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