Do you think Pres. Lincoln was justified in his violations of ordinary civil liberties during the Civil War? President Lincoln was no more justified in his violations of civil liberties, such as suspension of Habeas Corpus, imprisonment of Congressman Vanlandingham from Indiana as he was justified in his violations of the Constitution. The ends cannot justify the means, the means must justify themselves as per Aristotle and all western philosphy up until Immanuel Kant in the 19th century. It was Kant's philosphy which formed the justification of what the Nazis did to the Jews. It was soundly rejected by the western powers at the Nuremburg Trials. The means cannot justify the ends. Evil cannot be done in order to achieve good. Abe Lincoln violated the Constitution more than any other President in American history and paved the way for more. He suspended the right of Habeas Corpus in violation of Article I, Section , Clause 2 which grants that right ONLY to Congress in cases of Rebellion. Lincoln pushed for the admission of West Virginia as a state during the War Between the States, in violation of Art. IV, Sec 3, Clause !; he issued greenback dollars in violation of Art. I, Section 10, Clause 1. Can violation of the Constitution be justified in order to preserve the Union? If the Constitution be violated, is that not our basis of our Union? Do we then destroy the village in order to liberate it? Lincoln violated civil rights and the Constitution because he knew he was wrong and that was the only way to win, to cheat. He knew very well the states had formed the Union and could leave at will, particularly once the Federal gov't. showed it would violate the Constitution repeatedly, by unequal taxation (tariffs) and by repeated attacks on slavery which was codified in the Constitution (right or wrong it was there). Lincoln was never justified by his suppression of civil liberties, he has the blood of a million americans on his soul from the war he caused. He is the blackheart of American History, He would be the the worst President in our History if the truth be known. We pay the price for his disregard of the Constitution to this day.

By: Guest
Date: Fri-Jan-29-2010-
Response 1
Guest
0

Answer 1

Well, I personally do not, but I suppose that if you supported what he did and believed that it wall all for the good of America, than perhaps that would justify it. It all depends on your perspective, either way could be acceptable or true;

-yes because it was for the good of the nation and although the initial process may have violated civil liberties, it all worked out in the end-

or an alternative way of thinking

- no, violating civil liberties can not be justified, no matter the reason, even if you are the president-

Again, I myself do not think that it was justified but that is just an opinion

Answer 2

If you fel that the war was justified, then it's not a big deal to destroy civil liberties. Same as today: if you feel that the so-called "war on terrorism" is real (I do not) then you'll not sweat torturing suspects, and reading our e-mail, and arresting Americans for disagreeing with Bush, but are not in a "free speech zone."

Answer 3

Yes. Had the Union lost the Civil War and America been divided into two separate countries, this question would not be asked today and slavery might still be an institution. Lincoln did what he did to preserve a United States of America.

Answer 4

I think that things are done in times of war that take away liberties but they are never justified.

Answer 5

Yes.

[m] By: Guest
Date: Unknown---
Response
What is 1 + 100

Just Updated::