Final answer:
Arguments for President Carter's amnesty decision highlighted national healing and reconciliation, while those against viewed it as unfair to those who served and potentially harmful as a precedent for future conflicts.
Step-by-step explanation:
Arguments for President Jimmy Carter's decision to grant amnesty to Americans who evaded the Vietnam War draft often centered on healing the nation and reconciling with those who opposed the war on moral or political grounds. Draft evaders, many of whom had relocated to Canada or taken other drastic measures, were seen by proponents as conscientiously objecting to a conflict increasingly viewed by the public as unjust. Furthermore, amnesty was a way to re-integrate these individuals back into American society, acknowledging the deep divisions the war had caused.
Arguments against the amnesty typically stemmed from the belief that evading the draft was an unpatriotic act that undermined the sacrifice of those who served. Opponents might argue that granting amnesty could set a precedent that encourages evasion in future conflicts. Moreover, the principle of equality before the law was invoked, with critics suggesting that dodging the draft should bear consequences, especially considering that many compliant individuals faced combat and its attendant risks.
Amnesty was a complex issue that intertwined moral, legal, and social considerations. It was part of an effort to move forward following a turbulent period in American history. The discussion of amnesty after the Vietnam War can draw parallels with other periods of reconciliation, such as President Johnson's Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction in 1865.