In this unedited interview, Fox News commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano questions the historical necessity of the Civil War.

Agree or disagree with him, Stewart's argument is basically the standard neoconservative one: There was no option but to go to war. All presidents who go to war make the same claim. Had Japan not been nuked, the war would have lasted too long. Had all the anti-communist wars not been engaged in, the communists would have taken over the world. Had there not been war in Iraq Saddam would have been there too much longer. Or the Taliban in Afghanistan. It seems Stewart and O'Reilly pretty much share these views. O'Reilly has said, whatever the cost to lives and so on, Iraq is "better off" now. And because of that general tendency, that kind of thinking, war will continue everywhere.

Those who go kill abortion doctors think in a similar way.

And they keep harping on Lincoln offering some states (Delaware) some money to abolish slavery laws. That's not the same as offering individual slave-owners to buy their slaves for big sums of money without asking the legislature to change any laws.

And in the unlikely event that violence was required, there was no need to kill hundreds of thousands. There were many fewer slave-owners. Fewer still who would still hold on after generous monetary offers. As morally dubious as assassinations can be, they are still less so than the wholesale slaughter that occurs in war.

From a natural law standpoint, slave-owners are clear-cut criminals/kidnappers. Targeted assassination of kidnappers by law enforcement or paramilitary units is not that uncommon in hostage rescue. Just sayin'.

But the Civil War was about preventing secession not about ending slavery. Personally, I don't think it was worth the death toll to keep some states from seceding.

But if the way the Inquisition and the 'authorities' treated Bruno, Galileo and others is any indication, you can't really rationally argue with some folks (Jon Stewart being one of them, given how he complains about Napolitano arguing the issue from a rational -- instead of an "emotional freakout!" -- position).

One needs to deal with the majority, and the current reality, mostly through action and less through talk/debate, especially when they get the facts wrong, not to mention their interpretations, as explained in this video.

I read something the other day about the slaves in North Korea's labor/prison camps. I don't hear many advocating an invasion of North Korea to free the slaves there. Are there not enough of them? (Although the more hawkish neocons may be considering it.)

Not that I necessarily oppose intervening for humanitarian reasons. But nonviolent and even market solutions seem worth exploring and testing before going into war.