Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the Civil War Could Have Been Avoided
vanity | 10/31/01 | vanity

Posted on 10/31/2001 4:13:33 AM PST by smolensk

Being one who definitely thinks that our Civil War was an unnecessary loss of life and property, I have finally figured out how the South could have averted war, and stopped Northern aggression in its tracks.

You see the South possessed a 'secret weapon' that it didn't realize it had. What the South should have done, in the late 1850's, is to have realized that slavery was a dying institution anyway and that it could get by for the time being with half or a third less slaves than it had.

The South could have granted immediate freedom to half of its slave population with the condition that after manumission they couldn't remain in the South, but would have to move up North. If politically astute, the South could have 'spun' this relocation requirement as simply a way of spreading 'diversity' to the North.

With this, the abolitionist movement up North would have stopped 'dead in its tracks', in my opinion, and over 700,000 lives would have been saved, and all slaves would have been gained freedom anyway before 1900 due to international pressure.


TOPICS: Editorial; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: dixie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-257 next last

1 posted on 10/31/2001 4:13:33 AM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smolensk
I'll lend you my time machine when I'm done with it. I'm using it right now to prevent the French Revolution.
2 posted on 10/31/2001 4:16:36 AM PST by Cagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
The Civil War was NOT about slavery, so your opinion means squat. Go back to the history books & get back to us.
3 posted on 10/31/2001 4:16:46 AM PST by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
ROTFLMAO
4 posted on 10/31/2001 4:17:12 AM PST by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
General Patrick Cleburne, CSA, had a similar thought. He spent the last part of the war in "time out" for suggesting that the South could win if they granted freedom to any slave who enlisted in the Confederate Army. From their desks in Richmond, Jeff Davis and Braxton Bragg thought this was a bad idea. So bad that when Davis relieved Johnston after the Battle of Atlanta, the command was given to Hood rather than Cleburne. Hood proceeded to loose the rest of the Confederate Army (and Cleburne) in Nashville and Franklin.
5 posted on 10/31/2001 4:20:18 AM PST by Liberty Ship
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
The war was about states' rights. Don't let the liberals fool you.
6 posted on 10/31/2001 4:22:17 AM PST by texlok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
Interesting premise, but I don't think that would work, because quite a few southern leaders had an interest in slavery as an institution.  If Calhoun and other southern hotheads hadn't tried to break the Missouri compromise, the north would not have gotten hot and bothered.  If the north had gotten rid of, or significantly reduced, those nasty tariffs, then the southern leaders would probably not have been able to whip up war sentiment in the south.
7 posted on 10/31/2001 4:22:45 AM PST by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
You're correct. Removing the will of the North would have stopped the Fire Eaters and as one politician said, "Let the erring sister go". It also would have helped if good old what's his name[I can't remember his name at the moment] didn't pull the first shot. He wouldn't have blown his brains out in 1865.
8 posted on 10/31/2001 4:25:47 AM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smolensk; sheltonmac
I noticed that you posted this under Political Humor/Cartoons. Hmmmmm, interesting. I needed a good giggle this morning. Thanks!
9 posted on 10/31/2001 4:27:56 AM PST by sola gracia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texlok
Agree:

1828-1832 Taxes and Tariffs: The 1820s ushered the issue of taxes and tariffs. Following the Missouri Compromise, there were fears in the South that tariffs which protected Northern manufacturing profits were causing economic difficulty in the South to the advantage of Northern manufacturers. These tariffs, Southerners argued, resulted in much higher prices for imported manufactured goods. A recession in the South during the 1820s was blamed on the country's tariff policies.

In 1831 S.C. Senator John Caldwell Calhoun., introduced the 'Nullification' Doctrine' proclaiming, "the right of any state to overrule or modify ...... any federal government law deemed unconstitutional."

In 1831, over The Nullification Doctrine, The 'First Shot' of the Civil War was fired. On April 13, 1830: President Andrew Jackson, "Our Federal Union: It must be preserved"

Senator John C. Calhoun, " The Union. Next to our Liberties most dear".

With this proclamation, Calhoun thus began the fight for States' Rights.

10 posted on 10/31/2001 4:32:24 AM PST by mdittmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
The destruction of the South could also have been prevented by the military assistance of Great Britain in return for the abolition of slavery and the repeal of the Declaration of Independence.

From this point of view, Victoria repeated the colossal mistake of George III--the loss of the American colonies.

11 posted on 10/31/2001 4:33:04 AM PST by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
Y'all spend a lot of time complaining it was about taxes. Nice to see you're admitting that the major cause was the defense of slavery by southern political leaders.
12 posted on 10/31/2001 4:33:18 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
To Non-Sequitur... SHUT UP! (Non-Sequitur has absolutely nothing better to do than constantly monitor FR for any posting, whether tongue in cheek or not, to inject his hateful crap. Post something Civil War related and he/she is there with their ignorance within 5 minutes)
13 posted on 10/31/2001 4:49:56 AM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
Tongue in cheek? Is that what you call it? I'd think it leans more towards the stupid, IMHO of course, and I wouldn't quit my day job for a career as a comedian if I where you. But even in jest you talk of uprooting and expelling several hundred thousand people once you are done with them and I'm the one spouting 'hateful crap'.
14 posted on 10/31/2001 4:59:00 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Note that slavery was abolished in the South before it was abolished in the North. No thanks to the South--it was done by Lincoln as a military strategy. But the fact remains.

Slavery was legal in every state at the time of the American Revolution. It was not abolished by the State of New York until the late l820's, little more than 30 years before the Civil War.

By the grace of God and the wisdom of their founding fathers, the American people did finally manage to expunge this horror (from America; it still exists in other parts of the world).

Their savior was the U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence--two of the most sacred and subversive documents ever created by mankind.

No wonder tyrants the world over tremble before the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence! No wonder tyrants fear America so!

15 posted on 10/31/2001 5:01:09 AM PST by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
If this wasn't posted under Political Humor/Cartoons I would have thought you have no clue what you are talking about, or have been totally brainwashed by the government education system.

If you look at the facts you will see that while although slavery was an issue in the War between the States, it was not the main issue. You will also find that the Southern General Robert E. Lee set his slaves free way before Northern General U.S. Grant who even kept his slaves after 1865.
16 posted on 10/31/2001 5:13:13 AM PST by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
It also would have helped if good old what's his name[I can't remember his name at the moment] didn't pull the first shot. He wouldn't have blown his brains out in 1865.

Edmund Ruffin.

17 posted on 10/31/2001 5:19:27 AM PST by SamKeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
Yeah, I tried that time machine bit myself. It didn't work.

When I tried to convince the Southerners to abolish slavery and not take on the North, they damn near lynched me.

When I tried to persuade the Athenians not to embark on the Expedition to Syracuse, they thought I was a Spartan agent. Had Aspasia not hidden me in a very large amphora... (She agreed with me, by the way. I'm still in love with her!)

When I tried to explain the germ theory to Elizabeth I, she thought I was a witch and damn near locked me in The Tower.

All was not lost, however.

I did manage to persuade Isabella to sell her jewels and send Columbus to India (an ounce of inaccuracy is worth a pound of explanation).

And I did help Cleopatra get over Caesar. (Ooooo was she good to me.....!)

18 posted on 10/31/2001 5:33:12 AM PST by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
Just so you know, the Civil War is over, move on. Unless you have a way to bring back Hood's Texas Brigade to kick some Taliban ass.
19 posted on 10/31/2001 5:38:41 AM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamKeck
I couldn't remember his name and I didn't feel like searching for an hour trying to find it. Thank you. By the time I found the name, the thread would have disappeared.
20 posted on 10/31/2001 5:41:59 AM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
You would have to get Hood before he lost his body parts or he would do another "Hi diddle diddle, straight up the middle" and get his @ss kicked.
21 posted on 10/31/2001 5:46:29 AM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
Cut NonSensical some slack. He's still fighting the Supreme Court decision that states have the right to secede from the Union. Truth is, the Court never ruled on that case -- a no decision is a yes in my book. (Some day this issue will be reintroduced to the SCOTUS.) But, NS can't help it if she/he/it's ("shits" for short) obsessed.

I did like your theory, not that it could have happened, but it would have been the biggest display of hypocracy of ever witnessed. Of course, the other way in which the war could have been avoided would have been if the US had have removed its troops from sovereign states, especially South Carolina.

22 posted on 10/31/2001 5:47:03 AM PST by Lee'sGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
Looks like this is another of Lew Rockwell's "parody Free Republic" pages. I can almost recognize some of the real posters who, with a little poetic licence, might have made these comments.

I suppose the South could have been saved if they had used a time machine to get an atomic bomb and detonated during one of Lincoln's inaugurals. Or crashed a Boeing into the capitol.

Seriously, I suppose if the CSA had emancipated its slaves early in the war, I suppose they could have won recognition and support from Europe and deprived the US government of that support. But emancipation was something they would not do, not even by the last year of the war. If you examine documents of the times it's pretty clear what the Southern mood was like at the beginning of the war.

Would the taliban abandon its ideas about women or criminal punishments to win favor with the world community? Would we adopt their views to appease them? Tempers are running high now. So when you look around you now, try to apply what you see to your understanding of the past. What we take to be optimal, rational problem solving activity isn't always possible in the heat of the moment.

A half-way, or two-thirds emancipation would be seen as a stopgap measure and would convince no one. To be sure, the Union did not free all the slaves at one blow either, but they were moving in that direction -- certainly moving faster that the Confederacy, which wasn't moving at all. While a sweeping emancipation measure might have won support in Europe, a half-hearted half-way measure would have done little, once it became clear where the Northern war aims were headed.

Moreover, since such a measure would have involved breaking up families, it would be subject to all the Southern arguments against abolition and also general humanitarian arguments. What would you do with the freed slaves? Would you drive them out? You couldn't send them to Africa with the blockade on. Would expect them to do what you told them to do? Would you pay them? With currency that was losing its value rapidly, or in kind? How would you react if they wanted to fight to free their relatives? Black slavery freed the great mass of Southern whites to fight (an ironic use of the word "freed," perhaps). If you had to police freed blacks, it would mean withdrawing those soldiers from the front lines. And how would you choose? Would you pick out those who were no longer of any use to you to free? That economical solution seems more to be in your own best interest and reflects what Southrons would call "Yankee mentality." What seems to you like a rational and sensible solution, not only went against the passions of the early war years, but also is beset with many practical and moral difficulties.

Be sure to check out George Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism." I don't agree with all of it but he does make some interesting points.

23 posted on 10/31/2001 6:20:58 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
Actually the South DID offer to "give up" slavery.
But that wasn't what the war was really about and the offer was turned down.
As far as the North accepting the freed slaves is concerned, several states did not allow ANY free blacks to live there.
In the South, people allowed blacks to raise their children and lived next to each other.
Not so in most of the North.
During the war, the South treated black soldiers the same as white soldiers, same pay, same medical treatment, same food, etc.
What's more, the South had black NCO's, officers, and even general staff.
The North was just the opposite: unequal pay, unequal facilities, few black NCO's, (and I think NO officers).
In the South, blacks were volunteers, in the North, the biggest riots in US history occured when the blacks were conscripted.
In short, the North was far more prejudiced against blacks than the South.
The slavery issue was used to legitamize an illegal unjust war.
The winners write the history.
Propaganda works.
There are a number of EXCELLENT threads on this issue.
If you have no luck with a search, then let me know.
24 posted on 10/31/2001 6:21:37 AM PST by freefly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freefly
Can you provide a link or proof of your post? I doubt some of your facts but it's been a long time since I read some of the political history on slavery.
25 posted on 10/31/2001 6:59:50 AM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
How the Civil War Could Have Been Avoided

Being one who definitely thinks that our Civil War was an unnecessary loss of life and property, I have finally figured out how the South could have averted war, and stopped it in its tracks.

They could have agreed to abide by the constitution.

26 posted on 10/31/2001 7:14:34 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
...and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

This is from the 1860 Republican platform. It referred primarily to the Fugitive Slave Act - a legally enacted law upheld by the courts. Now lecture me about the importance of abiding by the Constitution.

27 posted on 10/31/2001 7:30:47 AM PST by FirstFlaBn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Give me some time (busy day) and I will go back through my list of FR threads that reference this material.
The ones that I got the info from are well documented.
The info stuck in my mind since it is just about opposite of what I was taught as "facts".
Note: the info is available from a variety of sources,
but the FR threads do a good job of summerizing and debating the issues.
Anything in particular that you have a question about?
28 posted on 10/31/2001 7:32:18 AM PST by freefly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
The real reason for the Civil War/War between the States was export taxs and not salvery.

The North was bleeding the South dry through use of export taxs.

The North used slavery as an excuse to wage war with the South and to keep the British from helping the South.

If there had been no slaves in the South at that time. Then the North would have found or made up another or excuse to wage war with the South.

By the way, there were two NORTHERN Slave States before, during and after the Civil War/War between the States. These two NORTHERN Slave States did not become Free States until some time in the 1880's. Long after the Civil War/War between the States was over.

29 posted on 10/31/2001 7:45:46 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
The South could have granted immediate freedom to half of its slave population ...

"The South" could have done this? Do you mean the governments of the southern states? Are you saying you support government action depriving slaveowners of their property? That wasn't a terribly popular proposition in the South at that time.

30 posted on 10/31/2001 7:46:06 AM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freefly
I never heard the fact that the South offered to give up slavery except a feeble attempt in 1865 which was promptly rejected by the South.

The largest CW riot occurred in New York by Whites and it started as a protest of the draft law. A Black orphanage was burned and any Blacks found were attacked.

I am not aware of any Black General Officer let alone any black officer.

The North was far more prejudiced against blacks? There is no way I'm going to believe that one. I'm pretty sure the Underground Railroad didn't go South. < Sarcasm >

31 posted on 10/31/2001 7:49:34 AM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
But what about the Dingell-Norwood bill?
32 posted on 10/31/2001 7:51:51 AM PST by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FirstFlaBn
I see an exercise in free speech. [1st amendment]

Whats your constitutional objection to that platform?

33 posted on 10/31/2001 7:55:07 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
The Civil War could have been avoided if the South hadn't seceded. But Southern politicians were too insistent on getting slavery extended into the western territories, and when Lincoln's election made that unlikely, they tried to take their marbles and leave.
34 posted on 10/31/2001 7:58:58 AM PST by laureldrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Sarcasm isn't necessary.
Several Northern states did not allow free blacks at all.
(I suspect that the Underground Railroad didn't have "stations" in them.)
I will get back with you as soon as I can get some time to check through the links.
35 posted on 10/31/2001 8:01:53 AM PST by freefly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Non-Sequitur... If you studied any history (as you claim) you would see the ultimate hypocrisy involved with Northerners who on one hand were screaming for emancipation (when they conveniently didn't have to deal with the problem), and at the same time forming 'Nativist' and 'Know-Nothing' political parties which burned convents and tormented and discriminated against Irish and German immigrants simply because they were Catholic and like to drink!

You 'Puritan' notherners are the ultimate in hypocrisy and I reiterate (now in all seriousness) that most of the abolitionist movement would have shut-up quickly if they thought they might have to share part of the problem.

And regarding displacing individuals? HA! That is a joke. I thought things were so backward and miserable down South that you would love to have these people come up North. And your own Abraham Lincoln (who I'm sure you adore and worship in God-like fashion) was ALL in favor of displacing all of them ALL the way to Africa! But that doesn't seem to change your high opinion of him.

So, SHUT UP!

36 posted on 10/31/2001 8:07:12 AM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
I kept telling Edward II: spend more time with your wife, and less with your nancy-boys. As a result of ignoring my advice, he came to a painful end.
37 posted on 10/31/2001 8:07:48 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
interesting thought... gotta keep in mind that they were doing their best to avoid that war since the founding of the nation, basically. The Missouri Compromise, etc. did a decent job of stalling the inevitable (which was more good news for the Yanks... the North's indutrialization had more time to progress even further). Another decade or two, and slavery may have been a moot issue. However, since that wasn't the only issue being debated, the underlying tension would still have existed. It would have been a lot simpler for Constitutionists today if the fight had come down to purely States Rights vs. Federal Power.
38 posted on 10/31/2001 8:09:10 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
Let me also say to all those who posted telling me that slavery wasn't the main issue...

If that I am fully aware and well-read upon the subject. The fact remains that whether it was or wasn't, this manuever by the South would have stopped Northern aggression because those hypocrites didn't want blacks in the North - heck, their lily-white Puritan and Quaker hearts couldn't even handle Catholics!

Also, it wasn't the Constitution that saved the slaves because there were many movements up North by abolitionists that saw our Constitutions as the 'compact from hell' and wanted to abolish our Constitution because it protected slavery.

39 posted on 10/31/2001 8:11:31 AM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laureldrive
Oh my what an amazing simplified summary right out of a high-school history book.

How about political power? Do you think that might have had a little something to do with it? Just look at the scabbling that goes on today over re-districting congressional districts and you will get a hint.

40 posted on 10/31/2001 8:14:10 AM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
Didn't mean for this topic to get so 'serious', but let me also point out that while he was still president elect, he was conspiring with Winfield Scott, about how to get a war started with the South and make them fire the first shot so public opinion would be in the North's favor.
41 posted on 10/31/2001 8:21:40 AM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
Since I went to public school a lot of this is news. Can you suggest any books on the truth about the Civil War and where they may be purchased?
42 posted on 10/31/2001 8:26:14 AM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: smolensk
Er, you mean the civil war in over? You mean I can go home to Mississippi now?
43 posted on 10/31/2001 8:30:41 AM PST by gulfcoast6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5; Paul C. Jesup
Tocqueville in the 1830s thought that the prejudice against blacks was stronger in the areas where slavery had been abolished than where it still continued.

There were two "loyal" slave states at the end of the war which were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation and had not taken steps to abolish slavery, but the ratification of the 13th amendment in December 1865 officially ended slavery there too. Whether slaveholders in Kentucky and Delaware were actually able to get their slaves to do any work for them in the interval between April and December 1865 is another question, since it was obvious that the institution was on its way out.

44 posted on 10/31/2001 8:31:51 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
To American Spirit..

Send me a personal message and I can send you more, but here are some leads for starters...

Start with "When in the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams - good overview. Then go to website www.crownrights.com (he sells inexpensive reprints of out-of-print historical books) and read "The American Union" by Spence, and "A Republic of Republics" by Sage, and "Americas Caesar" by Duran. For lighter reading, read 'The South was Right' by Kennedy (they get a little hot-headed, but there are many references to other books contained within and what they say is well-documented).

Let me know how it goes.

45 posted on 10/31/2001 8:39:34 AM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: smolensk
I have studied history and find it fascinating. You learn so much about historical figures that you never do in school. For example, here is a link to a website which details the story of how when Robert E. Lee freed some, but not all, his slaves in the 1850's he paid passage for some of them to go to Liberia. Imagine that. Lee an advocate of sending free Blacks back to Africa. So much so that he would pay their passage. Does that change your high opinion of him?

P.S. Sorry if I won't shut up just because you tell me to.

47 posted on 10/31/2001 9:38:31 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Sure they did. Texas v. White. 1869. The court found that secession was not Constitutional. Look it up.
48 posted on 10/31/2001 9:40:20 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
You missed both my point. By the North having Two Slave States during and after the Civil War/War Between the States, it totally invalidates the argument that the war was about freeing slaves and proves that the North are hypocrites.
49 posted on 10/31/2001 9:44:11 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
The real reason for the Civil War/War between the States was export taxs and not salvery.

There was no export tax. Duties or taxes on exports are unconstitutional.

By the way, there were two NORTHERN Slave States before, during and after the Civil War/War between the States

By the way, there were four NORTHERN slave states. Five when West Virginia was admitted.

50 posted on 10/31/2001 9:46:43 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-257 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson