legislation proposed.

      Meanwhile in the South, slaves are where the money comes from, so obviously God says it’s the white man’s inalienable right to own black men.

      Turns out there was pretty equal representation in congress about it; about the same number of Northern to Southern states, so nothing got done. Except remember earlier I said we didn’t span the continent yet? Well that was a project under active development at the time. Territory was being purchased or conquered, and new territories were drafting constitutions and applying for statehood. And what if more pro-abolition states than anti-abolition states joined the union?

      We get a temporary pause with a compromise that states would be admitted in pairs, one free state in the North and one slave state in the South. You can still see the line they drew, the perfectly straight northern border of Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma. That’s why that’s like that. Notice it stops at Nevada. That’s about how far that went before war were declared.

      Southern states decided to secede from the union, forming their own nation called the Confederate States of America. The South raised an army to repel what they now saw as a foreign invasion, the North deployed their army to put down what they saw as a treasonous rebellion.

      During the conflict, the North passed increasingly abolitionist policy, culminating in the Emancipation Proclamation, an executive order signed by president Abraham Lincoln in 1863 which declared all slaves everywhere in the nation free, and the thirteenth amendment abolishing slavery except as punishment for a crime (this has present day ramifications) was ratified.

      On April 14, 1865, actor and confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln via gunshot to the back of the head while the President was enjoying a play at Ford’s theater. His motive, quoting directly from Wikipedia:

      On April 11, Booth attended Lincoln’s last speech, in which Lincoln promoted voting rights for emancipated slaves;[18] Booth said, “That means nigger citizenship. … That is the last speech he will ever give.”[19]

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      You are correct. The only other thing that Lincoln is criticized for is suspending habeas corpus during the US civil war. I don’t know what the person you’re commenting on is on about. They may be a confederate sympathizer.

      • Dengalicious@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        That’s the only other thing he was critiqued for? Brother, you must certainly have never opened a book before…

      • droplet6585@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        24 hours ago

        How do you read that from what I wrote?

        My point was: he attempted or was associated with an attempt to do something less then the worst thing he could. And he was shot for it.

        • jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Ah! I see now. When you said “it’s telling that while you can’t think of something cartoonishly evil he did off of the top of your head,” I thought you were saying I was ignorant for not being able to think of something cartoonishly evil. My bad, I’m just primed to read hostility on Lemmy I guess.

          • droplet6585@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            I understand.

            I can’t think of anything particularly bad he did, but someone will always have something to bring up. I wanted to sidestep that and just point out the reality of the office. There will never be a good American president- and it has little do to with the individuals involved.

            Edit: Wait, you aren’t who I was replying to.

    • Bldck@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      There’s a fascinating historical nonfiction book by Erik Larson that covers the early days of the American civil war.

      The Demon of Unrest: A Saga of Hubris, Heartbreak, and Heroism at the Dawn of the Civil War is mostly focused on the soldiers and officers manning Fort Sumter in South Carolina, the site of the first battle of the war. But it also includes lengthy discussions of how Lincoln was vilified for things he never said and blamed for things he didn’t actually do.

      The southern states, specifically the landed elite, were very interested in starting a war so they could maintain their wealth and power so they used Lincoln as a scapegoat to rouse the masses