Search the Lounge


« Gordon and Hedlund On Financial Aid And Rising College Tuition | Main | The Law School Industry - US Based International and Comparative Law »

December 22, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Now Steve .... we know that Lincoln was a Republican.

ARe you really claiming this fact establishes that you are not steadfastly committed to running a smear campaign against any Republicans daring to comment on public policy today?

Please, Steve.


Wow. I missed the part about "Evangelicals." Are you against them too? (phrases like "I actually praised an Evangelical once ..." are always telling.)

Doug Richmond

I have no idea who "anon" is--that would be the anon who personally attacks Prof. Lubet every time Prof. Lubet posts anything--but this personal vendetta being waged by a coward who hides behind anonymity is beyond tiresome.


As for anonymity, I wish the policy of the FL would finally be finalized and posted. Some websites deny anonymous comments, others don't. There are good reasons to support both views. (I think this thread and others have demonstrated some of those reasons.)

One only hopes that the owners of this site will publish a commenting policy soon, thus obviating the repetitive debate about anonymity ("Any anonymous commenter is a coward" v. "There are some good reasons for concern.")

The comment above further states that this "anon" has “personally attacked” Steve on "every time he posts anything." This anon commented on the last, bracketed assertion in the post above.

Remember, this is the same Steve who “went after” a certain young professor relentlessly, albeit not anonymously. He is a professor who relishes close analysis of words and intentions.

Recently, Steve let slip his true views by inadvertently posting an email he had written to another commenter. After reading that email, it appeared to this anon that Steve had in fact come forward with his honest intentions concerning posts attacking political figures of only a certain party, and therefore, there would be no reason to comment further on Steve's political posts. (Despite name calling in that email, this anon found it useful to understand the true intentions underlying Steve's political posts.)

Unfortunately, Steve took that email down.


"As he writes in the review, “Support for forceful abolition of slavery quashed any hope that moderation or compromise could avert war.”"

Since abolitionism was not a dominant faction in the North ('free soil' was), he's making stuff up. The South could have continued slavery for decades; they decided to secede over slavery then because they felt that the long term didn't favor them.

A friend recently pointed out that with the British, French and Spanish empires opposing slavery (to varying degrees), the South was likely feeling internationally isolated, as well as in domestic trouble.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad