Replies

Who is John Galt?: "On several threads here at FreeRepublic, I've asked a simple question: "Should government be bound by law, or by morality? "

The obvious answer is "yes, by both".
Difficulties come from not just varying definitions of "law" and "morality", but also from the fact that life itself often presents complex situations without pristine moral options.
Often leaders must chose among the least worst of bad options.

Sure, I "get" that pro-Confederates such as yourself wish to bind President Lincoln with BOTH legal and moral sanctions, you'd like to impeach him just like Democrats today wish to impeach Republicans they despise.

But I don't agree that any of your anti-Lincoln arguments are even a whit more valid than Nancy Pelosi's charges against the current Republican president.
They're all just partisan hatred & loathing masquerading under banners labeled "LAW" and "MORALITY".

WIJG?: "On several threads here at FreeRepublic, I've asked a simple question: "Should government be bound by law, or by morality? "
BJK: The obvious answer is "yes, by both".

In our country, I personally believe government must be bound by law (not law and morality); insofar as we allow some undefined concept of morality to modify the law, the law becomes of no effect. IMO, if a government official has a view of morality that prohibits them from executing the law, they should resign – NOT substitute their personal moral values for the “the law of the land.” (Yah, I know – most government officials probably would NEVER do that, even if it’s the proper thing to do!)

Difficulties come from not just varying definitions of "law" and "morality", but also from the fact that life itself often presents complex situations without pristine moral options.
Often leaders must chose among the least worst of bad options.

I agree completely (for whatever that’s worth ;>)!

In terms of Mr. Lincoln’s service as president, I think that I’ve consistently tried to frame my opinions in terms of his legal obligations (i.e., did the Constitution of 1860 actually prohibit State secession – or not?). In terms of Mr. Lincoln as a human being (rather than as a “Chief Executive”), I’ve never intended to hold him to some unique standard; everybody has flaws, or personal failings – no one is perfect (even government officials). And (FWIW) I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that he should have been impeached (I certainly don’t remember doing so). The North was generally content with his leadership (sufficiently so, that he was reelected), and if the Southern States were acting within their constitutional rights (as they existed at that specific time) when they seceded, which has been the foundation of my argument, then they had no voice in the matter.

I disagree – and I’m also sorry to hear that (it suggests that I haven’t been very successful in conveying my point of view). But if you have any specific concerns regarding any of my posted comments, I would be happy to address them (to the best of my ability). On those occasions when I suggest that Mr. Lincoln might have made a critical mistake, it’s worth keeping in mind that all presidents make mistakes (for which they are often criticized). For example, George H. W. Bush should never have raised taxes (after his famous campaign pledge); George W. Bush should have nominated Clarence Thomas to be Chief Justice (rather than whats-his-name); and even Ronald Reagan made mistakes. I think we might all agree that Mr. Lincoln was a human being, not the Second Coming of the Messiah…