Advanced

The Microsoft / Novell / FSF / GPLv3 tale about the bridge between the meadows

Posted by hkwint on · 29 comments
LXer Linux News; By H.Kwint (the Netherlands)
Mail this story
Print this story

LXer Feature: 10-Aug-2007
I've been trying to catch on and to understand what this thread's all about (It started with R. Hovespian from Novell explaining why they needed a deal with MS). I thought, maybe I could try to summarize it all to understand - and maybe explain to others - what's happening here, so I made up a tale of the whole situation:

This article on Digg

Once, not very long and not very far ago, there were two farmers, Mick and Lindsay (for emancipation, I chose the second to be a wife. Or didn't I?). They both had a very large meadow, going on even after the horizon, it seemed. Between the two meadows was a large, swirling dangerous river. On both sides, antelopes and cows, the 'smart animals', were grazing. It seems those cows and antelopes actually were quite smart, even so smart they could make choices; like the way that is possible in tales. Also, in the land of Lindsay, there were kangaroos, koala's and dingo's; which were stupid animals, they couldn't think; and couldn't choose (they only have a supporting part in the tale, though an important one! But the tale really is about the smart animals). In the land of Mick, however, were dogs, horses and rats, also stupid animals. All cows were rather enterprising, and therefore, the cows were given a bit of money by Mick and Lindsay in return for eating lots of grass

Everything seems normal till so far, except there was a remarkable phenomenon going on here: Mick and Lindsay didn't want the milk or flesh of the animals. Instead, they seemed to earn from every blade of grass that the cows and the antelopes were eating. That's because the meadows were part of a national park, and the boss of the park liked short grass, and paid Lindsay and Mick to keep the grass short. All the stupid animals were not eating grass, but they ate squeezed waste from factories, like dog food is full of these days. So, Mick and Lindsay wanted to have as many cows and antelopes on their meadow as possible. Therefore they started advertising. Mike made big mega-billboards, "My grass tastes far better!". The billboards were that big, the animals from Lindsays meadow almost couldn't see Micks meadows behind the billboards. Instead, Lindsay fertilized her meadow, and after the sun shone for seven consecutive ways, and thereafter it rained for seven consecutive days, her grass was very green, greener than any animal had ever seen, well, except for the Demon maybe. Because Micks large billboards, there was so much shadow on his meadow, the grass became a bit brown, and some of his animals became ill because off viruses the bad grass caused.

Now, those two meadows had a property not told about before, the meadow of Mick was one hundred yards above sea level, and the meadow of Lindsay was only ten yards above sea level. So, Lindsays meadow also was a bit in the shadow of Mick, but she didn't care. All animals on her meadow were rather happy, except they didn't agree for the reason they liked to be at Lindsays meadow. Some smart animals over there said "The grass tastes much better here". Obvious, this was a valid reason of staying at Lindsays meadow. But, there were more things going on. Mick was afraid, his smart animals would like to go to Lindsays meadow. In secret, this was one of the reasons to place the large billboards on the riverside: Not only to advertise to the smart animals at Lindsays, also his own smart animals couldn't look at Lindsays meadow. Though the smart animals at Mick's couldn't see Lindsays meadow, from ancient times they heard mysterious, but great stories, and talked about it. Some heard from shouting animals at Lindsays it was better over there. Some even wanted to go there.

That's were Mick became afraid. Therefore, he made strict rules: all animals on his meadow should listen to him, he was in control. They were to oblige. They only could go anywhere else on the meadow if Mick gave permission. Only the animals that loved Mick the most were allowed to go near the river. The animals that might even only think about Lindsay, were kept from the river as far as possible. Also, Mick put addicting chemicals in the water that was used to wet his meadows, and the grass-seeds Mick used could only grow on Micks meadow. The animals didn't protest, except for a few. Those few complained, they were the ones earning money for Mick! Mick didn't care: "You don't have an alternative" he said. Going to the other side of the river is dangerous, and I forbid it. Moreover, they don't have those nice chemicals in the water over there! You will regret it when you go there! Look, I have some examples of cows earning less at Lindsay's! Look, more animals got ill at Lindsay's! Off course, since the cows were to lazy to count the number of grass blades they ate, it was not sure how much the cows earned, and the few ticks the animals at Lindsay's had didn't compare to the viruses (like the infectious foot and mouth disease) at Micks, so those last two claims were based on spreading fear to leave amongst the animals at Mick's. Except for those few, they didn't know there was another possible lifestyle .

Nonetheless, that other lifestyle existed, in the same way truth happens. It was at Lindsays meadow. Every animal could go were it wanted; Lindsay didn't care that much. Apart from the smart animals liking the grass at Lindsay's, and therefore wanting to stay, there were also some smart animals who cared about their freedom (maybe the smartest of them all, but that issue still remains unsolved, even tese days). Freedom, for them, was all that mattered. Freedom was the only reason Lindsays meadow existed, and the best protection it would keep existing. The rest wasn't that important. The freedom was what made Lindsays meadow great (they called it Grass/Lindsays, because without the grass the meadows wouldn't exist). They also loved the koalas, dingo's and kangaroos in their meadow, and they didn't like dogs, rats and horses. Other animals were worried about their fellow animals at Mick's eating dirty grass. 'All animals should join us, because our grass tastes much better' they said. They thought of a plan how to get more animals to their meadow, and Lindsay was happy: More animals meant more blades of grass would been eaten in the feature.

The antelopes weren't the biggest problem, there needs were rather simple, and they were rather easy to convert to Lindsay's: They could jump rather well. However, the river was rather broad. So, they shouted at some antelopes at Mick's: "Check out our meadow! Our grass tastes much better!". After some hesitation, some antelopes from Micks tried to jump over the river. Some succeeded. Some jumped in the middle of the river, became wet, and decided to swim back, which came at the cost of risk and great effort in the curling river. Nonetheless, they decided to go back: It wasn't that bad at Mick's, and they were afraid of the river from now on.

The cows, however, were a whole different story, they had very different needs. They ate much more grass, were far bigger, had a lot of inertia, so changing direction came at the cost of a lot of energy, they thought much harder, had to prepare everything laborious because they moved slower and moving costed them more energy, and so on. In fact, you could think of them as a group of antelopes with the same goal. Also, like mentioned, they got a bit of money for eating grass, while the antelopes didn't. On the other hand, they eat so much grass, they brought Mick and Lindsay far more profit than the antelopes.

'Let's test if we can get a cow from Mick to our meadow', the smart animals caring about the nice grass said. Therefore, they hired all albatrosses they could find, and with some fish they bought the albatrosses to lift some cows from Mick's and bring them to Lindsay's. The albatrosses brought a few cows, but then were very tired. The cows, former Micks, were very glad to be at Lindsay's: The grass was beter and they were free to move wherever they liked to. The smart animals at Lindsay's asked them to tell their experience to their fellow cows still left at Mick's. But, the new cows at Lindsay's were afraid of Mick. They knew, Mick would send a cargo aircraft with the most expensive business seats a cow could dream of, and even cow whisperers to make the cows return. They were also afraid Mick would say the cows weren't allowed to go to Lindsay's in first place, and Mick might even call the smart animal-jury together to forbid them to stay their! Therefore, they chose to remain silent.

The animals at Lindsay's were a bit split up. They asked themselves what the intention of Lindsays meadow was: Was change welcome, or not? Was it the intention to let as many animals as possible taste from the good grass, or not? Were animals only wanting to go to Lindsay because of the good grass and not giving anything about the freedom at Lindsay, welcome or not? They couldn't agree. Some smart animals were still shouting to the animals at Mick, but since they didn't shout in a synchronized way, it was all a chaotic sound, and the animals at Mick could hear the sound, though they couldn't understand what was being shouted. The animals that were a big fan of Lindsay, the ones also with a business feeling (probably mainly cows), thought of a way to help Lindsay earn more money, and enable more animals to go to Lindsay's. The albatrosses were not a good idea; some animals had fear of heights, the albatrosses asked lot of fish, and they were tired rather soon. "Let's make a bridge!" they said. Mick heard this all. Afraid as he was, he decided to buy some pieces of meadow from Lindsay, and in secret, he chose the pieces were the bridge the animals were to build, would end at Lindsays side. If some animals were to make a bridge, and some of his animals would go grazing on the other side, he would still earn money from the grass blades eaten over there, no matter which animal, his or Lindsays ate it.

The business-minded animals started building the bridge. They didn't consult the freedom-loving animals; all they cared about was business. They were not afraid of animals going from Lindsay to Mick: Some of the animals at Lindsay's loved the grass, some loved the freedom, and the others were lazy. Remember, the meadow of Mick was ninety yards above Lindsays, so to go from Lindsays meadow to Micks, they would have to climb. Of course, the bridge went from Micks meadow to Lindsays meadow, but at Lindsays meadow it ended at the piece of meadow Mick bought. Mick was rather mysterious about that deal, since some freedom-loving animals at Lindsay's tried to undo the deal. It was said, in return for those pieces of meadow at Lindsay's, Mick would help building the bridge. Anyway, since ^z wasn't in the the toolbox of the animals who would like to stop the bridge, they didn't succeed. So, the bridge was completed.

That's when the poop hit the fan. As the freedom loving animals were afraid, dogs, horses and rats entered Lindsays meadow, and a lot of koala's, dingo's and kangaroos died because of the diseases the dogs, rats and horses brought. "Look, the horses, rats and dogs are like a Trojan horse!" said one of the freedom loving animals, who also loved the koalas. "We warned them this would happen, but they didn't want to listen!" the other freedom loving animals said. However, the business-minded animals didn't care that much. They were happy: More grass was eaten at Lindsays. They knew some of the grass eaten was bought by Mick, but they didn't care: The animals eating the grass at the pieces of meadow Mick bought at Lindsays, were easily able to go to the part of the meadow that was all Lindsays; without having to cross a river anymore. Off course, the freedom loving animals were angry. Some new former-Mick habitants didn't care about the freedom, and if the grass at Micks looked better, they didn't hesitate to go back. They also didn't want to share their grass. "Those business minded cows and antelopes never should have told our grass tastes better, without telling about the freedom!" they said to each other in an angry tone. However, the business minded animals didn't agree. They pointed, the cows could now graze in both meadows, which they called 'mixed-meadow environment'.

But that's the downside of freedom: Others, who don't respect freedom, can't be denied to use it, even if they use it for the wrong reason. Because the boss of the tribe of animals who built the bridge was a bit sad the freedom loving animals didn't like him anymore, he started to defend it was a good thing the bridge was built. For the first time in history, cows could graze on both ends without problems. Nonetheless, Lindsays meadow was damaged by the dogs, rats and horses, and the freedom loving animals were fighting to keep them out - that is, to send them back to Micks meadow.

So, it seems, the only thing that bound the animals on Lindsays meadow was disagreement. They agreed to disagree. And did the animals live happily ever after? Possible, but not probable.

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: Editorial, LXer Features; Groups: Community, Kernel, Linux, Microsoft, Novell, SUSE

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (29)

9 earlier comments in the full thread.

"Regardless of how many rats, horses, dingos, cows or vegetarians eat the grass, no matter now much each eats, the grass doesn't run out."

You just go on believing that.
> Trade is not how wealth is created

Absolute bald-faced falsehood.

Let's take diamonds for an example. A rock in the ground is _worthless_. Take it out of the ground, it's worth a little (edit: worth to _me_, otherwise I wouldn't do it). Trade it to a diamond broker who knows who wants it, it's worth more. Trade it to a jeweler, it's worth more. Jeweler trades it to a moviestar, it's worth a whole lot and everyone in the entire chain of trade is more wealthy for having completed the trade than if they did not.

> The NIMBY mentality that is so prevelant as shown by Bob's last comment

Actually, I was referring to a more profitable use of the land involved. Using open grassland for grazing cattle is more efficient than leaving it alone. Using what was marginal farmland for houses is more efficient, especially when close to population centers already (suburbia). Using rich farmland for cattle grazing is wasteful, it is more efficient to farm rich soil than to put goats on it, etc.

It has nothing to do with Not In My Back Yard and everything to do with defense of private property.

Which reminds me, that story about the people moving into a mining town and then throwing _legal_ force around: Why didn't the businesses and people who were already living there simply say, "It's not your property, mind your own business"?

Because legal precedent has already firmly established that private property is meaningless when someone doesn't like what you are doing with your own property. Oh well, you wanted an interventionist government, don't complain when it intervenes against YOU.

> You just go on believing that.

Show me how copying and using F/OSS in any way depreciates the availability of F/OSS to anyone else, in any quantity, and I'll retract my statement.

You did know he was talking about software, right?

Read my post again, separate your politics from your opinions, and read what I actually said. Don't however call me a liar again.

'nuff said, I wont be responding to the political troll (Bob) again.
I did read what you wrote. You wrote "trade is not how wealth is created".

Trade is indeed how wealth is created. Not "money", not "goods", _wealth_.

Money is a tool used in trade, goods are traded. Wealth is what is created by trading what is valued less for what is valued more.

> Don't however call me a liar again.

I don't think you're a liar. I think you are making a false statement. I would like to give you the information needed to correct this error.

> political troll (Bob)

Not politics. Economics.

Politics is the use of coercion to achieve various goals. Economics is substantially how people interact without coercion, while also taking into account how coercion effects those interactions that would or would not otherwise happen.

For instance, making marijuana illegal is a political decision. The fact that making it illegal raises its price is an economic observation.

To loop back to the original article: F/OSS is a non-scarce good. By definition, my use of the product in no way diminishes your use, or anyone else's use, of it.

That's why charging for it is so difficult. Successful companies that utilize F/OSS do so by leveraging the services it provides, or selling support service to F/OSS users.

Yet by utilizing this non-scarce supply, we are actually all more wealthy. As the barriers to trade in this non-scarce commodity have decreased (easier installation, greater hardware compatibility, even just faster downloads) everyone's wealth has increased.

If you disagree, can you tell me why?
> Not politics. Economics.

Bob, have you ever actually taken an economics course?
Yes. It was endless higher math trying to fit arbitrary models against observed trends in order to try to make quantitative predictions.

Later, after the shock had worn off, I read a book about economics which actually made sense:

http://www.mises.org/resources/3250

Do you disagree that politics and economics are separate things?
Bob your definitions are way off compared with mine, and I suspect many other peoples as well:

"Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behaviour within civil governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions"

"Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services"

Shamelessly cribbed off wikipeidia, but you get the point. politics is not coercion (although coercion can be employed in politics).

As for your point on trade being *the* way to create wealth, I think you are being too confrontational, and somewhat narrow in your definition of “wealth”. there are plenty of ways to create wealth without trade and plenty of things one cannot trade which make one wealthy

>A rock in the ground is _worthless_. Take it out of the ground, it's worth a little.

You have just created wealth without trade, fairly easy really. Of course trade makes more wealth but without production trade has nothing to work with.

As a student with a nice family I consider myself far wealthier than any rich and unhappy loner for despite my student debt. To disregard such intangible and un-tradeable things as friendship and esteem is to know the value of everything and the worth of nothing. Which is what I believe azerthoth was getting at.

As for the separation politics and economics, there is plenty of overlap. The amount that you value goods, services your own time, ect. and even what you might find acceptable to sell are all determined in part by your political views.

scuse the midnight typos
> Bob your definitions are way off compared with mine, and I suspect many other peoples as well:

Really? Strange, they seem pretty much identical. Shall we compare?

> "Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behaviour within civil governments..."

Which is exactly how I used it. The fact that "politics" is also a form of decision making in other kinds of groups that do not claim a monopoly on coercion is not the context brought up when "politics" was first used in this discussion.

Determining the process by which an individual arrives at a conclusion is, in fact, most of what a discussion is. Leaving one's "decision making process" out of it would eliminate the majority of the discussions on LXer.

> "Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services"

So the fact that economics is an observing "science" and politics is a "decision making process" means that my assertion that they are different things is wrong...how?

> there are plenty of ways to create wealth without trade and plenty of things one cannot trade which make one wealthy

Ah. Then I will gladly agree, and say "economic wealth". Without trade we are all subsistence farmers living in hand-built mud huts. Welcome to a world of maybe great spiritual wealth, but since nothing is traded how would we know that?

Since I was discussing economics, I meant wealth in an economic sense. Your personal sense of wealth is not an economic good. If you feel tremendously wealthy, good for you. Please pass the ketchup.

> The amount that you value goods, services your own time, ect. and even what you might find acceptable to sell are all determined in part by your political views.

Which is completely personal, without coercion. I can have the wildest of political views and no one need pay any attention to me what so ever. I could believe in the complete abolition of mind altering drugs, for instance, and it doesn't matter at all without the coercive power of the state behind that view.

Without that coercive power, all that means is that I wouldn't buy, consume, produce nor sell psychoactive drugs. It may be a "political" view since it is how I make my decision, but its only effect is to limit my economic interactions with others, not theirs.

I am not a political troll, because I am not telling other people how to live their own lives.

If you wish to assert that I am a free-market economic troll, I will wear that badge with honor. Yes, indeed, I will present at any opportunity how consensual trade beats coercive interaction at every turn: in efficiency, wealth (oops, "economic" wealth) production, distribution, equity, everything.

With that in mind, my decision making process being to compare the benefits of how people choose to interact as opposed to how they are compelled to interact, that is my "politics"? Sounds good.

Consensual interaction without coercion. Funny, that as a "political" philosophy has a name, one which I have had opportunity to state my agreement with on LXer before:

Anarchy.

Too bad that word has been equated with coercion by small groups in contrast with coercion by big groups. That is not anarchy, that is chaos.

But then, it serves the big coercive groups interests to discredit non-coercive interaction. And the big coercive groups run the coercive youth propaganda camps.

uknewbie --

I hear your pain and understand. Bob is an anarchist and tends to dislike law, or, as he would put it, coercion.

However, that doesn't make him wrong about everything, just skewed.

For instance, you don't need trade to have wealth, but

1. Trade gives you a way of realizing that you are wealthy and how wealthy you are. If you don't know you're wealthy, it is arguable that you really aren't.

For example, there is an old story about American Indians selling Manhattan Island to European settlers for $24 in beads and trinkets. Forget history for a moment and let's imagine that the story is completely true and $24 dollars then is $24 today.

The Indians didn't conceive of land as something that could be owned in a meaningful sense and saw no real value in the island. On the other hand, European beads and trinkest were new and very cool. Had they been active in trade wit the Europeans before, they would know that trinkets were a dime a dozen and land a valuable commodity. They possessed wealth and didn't know it. As a practical matter, they had no wealth at all because their ignorance made that wealth available to anyone who wanted to take it.

As to creating wealth, labor absolutely can and does create wealth. Trade, however is required to create huge wealth. Trade lets you get things that are not immediately available. It lest you labor be used more effectively to enrich you and society.. Trad is the biggest creator of wealth.

As to economics and politics, I agree that they are different things, but not separate things. They are tightly entangled. One seems unable to function without the other.
I don't feel any pain, a bit of irritation maybe, but the debate is stimulating. I have a much longer reply drafted which I may post when I am felling a bit more coherent and can type straight, maybe tomorrow. If this is getting too political I could take it to PM, what say you?
hkwint Story submitter ·
Quoting:I could take it to PM, what say you?


Not necessary (as long as no one is against it), these political discussions with Bob and Dino et. all. happen at LXer all the time. Also, the article was about politics and economics anyway (I believe), so it isn't that far of topic I believe.

Hey Bob, I was thinking of you as a Libertarian, not an Anarchist. Was I wrong?
> Hey Bob, I was thinking of you as a Libertarian, not an Anarchist. Was I wrong?

Bob's an admitted anarchist. I'm the libertarian of the group (minarchist, to be specific). Dino, as he largely agrees, is more of a classical liberal (not a liberal in the modern sense, but in the sense our founding fathers were).
> Bob's an admitted anarchist.

I started as a mere rebel, then went on to classical Liberal and Libertarian. The "min-"archy just kept getting more and more "min-" as I went along, until now I simply don't see anything "good" that government (coercion) provides that is not provided more efficiently through private (voluntary) efforts.

"Bads", on the other hand, are far more efficiently provided through coercion. So if folks are interested in the provision of "bads" rather than "goods", government does indeed look to be the way to go.

> Any Puritans?

Hahaha, please! No Puritans! One of my forebearers came over on the Mayflower, their story is one which is actually quite stimulating. Having lived in Massachusetts for a few years, I can say that the Colony never did fully overcome the Puritan motivation that somewhere, somehow, someone was having fun and that must STOP! :^)

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax http://www.mises.org/story/336

A wonderful lesson in the benefits of private property compared with central planning and "communal ownership":

"So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular [private ownership], and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."

...Which, sad to say, has been the experience of every other _coercive_ commune all the way up to the depopulation of Russia in the 1920s.

Wow man, all that free thinking... your ancestors would have burned you at the stake for consorting with the devil.
> ...until now I simply don't see anything "good" that government (coercion) provides that is not provided more efficiently through private (voluntary) efforts.

While I largely agree, I don't think it's possible to go from any current system directly to an anarchy. I think a minarchy is the best we can hope for currently. Once there, we can look at things from a more rational perspective and see how practical an anarchy really is.
> Once there, we can look at things from a more rational perspective and see how practical an anarchy really is.

Fine by me. So long as the "compromise" is that the control freaks give up some of their control, I'm in favor of it.

But to allow a "compromise" to be a goal means that, once completed, the same ground has to be successfully fought for again in order to possibly achieve the next "compromise" which may very well end up being a loss (like the Patriot act).

By always keeping the goal of liberty in sight, I never have to fight for the same ground twice. Let the control freaks and the polypragmatoi "compromise" for a change. They're not familiar with the concept, never having had to do so in the past.

Their goal of complete control has meant that every "compromise" was merely a decrease in the loss of liberty from what they stated they were trying for this time. And the next time. And the time after that.

I would have thought the experience of Neville Chamberlain would have taught the world what the result is of trying to appease someone who has no interest in your remaining free. History repeats, and repeats.
Re: The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

IIRC, Lincoln actually had in mind fasting and not feasting. Thanksgiving was a hit-or-miss celebration until Lincoln issued a proclamation that was renewed annually until it was finally declared an official national holiday.

Bob, what does the von Mises Institute think of Abraham Lincoln?
> History repeats, and repeats.

Yes, it does. And since the forces at work are those of human nature, I have little hope of changing things. I'm just glad that I was born into one of the better times and places in human history, and mourn its almost certain passing.
> I'm just glad that I was born into one of the better times and places in human history, and mourn its almost certain passing.

What a phrase! Ouch! Indeed, we live at a time when it is possible to discern how wonderful things were, and could have been. I can understand how Brutus must have felt to see his Republic betrayed by his best friend, to drive him to murder.

> what does the von Mises Institute think of Abraham Lincoln?

While the Institute doesn't have an opinion, the professors certainly do!

Two of the titles of books written by those professors are, _Lincoln Unmasked_ and _The Real Lincoln_.

They held a conference a few years ago at which all the presentations had to do with "Reassessing The Presidency". All the presentations are online both as text and audio. Let me see if I can find the category...

http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=26

Only two of them specifically mention Lincoln in the titles, but as Jeffrey Hummel (author of _The Real Lincoln_ I think) mentions at the start of my favorite lecture, the one about Martin van Buren, "I expected there would be a lot of Lincoln bashing at this conference, so I decided to change directions and talk about a positive president. A great president. I think, the greatest president the US has ever had." (paraphrased from memory)

Martin van Buren: What Greatness Really Means http://www.mises.org/mp3/Pres/Pres11a.mp3

Here's a little tidbit that came through today on an email list I frequent:

"He told me that the very first thing placed in his hands after his inauguration was a letter from Major Anderson announcing the impossibility of defending or relieving Sumter.... He himself conceived the idea, and proposed sending supplies, without an attempt to reinforce, giving notice of the fact to Governor Pickens of S.C. The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter ... it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could." ~ Senator Orville H. Browning, Lincoln's close friend for twenty years, and staunch supporter of Lincoln's dictatorship, in his daily diary that Lincoln didn't know he kept, July 3, 1861.

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post