Letter to a Citizen of Kentucky, an excerptExecutive Mansion, Washington,April 4, 1864.A. G. Hodges, Esq., Frankfort, Ky.
My Dear Sir:
You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally stated the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows: I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think and feel; and yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially in this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it in my view that I might take the oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power.
I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times and in many ways; and I aver that, to this day I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand, however, that my oath to preserve the Constitution to the best of my ability imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government, that nation, of which that Constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the Constitution?

Respuesta :

According to general law, life and limb must be safeguarded. However, sometimes a limb must be severed in order to save a life; life is never judiciously given in order to save a limb. I believed that by becoming essential to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the country, otherwise unconstitutional policies might be made legal.

Right or incorrect, I avow this assumption that I made earlier. If I allowed the destruction of government, country, and Constitution totally to save slavery or any other minor issue, I could not feel that I had done everything in my power to protect the Constitution.

I prohibited General Fremont's early attempts at military emancipation because I did not view them as absolutely necessary at the time. I protested when General Cameron, who was then the secretary of war, suggested arming the blacks because I did not yet consider it to be a crucial necessity.

I prohibited it when General Hunter made an attempt at military emancipation years later because I didn't believe the time had arrived for it yet. I really and repeatedly pleaded with the Border States to support compensated emancipation in March, May, and July 1862 because I firmly believed that, absent that action, the unavoidable need for military emancipation and arming the Blacks would arise.

They declined the offer, and I was, in my opinion, driven to choose between giving up the Union and the Constitution or exerting firm control over the racial minority. I went with the latter. I chose it in the hopes that I would gain more than lose, albeit I wasn't fully sure of this.

Yours truly,

A. Lincoln

Learn more about the constitution here:

https://brainly.com/question/19411179

#SPJ1