Question

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.

Answer 1

what does this mean in simpler terms?

Answer 2

@Luigi0210

Answer 3

@ganeshie8

Answer 4

@Preetha

Answer 5

@Leightonhurst

Answer 6

Basically the speaker is saying that what would otherwise perhaps be considered wrong, unethical, even unconstitutional (apparently sacrificing a piece of the constitution itself) may be both right and necessary to save the constitution as a whole. Essentially, is it right to sacrifice a piece to save a whole?