• Sailor Anarres@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    2 years ago

    “I…am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed, it might be done.”

    • John Brown.
    • callouscomic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yet our record bloodshed in the Civil War soon to come still wouldn’t be enough to completely remove it all. Sure slavery was abolished, but things were still horrible for so many reasons for the following 100 years, and somewhat still are today.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          That’s what happens when you kill it’s driving force and replace him with a sympathizer.

          • callouscomic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Let’s not pretend that Lincoln being there would have magically resolved it all. Let’s also not pretend he’d have cared to implement it to the level anyone might think.

            We mythologize him, but he was ultimately a politician making calculated decisions for his career. That’s why he wasted effort seeking more electoral votes by getting Nevada made into a state. That’s why he chose Johnson to ensure he’d have some favorability with the south.

            He did the right thing because it was politically convenient.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              It’s pretty much a light switch though. Lincoln put this program in place and Johnson turned it off as soon as he could. Lincoln may not have won the peace but he would have at least tried.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Lincoln wouldn’t have magically resolved everything, as Lincoln was still from the moderate wing of the Republican Party (even if he became more radical as the war wore on), but it’s hard to imagine a worse successor than Andrew Johnson, who wasn’t even part of the big tent antislavery party. Traitorous fuck, no better than the copperheads.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          i blame reconstruction in the first place, it was co-opted by the people who made this shit an issue in the first place

  • niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 years ago

    He stood there frozen for a few minutes, that’s how long the exposure time was before they discovered/invented materials that are more sensitive to light… and then of course, found ways to mass-produce them. Maybe he stood there five minutes?

    Gotta wonder how his day was going before tidying up and being asked to stand there like a statue while staring straight at the box in front of him, and how it went after that. In that environment so familiar yet still utterly alien to our eyes. What did he have for dinner that evening. How were the restaurants and bars of the era?

    It was a world of steam power but that predated electricity, except maybe for the telegraph, transmitting its’ mysteriously instantaneous messages in Morse code wherever the country-spanning wires were laid out, and no further. A world where horses were as abundant as cars are today. A world whose nighttime was lit by candlelight and oil-lamp.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes and he chose a particularly challenging pose to hold for a Daguerreotype! Many subjects back then preferred to sit in a very relaxed pose and they even used a small stand to hold the subject’s head still!

    • CommissarVulpin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      I love daguerrotypes, they’re such a vivid look into the past. Exposures outdoors in bright sunlight only took a few seconds, but as this one appears to be taken indoors he would have indeed needed to stand there for quite a while. That’s probably why his left hand is blurry (he’s holding the flag in his right hand - daguerrotypes were laterally mirrored).

      Also, see the faint parallel lines all over the picture? Those are faint marks made by the photographer as he was polishing the plate just prior to sensitizing it and loading it into the camera.

  • SARGEdeleted by creator
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    deleted by creator

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      The Smithsonian says…

      The portrait, taken in Washington’s Hartford, Connecticut, studio in 1846 or 1847, exudes an intensity consistent with the subject’s fanaticism. He appears very much as one might expect—angry and determined. In the image, Brown raises his right hand, as if taking an oath; in the other hand, he holds a banner thought to be the flag of the Subterranean Pass-Way, his militant alternative to the Underground Railroad.