No, Booth decided to kill him after Lincoln said he favored full civil rights for blacks who served in the Union Army, including the right to vote.
Booth had no problem with Jefferson Davis being a tyrant in the South when he seized property or executed citizens who refused to join his treason.
Booth was a total fanatic who did what fanatics do.
This is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument. Unless you have better support for this assertion, the fact that one thing occurs after the other does not make the one thing the cause of the other.
Booth had no problem with Jefferson Davis being a tyrant in the South when he seized property or executed citizens who refused to join his treason.
I've covered this topic with others. Did whatever passes for the Confederate constitution prohibit this activity? The US Constitution certainly did. Jefferson Davis may have been in full compliance with his governing document when he took such actions. Lincoln obviously wasn't.
Booth was a total fanatic who did what fanatics do.
One might say the same of Lincoln. 600,000 dead in a war that needn't have occurred? Civil disruption and disaster as far as the eye could see afterward? Destruction of fundamental founding principles? Creation of our current "FedZilla" that has engaged in even more destruction of "consent of the governed"?
And all for what? Lincoln was going to let the South keep slavery, he just wasn't going to allow them to be independent of his government.
Note that Davis was held in prison without trial for two years before being released. He was never tried for Treason.
I happen to think that Jane Fonda committed Treason to a far greater degree then Davis. But she was never tried for it either.
To the victors(?) belong the spoils, eh?
Does your psychiatrist know you are delusional again? Or perhaps you are a fiction writer trying out you made up crap on FR?