I fully agree that what Booth did was despicable. Given the extreme risk he willingly undertook, however, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me that it was cowardly. Shooting an unarmed man from the front would not have acquitted him of the charge of cowardice.
Americans have an odd relationship with cowardice/bravery. In its root meaning this refers to a person’s willingness, or lack thereof, to risk his own precious skin in the pursuit of a goal. It, of itself, has nothing to do with whether that goal or the methods used to achieve it are good or right or honorable.
The Waffen SS and the Japanese soldiery of WWII were, after all, incredibly brave and fought with as much courage as any group in history. The guys who drove planes into buildings on 9/11 weren’t cowards. Somebody who willingly detonates himself for a cause isn’t a chicken.
Which is not to say that all these men and groups didn’t do extreme evil. We have a, to my mind, peculiar tendency to denounce the evil of the cause (or its methods) and somehow morph that over into its supporters being cowardly.
Probably this is because we think of bravery as a virtue and cowardice as a vice, and we don’t like to assign any virtues at all to those we despise for the evil they do. The problem, of course, is that there simply is no rule that bravery will be limited to those who fight for a righteous cause, or for that matter that individuals on the side of right won’t be cowardly.
Bravery, like intelligence, competence and many other virtues, is value-free. It can be employed in the service of either good or evil.
You are so right.
I think people are being so glib and disingenuous when they claim our Moslem enemies are “cowards”. Like hell! I wish they were.
As for the Booth example, or snipers (sharpshooters), or the typical MO of Moslems, it is SMART to “hide” and sneak up. Otherwise, the cause is likely lost.
I wonder if this has stuck in our minds with the British view (often) that American rebels were cowardly for “hiding behind trees” around the RevWar. Are they cowards for trying this? No, smart. They also got more into trench warfare, which was EXTENSIVELY used in the so-called Civil War. Cowardly? Or smart? (And BTW, no, not nearly most of the rebel fighting under Washington was “hiding” - most was typical of the day, mass front volleys/charges. Not stupid, just adapting to the technology of the day.)
I don't think that my "relationship" is odd at all. I believe it to be quite balanced as a matter of fact.
In Booth's case if we take the time to look beyond the act itself - which is itself textbook cowardice - and look at the man himself we can easily see his motivations.
He was a narcissist (what actor isn't?). He was petulant, prissy, and consumed with delusional self-importance. He felt slighted by his father and upstaged by his brother. He wasn't content with the fame he had generated for himself and always felt like he was in the shadows of his father and brother's brighter flame. He thought himself invincible - not by anything that he did but by who he was. Sure, he had his opinion about the WBTS and his expectation that the south would prevail. But he never considered it cause-worth enough to actually deign to participate in any of it. It wasn't his cause or he would have fought for it all along.
I suspect that he romanticized the risks and wove it into another of his play-acting. He fully expected to get away with it and be met as a hero and savior.
Believe what you wish. I believe he was a despicable coward.