I am no great fan of Lincoln as a President. If we use the contextual argument, in the same way as we do with Jefferson and Washington-I don't see it the same. Lincoln pushed for the income tax, the draft, Legal Tender Laws-so he could print money. The whole point of the civil war was to end slavery and then you institute a DRAFT?
Ron Paul was ridiculed roundly for saying that the North could have just bought out all of the slaves in the South for much less money and certainly saving 620,000 lives. They probably could have even paid 10x the market value. Lincoln never considered pursuing this avenue to my knowledge. It would have been the most moral way of looking at the issue. There was considerable executive over-reach that spurred the secession of many states, and in order to be recognized as a great leader -it should not be about the ability to use force.

The crux is that a long viewed them as absolute, but now am asking myself, and others, I guess, about whether or not they must be viewed as contextual. So, my apologize, his is not an "answer" post but a "just thinking" post... Now, freedomforall below, view Lincoln as the worst tyrant in our history and I have heard that case put.

Walter what was the crux?! That individual rights are contextual or absolute?

America's worst tyrant had no honor and deserves none.