beccamitchem54
contestada

By general law, life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life, but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that to the best of my ability I had even tried to preserve the Constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution altogether. summarize

Respuesta :

A life is not worth risking over a limb, I stand by the constitution, and i will rislk my life for it,becuase it is the right thing to do!
marielabelenrivas

Answer:

In this letter to Albert Hodges, Lincoln is making a point about abolishing slavery as it remains and unconstitutional act in the United States. He makes an analogy between losing the nation and preserving the constitution with a logical reasoning that a life is never sacrificed for a limb. Biological facts like which structure of our body is necessary to survive cannot be changed to fit man beliefs. Lincoln feels that if they naturalize slavery to preserve the constitution, they may put the nation at risks with rebellions. Consequently, he claims that emancipation is a “greater gain than loss”.

Otras preguntas