 What I'm going to talk about is some aspects of American military and foreign policy history in the context of Misi's book, Nation, State, and Economy. That's why I gave her the title, The Political Economy of Imperialism. It's a big title. You could write a big book with a title like that, but a 45-minute lecture. Misi's book published originally in 1919 and, of course, available out front for sale. Here's one. I'm going to start with one quote. He's talking about the imperialists of his day, the imperialists, mostly the Europeans. He says, these imperialistic doctrines, the doctrines, anyway, are common to all peoples today. Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Americans who marched off to fight imperialism in World War I are no less imperialistic than the Germans. Basically what he's writing about is that, well, yes, World War I, the Germans were blamed for the war and the imperialism and so forth, but he's saying that the other Europeans, the Frenchmen, the Englishmen, and the Americans have a history of imperialism also. As we'll see, a case can be made that the Americans became imperialistic even before the German government did. He starts out, he's talking about the Prussian Empire. He says this, the Prussian Empire that ruled for more than 200 years, he said, quote, had not arisen from the will of the German people, but it was a state of German princes, but not of the German people, princes. So much for, you know, we are the government, you know, the sort of theory that Americans are taught in the civics class is, you know, you are the government, but Mises wasn't going for that at all. And he said that the German people acquiesced in this, they went along with this, as long as there was what he called sufficient prosperity and military pomp, a prosperity that had nothing to do with the political and military successes of the German state. But the prosperity was associated with the militarism of the German state, by the German state. So a lot of the people thought the reason why they were prosperous was that they were in war all the time, it was militarism, okay. And Mises said the successes of the capitalist development were falsely ascribed to the efforts of the state instead of the individual, the market participants. And he understood also that a prerequisite to create this kind of militaristic state was to wage an ideological campaign against liberalism. He said this, to the status school of economic policy, an economy left to its own devices appears as a wild chaos into which only state intervention could bring order. And he goes on to say, for all the difficulties that confronted the German people at home and abroad, the military solution was recommended. Only ruthless use of power was considered rational policy. These were the German political ideas that the world has called militarism. So he starts out talking about the Prussian Empire and militarism. And he also distinguishes between what he called the princely state and the free state. The princely state, this is early 20th century Misesian language, princely is why Mises is kind of hard to read by modern standards sometimes. The princely state is all about this, the more land, more subjects, more revenue, more soldiers. Only in the size of the state, the size of the state, does assurance of its preservation lie. Smaller states are always in danger of being swallowed up by larger ones. So that's Mises' characterization of the thinking of the advocates of what he called the princely state. Then he points out, though, that there are a lot of smaller states that have existed even during his time, just as long as the large states of his time. But with a free state, by contrast, with a free state, there are no conquests, no annexations, and it forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. It's voluntary. The state is voluntary. Secession is a hallmark of a free state, said Ludwig von Mises. He said this in this book, when a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the Union, any Union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only to do so in the free state. OK, so those are some choice quotes that I wanted to start out with from Mises in the nation economy and state about imperialism. And now, if you look at some aspects of American history through this lens, I would say that the biggest proponent of the ideas of the free state would be, in the American history would be Thomas Jefferson. And a few quotes from him, in his first inaugural address, he said this, if there would be any among us who would wish to dissolve the Union, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it. So it was sort of a defense of free speech and secession at the same time in his first inaugural address. And as soon as Jefferson was elected president, New Englanders started plotting to secede from the Union. And they actually held a secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut in 1814, and they ultimately decided against it. But they debated it for that whole time. And the leader of that movement was Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering. He was George Washington's Secretary of State and Secretary of War and a senator from Massachusetts. So this was a very prominent person who was the leader of the New England secession movement. And Jefferson was asked by a John C. Breckenridge. There are a couple of Breckenridges in history, in the 19th century. This was John C. Breckenridge and asked him what he made of this New England secession movement. And Jefferson wrote back and said this, that he said, if there is to be a separation, then God bless them both. That is, both sections, both countries. He said, and keep them in the Union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better. As Misi said, no one is forced into the structure of the state in a free state. There's another letter that he wrote to a doctor, Joseph Priestley. About a year later, who was writing him on the same subject, what do you make of these New Englanders who want to secede from the Union? And they were talking about creating an Eastern Confederacy, New England basically, and a Western Confederacy, which is every place else. And Jefferson said, those of the Western Confederacy will be as much our children and descendants as those of the Eastern. And I feel myself much identified with that country in future time as with this one. And did I now foresee a separation at some future day? I should feel the duty and the desire to promote the Western interest as zealously as the Eastern. And so it's free state, the Union is voluntary, it would be an abomination to force people into a Union that they don't want to be into and so forth. Murray Rothbard in his essay of his called Just War, if you're interested in this topic I recommend reading his essay online, it's online called Just War, where he said this, the central government, the US central government was not supposed to be perpetual. Does anyone seriously believe for one minute that any of the 13 states would have ratified the Constitution had they believed that it was a perpetual one, a one-way Venus flight trap, a one-way ticket to sovereign suicide, that was Murray Rothbard, the way he put this same thing. At the same time I would argue that the princely state is personified no better than by Abraham Lincoln as his opinions was diametrically opposed in the opposite of what Jefferson just said in his first inaugural address. He said this, no state can lawfully get out of the Union. Acts against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary. And in the same speech he used the words invasion and bloodshed to describe what would happen to any state that attempted to leave the Union. There's no voluntary Union with Lincoln. In the same speech, by the way, he also supported an amendment to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery. It was called the Corwin Amendment and it had already passed the House and the Senate and several states had voted to ratify it. And it turns out Doris Kearn's Goodwin's big 1,000 page book on Lincoln, Team of Rivals, the name of the book. She documents with original sources how this Corwin Amendment came from Lincoln, came from Springfield, Illinois. He ordered Seward, Senator Seward from New York who had become his Secretary of State to see to it that the Corwin Amendment made it through the Senate, which he did. And then after that, in his first inaugural address, he says, I understand the amendment has passed the House and the Senate, but I haven't seen it. So he lied, you know, on his day of total big whopper there. Hadn't seen it. He wrote it. Hadn't seen it. It came from him. Okay. He went on to redefine treason. Treason in the Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, is levying war upon the United States or giving aid in comfort to their enemies, there in the plural, meaning Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Virginia, their waging war on the free and independent states. That's what treason is under the Constitution. Lincoln redefined it basically to mean criticizing him and his war. And of course, the war aims resolution of the United States Congress, which I have reprinted as an appendix to my latest book on Lincoln, The Problem with Lincoln, states very clearly the purpose of the war. It's the first appendix that I put in there, or the U.S. Congress announced to the world that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, that's a laugh, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, another that's funny too, and this is the important part, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, established institutions they meant slavery, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the union. Of course, the union was destroyed because the original union was a voluntary union, and it became more like the Soviet Union after the war because it was no longer voluntary. Ask the Hungarians about that and their history. And so starting with that, that's one example of how America turned more from the free state to the princely state in the language of Mises, more land, more subjects, more soldiers, more revenue, that's what they were about. In contrast to this, Jefferson's writings, the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 is one of my favorite things. I have one quote by Jefferson framed in my bookcase, and I should do this one too, it's from the Kentucky Resolve of 1798, he said, and he wrote, resolve that the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. If the people themselves decide that the central government is exercising extra constitutional powers, then its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force. And compare that with what Lincoln said about insurrection and so forth. Mises also claimed that the Marxists of his day were, he's talking about the Marxists now in the same book, were all for freedom of the press as long as they were out of power. And he says this about imperialists in general. And this reminded me of the ACLU, which is one of the many appendages to the Democrat Party in the United States. And they were good champions of free speech for decades as long as, you know, while the Democrats were largely out of power and didn't control everything like they do now, in all the institutions like they do now. But now that they're in power, when's the last time anyone heard about the ACLU defending free speech when, you know, did they defend Trump when he was de-platformed by Facebook or anybody else or anything? Do they even comment on that? I'm not aware of it. It's up the fire with the university world to defend that, but the ACLU doesn't do that. So this is just an observation by Mises that these imperialistic regimes are all favoring free speech, the political people behind them, when they're out of power, but not so much when they're in power. Now, I have assessed this paper I'm reading from. I have a section on American wars of conquest. Once we started going down the road of the princely state, well, we became imperialistic. Take the invasion of Canada in the War of 1812. Many members of Congress, including Henry Clay, was just one of the main instigators of the war. Clay, the late Gary North for years bugged me to write a book about Clay, since I wrote one about Hamilton and Lincoln. Clay is sort of the man in the middle that connected Hamilton and Lincoln and that political regime that they all stood for. But Henry Clay, when I got I've been researching him, and the latest biography that I've read of him praises him to the treetops for being a member of the committee that negotiated an end to the War of 1812, but they didn't blame him for instigating the War of 1812. He was one of the main instigators in Congress for this. He once said just the militia of Kentucky alone could defeat Canada, as though he would know anything about it, no military experience whatsoever. Okay, and so this was the annexation of Canada. It was clearly desired by members of certain members of Congress. There was a congressman named Richard Johnson. He said, I shall never die contented until I see England's expulsion from North America and her territories incorporated into the United States. There was a congressman named John Harper who said, the author of Nature Himself, God, in case you didn't catch that, had marked our limit in the South by the Gulf of Mexico and on the North by the regions of eternal frost. So he's claiming to know what was in God's mind. Before leading his men into battle, a general Alexander Smith said to them, quote, you will enter a country that is to become one of the United States. And so, you know, quite a few prominent political figures and generals knew that even if the beginning of the War of 1812 was not motivated by the desire to conquer Canada, it certainly became that. So it seems anyway, if you see what these members of Congress were saying. And then if you look at the Mexican American War, in 1846, President James Polk offered to purchase from Mexico land that included Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, part of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. These are all part of Mexico at the time. That was a big land sale, something Donald Trump never even did, as far as real estate sales. Well, the Mexican government said no thanks. And so after which Polk claimed that American blood had been shed at the hands of Mexican soldiers in Texas somewhere. And so that justified the invasion of Mexico. And the end result was the Polk administration was able to add all of this territory to the United States. And they wrote Mexico a check for 18 million bucks for all of that land at the time. And so that seems to fall into the princely state category, I would think, even long before Lincoln came along. So I'm not saying that Lincoln initiated this, but the point I made was that I wanted to compare Jefferson and Lincoln in their thinking ideology there. And by the way, the Civil War, a very interesting little book is by Robert Penn Warren. He was asked by Time Magazine in 1960 to write a book, you know, the Centennial of the Civil War. And he wrote a little book called The Legacy of the Civil War. And one of the points he makes is that the story of the, that is told of the American Civil War created what he said as a treasury of virtue on the part of the United States government, meaning anything the United States government would do in terms of foreign policy was virtuous by virtue of the fact that it was the United States government that was doing it. Okay. And he said it was used to justify any and all aggressive wars. And Robert Penn Warren, the famous novelist and writer, all the King's men that Robert Penn Warren, he said moral narcissism became the driving force of American foreign policy and justification for our crusades of 1917 to 1918 and 1941 to 1945 and the diplomacy of righteousness with the slogan of unconditional surrender and universal rehabilitation for others, for others. So that was Robert Penn Warren. And I think he was right on the money for that on that. And if you're interested in this whole topic, that's a really interesting little book. He was a just a wonderful writer, Robert Penn Warren. Then I also write a little bit about the Indian Wars after the Civil War, the American Civil War, literally three months after Robert E. Lee surrendered, Sherman, General Sherman was put in charge of the military district of the Missouri, which is all the land west of the Mississippi. And his job was to kick out the Indians to make way for the government subsidized transcontinental railroads. And Sherman made a speech where he said this, we are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress of the railroads. He wrote that to Ulysses Grant, who was his best friend, his buddy in 1867. Michael, a biographer of Sherman, Michael Feldman, said this, the great triumvirate of the Union Civil War effort, General's Grant Sherman and Sheridan pursued what Sherman called the final solution to the Indian problem. Kind of creepy language, don't you think? The final solution. This is Sherman's language. It's not Michael Feldman's language. He was quoting Sherman and saying that. And this included all these former generals, Lincoln's generals, John Pope, Howard, George Armstrong, Custer, he was in general, Benjamin Garrison, Winfield, Scott, Hancock, and they eventually killed some 45,000 Indians, Plains Indians. And of course they had to have maimed probably more than double that number, as far as that goes in rating their Indian villages in the middle of winter, usually when families would all be together. That's when most of the Indian raids happened and most of the Indians would be together. Now, Mises, on this subject, Mises wrote that how many of the wars of conquest during his time were against what the imperialists of his time called the lower races. And these are people, Mises says, these are people who the imperialists considered, quote, not ready for self-government and never will be ready for self-government. And so he cites British imperialism in India and the Congo and American imperialism against what he called the Asiatic peoples, the Philippines in places of that sort. And what the US government did to the Indians, it seems to me what falls into the same thing that what some of the European powers were doing to what they called the lower races. And here's something that General Sherman said in another letter to Grant. He says the Indians give a fair illustration of the fate of the Negroes if they are released from the control of the whites. So this is after the Civil War, slavery has ended. And General Sherman is saying that the Negroes need to be controlled by the whites or they will turn into savages and barbarians in his opinion, just like the Indians, which he considered to be savages and barbarians. The odd thing about all this though is that a lot of next slaves joined Sherman's army, the Buffalo soldiers they were called. And they were members of Sherman's army mass killing another colored race for money. They're celebrated, but I don't think they ought to be. Okay, now Sherman gave his lieutenant, his main lieutenant was Sheridan, General Sheridan, who was another Civil War luminary. And he gave Sheridan prior authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men when attacking Indian villages. He said it was too cumbersome and too time consuming to distinguish between the men and the women and children. So they just kill everybody. And they killed the horses, the dogs, and every living thing. Do it. It was there. And there's a man, the late S. L. A. Marshall, who was the U. S. Army's official military historian of the European Theater of the War in World War II. So the official U. S. Army's history of the European War in World War II was written by this man, S. L. A. Marshall, who authored 30 books on U. S. military history. So he seems to me to be quite the authority on U. S. military history. And he said this about Sheridan's orders to Custer. He called them, quote, the most brutal orders ever published to American troops. He was referring to the order to kill everybody. Men, women, children don't distinguish. It's too time consuming to do that. So they would typically sneak up on Indian village when the families were together. And by that time, they had gatlin guns with, you know, a form of a machine gun, you know, artillery, of course, and rifle and repeating rifles. And they would wipe out entire villages. Okay. The next enlightening story I tell in this paper is the American conquest of the Philippines. I don't really tell the story. It's a very brief description. Well, the Filipinos had just ejected the Spaniards from their country and declared their independence. But the Americans wanted, the American government wanted to get in there instead. And so there was the Philippine insurrection, 1899 to 1902. And according to the history books, some 200,000 Filipinos were killed by American soldiers. I found a couple of sources that said it may have been many as a million. No one seems to know for sure. But most of the books say 200,000 or so, 4,000 American soldiers also died. And there's a biography of Teddy Roosevelt written by my friend Jim Powell. It's called Bully Boy. He published in 2006. And he talks about Roosevelt and his role in this. And Roosevelt denounced the Filipinos as quote, and he's quoting Teddy Roosevelt now. Bill Clinton once said, my favorite Republican president is Teddy Roosevelt. And he said, he called the Filipinos, Chinese half-breeds, savages, barbarians, and wild and ignorant people, a lesser race in other words. When Mises talked about how the Europeans conquered the lesser races, that's how the Americans in the early 20th century, the turn of the century, referred to the Filipinos. There was a senator named Albert Beveridge of Indiana who was the big war proponent. He said, and he was celebrating once this was accomplished. This is a very short enterprise. The Philippines are ours forever. The Pacific Ocean is ours. He said it was America's duty to bring Christianity and civilization to savage and senile peoples. Christianity. The Filipinos had been Catholics for 400 years at that point. And this dimwit Senator Albert Beveridge makes a speech like that. Powell also quotes T.R. as his biggest fan, Bill Crystal calls it, he used to call him. He said, quote, all the great masterful races have been war-like races. There's that master race thing. This was before Hitler. He said, and he denounced, Teddy Roosevelt denounced the menace of peace in the same speech. Shortly afterward, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Kind of like Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize two weeks after becoming president. Never could have done anything to deserve it. Also during his presidency, T.R., Bill Crystal's favorite Republican in history, plotted against Cuba, Hawaii, Venezuela, China, Panama, Chile, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Canada as well. The Philippine insurrection followed the three-month-long Spanish-American War. Secretary of State John Jay, who was Lincoln's personal secretary in the White House. But by then, he was Secretary of State. He called it a splendid little war. Maybe for him it was. It wasn't for all the people who died in it. Maybe for him it was. And if any of the students, if you're interested in doing some reading on this, there's the great libertarian Yale University sociologist William Graham Sumner. One of my favorite short little essays in this whole area is The Conquest of the United States by Spain by William Graham Sumner. And so it's online. You can read it while you're sitting there even. And just tell you some of the things that Sumner said in this. He said, you see? He said, this war, the Spanish-American War, ushered in a new foreign policy direction of, quote, war, debt, taxation, diplomacy, a grand governmental system, pomp, glory, a big army, and a navy, lavish expenditures, political jobbery, and a word imperialism. Sounds like today, doesn't it? Sounds like the U.S. government today. Okay. And here's another thing that Sumner said. He said this, my patriotism is of the kind which is outraged by the notion that the United States never was a great nation until in a petty three months campaign, it knocked into pieces a poor, decrepit, bankrupt, old state like Spain. Okay. And then he goes on to say, the people were bearing the burdens of the imperial system, and the profits of it went into the treasury, which in the case of Spain was the hands of the king. And so now the United States is going down that same road. So he's saying the United States is becoming like Spain. That's why the title of the article is the conquest of the United States by Spain. And he said, you know, this system of jobbery, which Patrick Newman would call cronyism, I think, jobbery, as if the old word jobbery would create enormous profits for a few schemers. Sound familiar? Hunter Biden call your office at the expense of everyone else in society in terms of blood and treasure. We're constituting a grand onslaught of democracy on democracy. That's William Graham Sumner. But I also tell a little story in this paper reading from about Hawaii. In the early 1890s, American businessman in Hawaii wanted the government to declare it an American province. There's a lot of money to be made in there. There's a man named Dole who was very interested in, not Bob Dole. He's kind of doing it. Dole pineapple guy. Okay. And I don't know if I can pronounce this name, the Hawaiian queen. Yeah, I'll give it a try. Lilio Kalani. That's not too bad. Queen Lilio Kalani. She attempted to stave off the American imperialists by creating a new constitution. But then the Americans who wanted to take this over created something called a committee of safety. There's an Orwellian phrase for his safety, committee of safety. It's dangerous to be living in Hawaii so that you need the Americans to come in there and make you safe. They raised an army called the Honolulu Rifles. And the queen was gone by that time when there was a king, a Hawaiian king, and the Honolulu Rifles, thugs with guns supported by the U.S. government, forced the Hawaiian king at gun point to sign a new constitution. It became known as the Bayonet Constitution. And so Marlon Brando and the godfather was not the first one to hold a gun to somebody's head and say your signature or your brains will be on this piece of paper. It was the Honolulu Rifles that along before the mafia, along before the Italians even came to America, as far as that goes, in large numbers. So this happened. They took over this constitution. They disenfranchised all Asians as an inferior race, along with most others, except for the wealthy American landowners. They pretty much took over Hawaii. And, you know, this isn't even a turn of the century. It took until 1959 when Hawaii became a state. And here's the, here's the odious Teddy Roosevelt again commenting on, on this. He gave a speech to a Boston audience in 1895 because what happened was Grover Cleveland got elected president shortly after this. And he was against, he was against occupying Hawaii. And so he sort of stalled things for a couple of years, but only for a short while. And then, you know, blustery Teddy Roosevelt. Tom Wood said, journalists love Teddy Roosevelt. And the only reason Tom could think of is that they liked his big teeth. He had real big teeth and he's smiling his teeth in the kind of horse teeth. So I think they liked his big teeth, Tom says. Who knows? Who knows? And, but anyway, he said, Teddy said, I feel there was a crime against the white race that we did not annex Hawaii three years ago. That is, Grover Cleveland stood in the way. Okay. That's, what a guy, Teddy Roosevelt. Now, Macy's further says that these other nations that he writes about, the European nations, you know, they, they conquered all these, these places of the lower races as they called it in the tropics and the subtropics. But eventually the Germans, he said they quote, directed their imperialistic policy against European peoples also. So they had to come up with a new reason, a new rationale. The old rationale was, well, we want to civilize and Christianize and, and bring democracy to these, to these people, these savages. But now when they start, they start invading other European countries, what's the rationale for that? Well, then the rationale becomes the unified state. According to Macy's, he says, to justify the application of imperialist principles in Europe against against the white Europeans, the German theory saw itself compelled to fight the nationality principle, which was more friendly toward classical liberalism, that is sovereignty, and replace it with the doctrine of quote, the unified state. Okay. Small states were said to no longer have any justification for their existence. And, and this is where Macy's points out that, well, if you look at history, there are a lot of small states that existed for a very long time, just like the big states. But they, they came up with this theory saying, well, then there, you know, democracy and so forth will disappear unless it's, there's a big unified state. And of course it sounds a lot like Lincoln's Gettysburg address, doesn't it? They, about the unified state, government of the people, by the people, for the people, and, and so forth. And that's what that reminded me of when I read that passage from Macy's writings. I don't think I have any more horror stories other than in terms of the unified state. Here's another German author who said this, the individual states of the American Union could not have possessed any state's sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union. On the contrary, it was the Union which formed a great part of the so-called states. And the late Joseph Sogren commented on this, this type of reasoning by saying, well, that makes as much sense as saying a marital union can be older than either spouse. You know, that the the union of states is older than the states. How could that be? And anyway, there, now an American, there's an American politician that said almost the exact same thing. And this, this German politician that I just quoted, quotes this American politician. So I'm going to read you what the American politician said. It's almost the exact same thing. The American politician said, the Union, the American Union is much older than the Constitution. It follows from these views that no state can lawfully get out of the Union. Okay, so the, the Union created the states, therefore the states cannot get out of the Union. Who do you think said that? Who would take a guess? Who would take a guess? That was Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address quoted in Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler from the first quote. The first quote was Adolf Hitler and Mein Kampf, page 566. And so I'm sure you all have a copy, so you can just go back, go back there. I wrote a whole article about that actually years ago after I, after I debated Harry Jaffa, the king of the Straussian neocons, the late Harry Jaffa. And I knew what he was going to do. I knew, because I read up, I did a little studied up before the debate. It was at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California. And he invariably would make some kind of smear like he, when he debated Mel Bradford, he would say, uh, Hitler would probably agree with Mel Bradford about his position. He'd always bring Hitler into it and the Nazis into it somehow. And I knew he was going to do that with me somehow. So he did the same, he did something like that. Hitler would probably agree with D. Lorenzo. But I remember, I had taken a European history class in college and we actually read parts of Mein Kampf in this history class. And I don't know why this stuck in my head, but I remember there was a whole chapter on federalism and states' rights in Mein Kampf. So I went to Barnes & Noble and bought a copy of Mein Kampf and walked out with a brown paper bag. And sure enough, sure enough I read this, I read this. And here's Adolf Hitler praising Abe Lincoln to the treetops for destroying federalism in America to make his case for destroying federalism in Germany, you know, many years, many years later, at the unified state. So we ended up with the unified state at the barrel of a gun in the U.S. in, you know, fast forward all those years. And Hitler was doing the same thing. And I think my time is almost, maybe we have one or two questions or something. It's not quite quarter of. Okay, if anybody has a question or a brilliant commentary or anything like that. Yes, sir, how about you? Yeah, it's online. I think you could go on the Independent Institute, Independent Institute's website. I think they still have it on there somewhere. What's the title? What's the debate between me and Harry Jaffa, J-A-F-F-A. And I haven't looked at it in years. I don't know. I assume the Independent Institute, probably, if you go on their search engine on their website, you'll probably find it. It's on YouTube somewhere. Okay, awesome. Yeah, just put dealer Renzo Jaffa Lincoln debate and you'll find it on the web. Most other Western nations, as far as I know, historically, they also had slavery like America, but ended it earlier than we did, but maybe more peace. Not all the earlier, Brazil ended it later. Jim Powell, who I mentioned, wrote a whole book called Greatest Emancipations in great detail about how all the other countries of the world ended slavery peacefully. And that includes New York, New Jersey, not New Jersey, but New England, Pennsylvania, all the all the northern states, there were slaves, all the states, not as many as in the south, but there were slaves. There were slaves in New York City as late as 1853. And slavery did not end in New Jersey until January of 1865, when it was forced to end it by the 13th Amendment. And of course, New Jersey was part of the Union all during the Army. They sent soldiers to kill Alabamans to save the Union. And they had slaves the whole time. There were slaves in West Virginia all during the war. That was a part of the Union. But all the other countries of the world found a way to purchase the slaves from the slave owners and then legally end it. They did it in different ways. And this book by Jim Powell describes all the different ways in which he did it. New York passed a law, I think something like 1797 or something like that, that said that the children of slaves would be free upon reaching age 25. So a slave woman that had a baby in 1810, 25 years after that, that child would be free under New York law. But what happened was the slave owners in New York and in New England would sell, would wait till that child became 24 years old and then sold it into slavery somewhere else. So they ended slavery but they did not free all the slaves because they didn't want these people living among them in the North. Tocqueville in his famous book Democracy in America in his time, 1830s, he wrote that he said the problem of race, as he called it, we call it racism now. He said it was oddly worse in the North than it was in the South even though there were, you know, orders of magnitude more slaves in the southern states than there were in the northern states. But yes England, Britain, England, Spain, France, the Danes, the Dutch all into slavery peacefully without a war. So on that my question is that, sorry, there seems to be more animosity and racial tension in America versus all of these other countries and I'm wondering if Lincoln's war might have contributed to that. Well it's a different world today so you know you know a lot of reasons for that sort of thing but in my book The Real Lincoln I quote one of Lincoln's officers, a Captain Poe, who was a military engineer I believe, he became a newspaper editor in Washington D.C. after the war and I quote him as saying that what happened during reconstruction you know after the war the U.S. government conquered the southern states you know despite what they said in the war aims resolution and the Republican Party ran the southern states. The governor of Louisiana was a Republican Party crony who became governor of Louisiana for a couple of years and he retired with eight million dollars in the bank and so it was a pretty good gig if you were a Republican Party political hack in those days but reconstruction they disenfranchised the white voters for a while and registered to vote all the male adult ex-slaves women didn't have the right to vote back then and they actually raised taxes property taxes in South Carolina were 20 times higher in 1870 than they were in 1860 and so after destroying the place and what they needed was tax amnesty they increased property taxes by 20 fold in order to you know the tax collectors would come down there and either you pay them a bribe or they'll take your property and if you didn't have the money for the bribe that your farm is theirs or your cotton crop was there so there's a lot of theft going on and a lot of the ex-slaves participated in this because they voted they voted for a tax increase after tax increase they they became pawns of the Republican Party and then the Republican Party left the reconstruction ended and you had all of these ex-slaves who had been in cahoots with the Republicans to continue the plundering of the South for 10 years after the war was over and and that's you know one of the reasons why the Ku Klux Klan was created was to intimidate the ex-slaves out of voting for all these tax increases that was the origins of that and so you could that that's that is I suspect why this captain Poe said that race relations were made you know infinitely worse because of that not so much of the war but because what happened during you know the decade or so of so-called reconstruction where you know almost nothing was done for the ex-slaves by the government they they had the Freedman's Bureau but they didn't do much it was sort of a Republican Party propaganda mill they rewrote they rewrote history they published a lot of books about the their glorious deeds in the war but they didn't do much for the ex-slaves any more time was it time up no