What do you read from if you are doing a filibuster in the Senate?

[HVC]

Let's assume I'm a Democrat.

I'm reading the Bible, than the Coran, than a Hindu book.

Do the Koran last, they'll stop your ass fast on that one.

[Razgovory]

Some of those awful books published by Baen.

Infodumps are cruel and unusual punishment.

John Ringo, literary criminal.

[jimmy olsen]

Some of those awful books published by Baen.

Infodumps are cruel and unusual punishment.

John Ringo, literary criminal.

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm reading The Deluge atm. That one seems suitable. Wait a minute, Swedes are bad guys? 

[alfred russel]

The bible. The republicans wouldn't dare stop a holy endeavour.

Good one. 

I'd read the most inane materials I know of to bore my opposition into submission. Probably a complete anthology of Tim posts.

[Drakken]

Each and all of the contemporary reviews of the time who tore Atlas Shrugged to shreds and concluded that it sucks as a novel AND a philosophical treatise - including the one by Soviet double agent Whittaker Chambers.

All that, while looking straight at Paul Ryan all the time.

[Zanza]

The secondary legislation of the European Union. That's about 200,000 pages. Should be sufficient to filibuster until the next election.

[Syt]

I would probably go with the works of Shakespeare. And voice act each role.

[Tonitrus]

The collected works of Harry Turtledove.

[The Brain]

I'm reading The Deluge atm. That one seems suitable. Wait a minute, Swedes are bad guys? 

Do I scare you?

Do you want me to?

[dps]

Any public speaker worth his salt doesn't read from anything in such a situation;  he speaks extemporaneously.

[The Brain]

I would put forth a slice... nay a cake of personal philosophy.

[Eddie Teach]

The collected works of Harry Turtledove.

Why do that to yourself?

[Capetan Mihali]

OvB's Collected Posts, 2009-present.

[jimmy olsen]

OvB's Collected Posts, 2009-present.

Some good posts in there

I would consider 1859 America a Democracy. A modern Democracy? No. But it wasn't the modern era, it was 1859. By any normal standard of categorizing governments "democratic Republic" is the most mainstream term that would fit with 1859 America. Politicians were very susceptible to the vagaries of public opinion, elections in which many persons participated genuinely elected leaders and etc.

An oligarchy is a lot different, so to say that an oligarchy and a Democracy with a restrictive franchise are the same thing isn't really true.

That being said it matters not the type of government, slaves have an absolute right to rebellion, period. No slave does wrong when they kill in order to end their enslavement, further, no man does wrong when he kills a slave owner or a protector of slave owners. Those who take and keep slaves are "enemies of mankind" (Hostis humani generis) and in the absence of government that addresses this the ancient and natural laws take over and individuals have a right to use violence and homicide to stop evil actions.

Now, where I get off the train is John Brown's raid was insanely stupid. No rational actor would have believed it had any chance for success, further, it had virtually no chance of even starting a proper slave rebellion. Further still, John Brown basically killed a few innocent people in a small town in Virginia that was not a major plantation area, the people killed by John Brown were townsfolk, not plantation owners. One of the people killed in the raid was just a train baggage handler passing through. They also killed one of the marines that stormed "the fort", but that's sort of the name of the game in that regard. Nat Turner lead a slave revolt, Spartacus lead a slave revolt, John Brown just murdered a few random people and then got his followers killed or executed in short order.