Sadly for Booth, Americans did not much agree with his assessment of Lincoln. Booth saw himself as ridding the nation of a tyrant, but the nation mostly saw him as the treasonous assassin of their elected leader. See how this works? It’s all a matter of perspective, isn’t it.
Ignore the example he uses and everything else he says, and focus on his argument. The popular vote determines the public good. Or, might makes right. It’s an appeal to authority, with the authority being determined in the voting booth. It’s a form of the genetic fallacy.
Well, speaking of perspective, I have my weapons for a great multitude of reasons rather than for one express reason. I guess that exempts me from his charges of treason. As for being unpatriotic, regardless of who is in office or what the particular policy being debated, it seems terribly wrong to tell me that my rights are subject to a popular vote and that my perspective must be subservient to the poll. If so, then they aren’t “rights” by any measure of the word.
Most of the North saw John Wilkes Booth that way. Most of the South cheered him on. The author presumes that “American” equates to the Americans living in the north. Even – especially? – Lincoln himself did not make that distinction.
Of course, the soul of the statist tyranny resides in the urban enclaves of the north. And that split goes back as far as the split between the Federalists of Boston, Philadelphia, and NYC, and the anti-Federalists of Virginia. (There were exceptions to this rule of thumb – George Washington, the Adams family – but it was basically a north-south split).
That split continues to this day. But the North, once the arsenal of democracy, the factory of freedom, continue to hollow out in favor of the burgeoning economies of the South, and so the next civil war may well not have the same outcome as the last. Especially since the U.S. military is primarily a non-Old North institution these days.