Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abraham Lincoln

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:01:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
not my favorite president.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:25:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
On a related note, everyone knows No Treason No.6 The Constitution of No Authority. But very few people have read the first installment. It is quite good.

"On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals." - Lysander Spooner

http://en.wikisource.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:34:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of
the Civil War?

Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious
schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists,
there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--

Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.

Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:38:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
‎"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty." - Karl Marx

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, so...lely a fiscal quarrel." - Charles Dickens

"The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North… the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue." - John Calhoun

"Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy." - Abraham Lincoln
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:49:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:25:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals." - Lysander Spooner

The war was only able to be continued because of that stance. Had Lincoln bluntly stated his motivation was emancipation, he would have lost the 1864 election to the Peace Democrats and lost support of the largely slave-holding border states - who bluntly said they would not support a war on slavery. It was only when he could justify emancipation with military necessity that he pushed his agenda of emancipation.

As for the "right of succession" the argument over federal v. states' rights was a dividing factor in America from it's founding to the Civil War. The South succeeded after Lincoln won the 1860 election, losing a democratic election to a sectional party is not the same as a government becoming destructive to the ends of protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The fact that Lincoln brought the Union back together, without slavery in the South, is truly incredible.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:51:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:01:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I miss slavery

fix'd
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:52:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:50:44 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 12/8/2010 8:01:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I miss slavery
Yeah, those were the good old days

fix'd fix'd
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 9:10:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:52:35 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Anyone who does not worship King Lincoln supports the enslavement of negroes.

Non sequitur.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 9:18:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:49:51 PM, applesnack wrote:
The fact that Lincoln brought the Union back together, without slavery in the South, is truly incredible.

Yeah, all he had to do was murder 600,000 people, declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus, imprison without trial thousands of Northern citizens, censor all telegraph communication, nationalize the railroads, order Federal troops to interfere with elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters deport a member of Congress, confiscate private property and institute an income tax. Oh, he also did one of those conscription things too.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 9:22:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:49:51 PM, applesnack wrote:
The war was only able to be continued because of that stance. Had Lincoln bluntly stated his motivation was emancipation, he would have lost the 1864 election to the Peace Democrats and lost support of the largely slave-holding border states - who bluntly said they would not support a war on slavery. It was only when he could justify emancipation with military necessity that he pushed his agenda of emancipation.

I don't buy this theory and even if he was waging the war to "free the slaves," as he explicitly says he was not, then the war would still have been monstrous and barbaric.

As for the "right of succession" the argument over federal v. states' rights was a dividing factor in America from it's founding to the Civil War. The South succeeded after Lincoln won the 1860 election, losing a democratic election to a sectional party is not the same as a government becoming destructive to the ends of protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Secession*

Any State has the constitutional right to secede from the Union at any time for any reason.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 9:23:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Abraham Lincoln did not cause the death of so many people from a mere love of slaughter, but only to bring about a state of consent that could not otherwise be secured for the government he had undertaken to administer. When a government has once reduced its people to a state of consent – that is, of submission to its will – it can put them to a much better use than to kill them; for it can then plunder them, enslave them, and use them as tools for plundering and enslaving others. And these are the uses to which most governments, our own among the rest, do put their people, whenever they have once reduced them to a state of consent to its will. Andrew Jackson said that those who did not consent to the government he attempted to administer upon them, for that reason, were traitors, and ought to be hanged. Like so many other so-called "heroes," he thought the sword and the gallows excellent instrumentalities for securing the people's consent to be governed. The idea that, although government should rest on the consent of the governed, yet so much force may nevertheless be employed as may be necessary to produce that consent, embodies everything that was ever exhibited in the shape of usurpation and tyranny in any country on earth. It has cost this country a million of lives, and the loss of everything that resembles political liberty. It can have no place except as a part of a system of absolute military despotism. And it means nothing else either in this country, or in any other. There is no half-way house between a government depending wholly on voluntary support, and one depending wholly on military compulsion. And mankind have only to choose between these two classes – the class that governs, and the class that is governed or enslaved. In this case, the government rests wholly on the consent of the governors, and not at all on the consent of the governed. And whether the governors are more or less numerous than the governed, and whether they call themselves monarchists, aristocrats, or republicans, the principle is the same. The simple, and only material fact, in all cases, is, that one body of men are robbing and enslaving another. And it is only upon military compulsion that men will submit to be robbed and enslaved, it necessarily follows that any government, to which the governed, the weaker party, do not consent, must be (in regard to that weaker party), a merely military despotism. Such is the state of things now in this country, and in every other in which government does not depend wholly upon voluntary support. There never was and there never will be, a more gross, self-evident, and inexcusable violation of the principle that government should rest on the consent of the governed, than was the late war, as carried on by the North. There never was, and there never will be, a more palpable case of purely military despotism than is the government we now have." - Lysander Spooner
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 9:29:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 9:22:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/8/2010 8:49:51 PM, applesnack wrote:
The war was only able to be continued because of that stance. Had Lincoln bluntly stated his motivation was emancipation, he would have lost the 1864 election to the Peace Democrats and lost support of the largely slave-holding border states - who bluntly said they would not support a war on slavery. It was only when he could justify emancipation with military necessity that he pushed his agenda of emancipation.

I don't buy this theory and even if he was waging the war to "free the slaves," as he explicitly says he was not, then the war would still have been monstrous and barbaric.

As for the "right of succession" the argument over federal v. states' rights was a dividing factor in America from it's founding to the Civil War. The South succeeded after Lincoln won the 1860 election, losing a democratic election to a sectional party is not the same as a government becoming destructive to the ends of protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Secession*

Any State has the constitutional right to secede from the Union at any time for any reason.

Where is this in the Constitution?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 9:30:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:52:35 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/8/2010 8:50:44 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 12/8/2010 8:01:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I miss slavery
Yeah, those were the good old days

fix'd fix'd

That's not funny. Some of my family members several generations back were slaves. Believing Lincoln is a bad president is far from supporting slavery.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 9:45:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 9:29:02 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/8/2010 9:22:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Any State has the constitutional right to secede from the Union at any time for any reason.

Where is this in the Constitution?

"Any State has the constitutional right to secede from the Union at any time for any reason." - The Constitution, The Secret Eighth Article
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 9:58:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 9:22:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I don't buy this theory and even if he was waging the war to "free the slaves," as he explicitly says he was not, then the war would still have been monstrous and barbaric.

We can't know either way, but we can look at his decisions to point us in the right direction. During the short peace talk in the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln's demands were reunification, and emancipation - he refused to back down on emancipation in return for unification. Pre-Civil war, the Crittenden compromise could have delayed or prevented the war, but Lincoln would not back down on the issue of slavery. During the war, he discontinued prisoner exchanges until black union soldiers were part of those exchanges. We can see that emancipation was not some side note, Lincoln made it a major part of the war as soon as he could without ensuring his loss of that war.

Do we consider FDR a terrible president because he "murdered" 418,000 Americans? Was the Civil War a brutal war? Yes. Does that make Lincoln an awful president? Nope.

Secession*

Thought that looked off, curse you spell check!

Any State has the constitutional right to secede from the Union at any time for any reason.

I too can throw out large chunks of text quoting someone that supports my view.

"But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure." - Andrew Jackson
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:14:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 9:23:56 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Abraham Lincoln did not cause ... government we now have." - Lysander Spooner

That's a nice block of text from someone else, care to comment on it?

You see Spooners support of the South here, this "voluntary government" that was apparently so lost in the North and apparently prevalent in the South. Let's look at the circumstances that started the Civil War though, an elected government, and a fear that humans would no longer be able to be treated as property.

I keep forgetting that this isn't a debate, and that I don't have to hold every inch of land I can. I have a problem with this focus on the travesty that the North apparently was, it grants the South the appearance of a society fighting for liberty and freedom and so on. I don't like the blatant abuse of civil liberties that the North saw during the war, but I have a much larger problem with the complete disregard of both civil and natural rights of one third of the confederates population.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:23:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 9:18:15 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/8/2010 8:49:51 PM, applesnack wrote:
The fact that Lincoln brought the Union back together, without slavery in the South, is truly incredible.

Yeah, all he had to do was murder 600,000 people, declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus, imprison without trial thousands of Northern citizens, censor all telegraph communication, nationalize the railroads, order Federal troops to interfere with elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters deport a member of Congress, confiscate private property and institute an income tax. Oh, he also did one of those conscription things too.

Fast forward to 2000 and we have GWB with the Patriot act, expansionism, raids on medical marijuana facilities, and tax cuts for the rich - not to mention a complete economic meltdown. No, I don't feel like debating who is worst because it is finals week :)
no comment
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 1:11:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 10:14:25 PM, applesnack wrote:
At 12/8/2010 9:23:56 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Abraham Lincoln did not cause ... government we now have." - Lysander Spooner

That's a nice block of text from someone else, care to comment on it?

You see Spooners support of the South here, this "voluntary government" that was apparently so lost in the North and apparently prevalent in the South.

Spooner certainly didn't consider the Confederacy to be a voluntary government, it had slaves, after all. But the war proved that the North certainly was not.

Let's look at the circumstances that started the Civil War though, an elected government, and a fear that humans would no longer be able to be treated as property.

Tariffs.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 1:17:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I thought reasoning already pointed out that gaybraham lincoln was willing to support a constitutional amendment that would forever guarantee slavery in the southern states, so long as they did not secede.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 2:17:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 1:17:54 PM, Sieben wrote:
I thought reasoning already pointed out that gaybraham lincoln was willing to support a constitutional amendment that would forever guarantee slavery in the southern states, so long as they did not secede.
First and for most, I must applaud your super sweet play on words by calling him "gaybraham", truly humorous, dudebroman.

He told Republicans to not support to Crittenden compromise, and he refused to back down on slavery during peace talks.
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 3:01:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 1:11:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:

Spooner certainly didn't consider the Confederacy to be a voluntary government, it had slaves, after all. But the war proved that the North certainly was not.

The north did lose many of its freedoms and civil liberties during the war, and thats bad, but it did not become a wholly military state. The Union army was almost exclusively volunteers, of the ~920,000 Union troops, only 56,000 were conscripts. What exactly are your arguments for the North being a non-voluntary government? Your arguments, not a block of text from Spooner.

Tariffs.

You must be joking, to try and boil down the motivation of the civil war to tariffs of all things. The South had a problem with protective tariffs because they relied on exports and worried about retaliatory tariffs on their products, it would also increase the price of imports they relied on. Really though, their economy and society was based on slavery, and a president just won on a platform of prohibiting the expansion of slavery. Slave holding states had held a predominant position in the government for the past 60 years, and they just lost it. They feared that the halt on slavery's expansion would lead to total emancipation. That is the primary cause of secession - not tariffs.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 4:36:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 9:29:02 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/8/2010 9:22:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Any State has the constitutional right to secede from the Union at any time for any reason.

Where is this in the Constitution?

Try the 10th Amendment.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 4:38:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 9:58:38 PM, applesnack wrote:
At 12/8/2010 9:22:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I don't buy this theory and even if he was waging the war to "free the slaves," as he explicitly says he was not, then the war would still have been monstrous and barbaric.

Do we consider FDR a terrible president because he "murdered" 418,000 Americans?

Yes. And Reasoning probably does, too. Honestly, he put a huge chunk of the American Navy within striking distance of the Japanese, relatively undefended. Why? To lure them into attack? Why? So he could go to war.

Was the Civil War a brutal war? Yes. Does that make Lincoln an awful president? Nope.

Strawman. He was arguing based on the militaristic state that he put the entire country in.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 4:55:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 3:01:21 PM, applesnack wrote:
You must be joking, to try and boil down the motivation of the civil war to tariffs of all things. The South had a problem with protective tariffs because they relied on exports and worried about retaliatory tariffs on their products, it would also increase the price of imports they relied on. Really though, their economy and society was based on slavery, and a president just won on a platform of prohibiting the expansion of slavery. Slave holding states had held a predominant position in the government for the past 60 years, and they just lost it. They feared that the halt on slavery's expansion would lead to total emancipation. That is the primary cause of secession - not tariffs.

The economy of the South was largely based on slavery, but only because of a small, rich aristocracy that owned the plantations and most of the South's slaves. If I were in charge, I would've just taken the land from the plantation owners (who owned most of the fertile land), freed the slaves, and distributed the land among the slaves and poor whites (the poor whites obviously didn't do anything to earn the land, but this solution would be far more politically feasible than just giving the land to the former slaves). But that's not what the Republicans did--they tied the tariffs issue to the slavery issue. The poor whites opposed tariffs, because it hurt their ability to export, and made the manufactured goods they needed to buy cost a lot more. The aristocracy opposed the Republicans on the slavery issue, for obvious reasons. Because of the way the Republicans tied the issue together, they made the poor whites and rich aristocrats allies, when they otherwise wouldn't have been. If a political leader had opposed tariffs and slavery--ideally wanting to abolish slavery in the way I suggested earlier--they would have had the support of the South's poor whites. They wouldn't have fought a war to avoid being ruled by that leader.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 5:41:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It was a war initially over taxation and then due to Lincolns need for more supporters and soldiers as well as to cripple the south's workforce (slaves), it was done as a show of the north's authority . . . Lincoln was a racist . . . he simply did one good deed unintentionally for the purpose of the good . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
applesnack
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 6:09:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 4:55:00 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The economy of the South was largely based on slavery, but only because of a small, rich aristocracy that owned the plantations and most of the South's slaves. If I were in charge, I would've just taken the land from the plantation owners (who owned most of the fertile land), freed the slaves, and distributed the land among the slaves and poor whites (the poor whites obviously didn't do anything to earn the land, but this solution would be far more politically feasible than just giving the land to the former slaves). But that's not what the Republicans did--they tied the tariffs issue to the slavery issue.

What about unlawful seizure of land from the group in power would be more politically feasible?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 6:15:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:01:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:
not my favorite president.

Me neither. We agree.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2010 6:20:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2010 6:09:57 PM, applesnack wrote:
At 12/9/2010 4:55:00 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The economy of the South was largely based on slavery, but only because of a small, rich aristocracy that owned the plantations and most of the South's slaves. If I were in charge, I would've just taken the land from the plantation owners (who owned most of the fertile land), freed the slaves, and distributed the land among the slaves and poor whites (the poor whites obviously didn't do anything to earn the land, but this solution would be far more politically feasible than just giving the land to the former slaves). But that's not what the Republicans did--they tied the tariffs issue to the slavery issue.

What about unlawful seizure of land from the group in power would be more politically feasible?

1) In that time period, socialist ideas were pretty big among poor farmers. Of course, this wouldn't be socialism--it would be confiscating stolen land from criminals (not legally criminals, but morally).
2) As I said, this would be justice, not theft, so it would also appeal to moral people, rather than just socialists.
3) The poor whites and former slaves would far outnumber the plantation owners that lost their land
4) I didn't say it would be easy--just easier than fighting a war.

My plan is just an example. The rest of the West abolished slavery without fighting civil wars--we could've too. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways the slaves could have been freed without a war.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.