Do you agree with this statement?

Question

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."

President Lincoln said that and I happen to agree. Isn't our Congress guilty of this?

Whether or not we are in a declared war doesn't change the fact that we have soldiers in a foreign country fighting. Whether or not we agree with the 'war' is not an issue, either. If we want them home then this country needs to give them what they need and support their effort 100% and fight about after they are home. Using our troops paycheck to make a point is, at the very least, unthinkable.

And I didn't specify just this war, so what about Vietnam? John Kerry is guilty of violating the 14th admendment, Section 3.

Ignorance kills is exactly my point. Of course if did kill, we wouldn't have a problem.

Answer 1

Yes, I agree. There is a time to speak and there is a time to be silent. There is a time for everything. If we want to show the world and the enemy that we are united as a country then we ALL need to stand behind the president and have a united front. It does not mean that we have to agree with him, or like him, or agree with the war. All it means is that as citizens, we are united in the fact that our military is engaged in a war and we will support them and our country until such a time ends. In the mean time we will be involved with the political process and vote in leaders that we believe can do a better job.

Answer 2

When he said that it was during the Civil war. When a nation is at war with itself,the pressure is on to keep control of the various branches of govt. We're NOT in a declared war or are we in a Civil war ...yet. The statment ,"willfully take actions during wartime"...is the key. Just engaging in debate in Congress is not," willfully taking actions that damage morale". What would be the outcome, if the case was made that merely being opposed to a policy would get you a 'hemp rope necktie' ? How would that promote the freedom of speech?

Answer 3

I agree with it to a point. In President Lincoln's time maybe hanging was the right answer, but today I don't know. I do think they should not be allowed to remain in Congress. I'm not saying everyone has to agree that a war is good or bad.

gw

Answer 4

Well, it gets sticky when it comes down to what constitutes damage to morale or undermining of the military.

To me, a congressman fighting to bring the soldiers home is fighting for the well-being of soldiers and the best interests of the country. Some would say, though, that disagreeing with the course of the current administration is treasonous.

Since it is so subjective, I think such a judgment is a really bad idea.

Answer 5

I agree and I don't. I think that America today is completely different than the America during Lincoln's era.

Seeing as Congress is the goverment body that can "declare war" I'm not sure this statement makes sense. It is their duty to vote for or against the war at hand. I don't think we can hold that against them because they are voting for their constuant and they are hired by the people of their district to represent them and their desires. If someone intentionally hinders this process however, then I believe that is "un-American" and depending on the severity of the infraction, they may be guilty of treason.

Obviously there is a lot of gray area in today's politics and the lines aren't easy to see before someone steps across them. That is why we as Americans need to be actively engaged in our goverment and vote to make sure we have the proper representation in our nation's capitol and ensure that these things do not happen.

Answer 6

Legislators who believe themselves more important than the bigger calling are truly guilty of this. They use the fact they were voted into office or that the American public is seeking change to make their opinions seem larger than they actually are.

Lynn Woosley D-CA, John Murtha D-PA, Barbara Boxer D-CA, Harry Reid D-NV, and Nancy Pelosi D-CA (to name a few) are all guilty of that crime.

Answer 7

There is this thing you learn about when you study history called "context." You could use to learn more about context and its role in quotations and history. The fact is that you can cherry pick anyone's quotes and use them to mean almost whatever you want, and it doesn't prove a thing. The Civil War is so completely and utterly different than the Iraqi War, a war that was built on lies, pre-emptive strikes, and fearmongering with no just cause. Everything else that Abraham Lincoln said and did, taken in context, suggests that he would not have been dumb enough to get us in this particular war in the first place, so I doubt that quote applies. Also, note this: Lincoln never made any attempt whatsoever to carry out that threat. It was just that: a frustrated statement of anger stated due to a real threat of betrayal during a controversial, but justified war situation. It would have been unconstitutional to carry out, and Lincoln knew it. His actions, however, spoke louder than his words. So does our current President's actions. He speaks about freedom and liberty in regards to this war, but all the actions related to the war suggest the opposite. Lincoln would have felt differently had his war been unjustified like this one. Hmm...

Answer 8

So, you approve of mass murder so strongly that you think those who do not should be hung, do you?

Why stop there?

Don't you think that the vast majority of Americans, who also disagree with the President should also be killed?

Before you actually advocate that position, though, you'll have to explain to me how it is that the man responsible for the deaths of our solders -- the one who sent them to their deaths for his own aggrandizement, who refused to outfit them with live-saving equipment, and who prohibited the news from ever showing their coffins -- hasn't damaged morale of the military, and the people who want to save their lives do?

Since you hate freedom so much, why don't you move to a dictatorship?

No, Congress-persons who are trying to end Bush's illegal and immoral war do NOT damage morale, undermine the military, and should not be murdered by Mad King George.

No one with any shred of human decency thinks that.

Answer 9

No.

I beleive this was in reference to Clement Valleingham (sp) and it was aimed at the one Congressman who had been a thorn in his side and eventually exiled to the Confederacy. Lincoln took a lot of heat from Congress and would never have accepted it as a blanket statement. He had been critical of the Mexican-American War while he was in Congress which cost him his office after one term. To which he said the lesson he learned was "never to be against war, faminie or pestilience again."

Answer 10

no, decent is what makes this country great. Lincoln was wrong; congress has the right and responsibility to be vocal when the president does not allow congress to debate a declaration of war bill. this is true now as it was during the civel war and all other wars.