The Daily Show attacks Judge Napolitano on Lincoln and Civil War

[jct74]

‘Daily Show’ obliterates Fox News Confederate apologist: ‘I just un-f*cked your facts’

By Travis Gettys
Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:13 EST

Jon Stewart and The Daily Show’s “senior black correspondent,” Larry Wilmore, drove a stake through Confederate apologists’ arguments Monday night in an epic segment.

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said during a Feb. 14 panel discussion that he held a “contrarian position” on Abraham Lincoln, and Stewart played a video clip of his claims.

Napolitano argued that the 16th president could have avoided the “murderous” Civil War if he’d allowed slavery to die a “natural death,” as it had elsewhere – which Wilmore bitterly disputed.

“The South was so committed to slavery that Lincoln didn’t die of natural causes,” he said. “If the free market was just about to end slavery then, then why is it still going on in some places 150 years later? Slave trade is the literal exact opposite of ‘free market.’”

Stewart pointed out that Napolitano’s viewpoint was shared by some libertarians and other Confederate apologists, and that an entire industry had sprung up around their particular school of thought.

“Do they teach history at this school?” Wilmore said. “Because their facts are all f*cked up. These people think Lincoln started the Civil War because the North was ready to kill to end slavery when the truth was, the South was ready to die to keep slavery. You’re welcome, libertarians, I just un-f*cked your facts.”

...

read more:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/...ederate-apologist-i-just-un-fcked-your-facts/

direct link to video:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-24-2014/denunciation-proclamation

 

[surf]

I watched and was very disappointed. Stewart and Wilmore did not acknowledge, in any way, the 700k (or whatever the number is) people that died for this.

 

[Czolgosz]

So he's indicating that slavery still exists in "free markets?" Where is this mythological creature called "free market?" I'd love to experience one, first hand.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

which Wilmore bitterly disputed

LOL! Does the writer of this article not know that the show is scripted, and that these are actors?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I watched and was very disappointed. Stewart and Wilmore did not acknowledge, in any way, the 700k (or whatever the number is) people that died for this.

Honey, honey, poison! Stewart and TDS are always doing it. Plus they have an additional tactic of portraying themselves as reasonable, unbiased and logical before they go on the attack.

Note how dishonest they were. Taking things out of context, disregarding vast parts of the discussion, and creating straw-men. The gist of the show was that Napolitano and libertarians support slavery.

"Honey, honey, poison," combined with "reason, reason, outlandish deception and targeted emotional hyperbole".

 

[Philhelm]

“Do they teach history at this school?” Wilmore said. “Because their facts are all f*cked up."

My degree is in history, so I would hope so.

 

[Philhelm]

I watched and was very disappointed. Stewart and Wilmore did not acknowledge, in any way, the 700k (or whatever the number is) people that died for this.

Wilmore sort of addressed that question. He stated that it is okay for the Founding Fathers to fight against tyranny, but that libertarians think that it's not okay for the Union to fight to abolish slavery. Or something along those lines.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

I watched and was very disappointed. Stewart and Wilmore did not acknowledge, in any way, the 700k (or whatever the number is) people that died for this.

OR the 250K amputees and disabled Americans...
OR the War Crimes/Crimes against humanity of General William Tecumseh Sherman...
OR the next 100 Years of; carpetbaggers, resentment, conflict, divide, isolation, oppression, and death of many...

Jon Stewart doesn't mention today's 21st century enslavement... just because your imprisonment is comfortable today, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. More mouth from the Cultural Marxists in media. Of course all these well premeditated attacks are launched with no one to defend or challenge the mouth pieces. Then the idiot audiences are used in giving jerk off approval.

 

[jonhowe]

Honey, honey, poison! Stewart and TDS are always doing it. Plus they have an additional tactic of portraying themselves as reasonable, unbiased and logical before they go on the attack.

Note how dishonest they were. Taking things out of context, disregarding vast parts of the discussion, and creating straw-men. The gist of the show was that Napolitano and libertarians support slavery.

"Honey, honey, poison," combined with "reason, reason, outlandish deception and targeted emotional hyperbole".

I don't think it's as premeditated as you're making it out to be. I think it's just that these are people who are fairly bright, and agree with us on a lot of things, but simply don't understand free markets. And of COURSE they take things out of context, it's a comedy show.

 

[mczerone]

“Do they teach history at this school?” Wilmore said. “Because their facts are all f*cked up. These people think Lincoln started the Civil War because the North was ready to kill to end slavery when the truth was, the South was ready to die to keep slavery. You’re welcome, libertarians, I just un-f*cked your facts.”

read more:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/...ederate-apologist-i-just-un-fcked-your-facts/

direct link to video:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-24-2014/denunciation-proclamation

That's an incorrect strawman. Napolitano NEVER SAID the North was willing to kill to end slavery. He explicitly said it was the South that was irrational enough to kill to defend it.

Maybe this guy's problem was that he had govt history class (taught by the "winners" of the Civil war), instead of a multi-national, objective history taught from primary sources.

And I doubt that Napolitano would accept the title "Confederate apologist."

I think the rational view is that:

• Lincoln cared more about Federal Unity than anything else (slavery, tariffs, the lives of peons etc.).
• The South didn't want to pay a tariff that was based on industry located in the South and primarily relied on chattel slavery for labor.
• The North didn't take any steps, pre-civil-war, to act as a refuge for slaves looking to escape the South.
• Almost every other Western Hemisphere nation ended legal chattel slavery without war
• There is question over who "fired the first shot" - but Lincoln is on record threatening the South with bloodshed if they refused to pay the tariff.

Simply pointing out that the North and Lincoln had faults doesn't mean that they are apologizing, defending, or favoring the Confederacy.

Trying to lay out a scenario whereby slavery could've ended without war doesn't mean you support slavery.

I hope Stewart has Napolitano back on the show to discuss this topic, I trust that the Judge has enough eloquence to distinguish the peaceful abolitionist/peaceful secessionist position from the Confederate/pro-slavery position.

 

[mczerone]

Wilmore sort of addressed that question. He stated that it is okay for the Founding Fathers to fight against tyranny, but that libertarians think that it's not okay for the Union to fight to abolish slavery. Or something along those lines.

If that's the argument, why the Missouri Compromise? Why Dred Scott?

If "the fight" was to abolish slavery, it should have been day 1 of Lincoln's first term: declare slavery illegal and enforce it. Don't compromise to allow it in certain new states. Don't return "slaves" to owners when they've escaped to the North. Don't craft federal policy to base your revenues on the labor of slaves.

Instead of conscripting hundreds of thousands to fight an Old World war, why didn't the Union just smuggle weapons to the slaves? Why didn't they blacklist, or worse, assassinate, slave-owners?

The fight, the deaths, weren't about slavery. They were about secession. The disagreement about secession was about a tariff. The tariff was about Northern Industrial interests. And in the tariff and the interests of the Northern Industrialists you'll find the reference to slavery. At best a tertiary reason for the war.

 

[ravedown]

Wilmore vs DiLorenzo in a pay-per view cage match. do it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't think it's as premeditated as you're making it out to be. I think it's just that these are people who are fairly bright, and agree with us on a lot of things, but simply don't understand free markets. And of COURSE they take things out of context, it's a comedy show.

The message was clear: libertarians love slavery, and by default, are also racist. That means you. Is that comedy?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't think it's as premeditated as you're making it out to be. I think it's just that these are people who are fairly bright, and agree with us on a lot of things, but simply don't understand free markets. And of COURSE they take things out of context, it's a comedy show.

A thing that they disagree with us on is where rights come from. They think rights come from a majority's decree and that government is used to enforce them. This is a fundamental difference. An insurmountable one. Sure, he may make jokes about why marijuana should be legalized (and taxed) but truth be told, he hasn't a clue of what freedom means. He is a collectivist. He is a legal positivist. It is why they admire Lincoln as they do. Lincoln epitomizes what they stand for. They are tyrants by any other name.

And Jon Stewart poisons the well, inculcating the most unread of society in his white washed version of "justice." He is a jester. A government appreciated whore. I used to watch him back when 95% of his show was tolerable, now it's episode after episode of garbage-- Political pandering and outright propaganda.

He couldn't hold Andrew Napolitano's note cards in a debate. And that's a fact.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Wilmore vs DiLorenzo in a pay-per view cage match. do it.

I would pay not to listen to Wilmore. The man's voice is insufferable.

 

[Madison320]

Even if the south was as horribly evil as the north claims, did that give the north the right to deny secession? When the United States were formed was the agreement that states had the right to secede, but only if they're not really bad according to the union? "Yes, you have the right to secede as long as we decide you aren't doing something really bad."

Also using that logic, wouldn't the US have the right to annex any territory in the world if that territory is doing something "bad"? Isn't annexing new territory the logical equivalent of refusing to allow an existing territory to secede?

 

[specsaregood]

I hope Stewart has Napolitano back on the show to discuss this topic, I trust that the Judge has enough eloquence to distinguish the peaceful abolitionist/peaceful secessionist position from the Confederate/pro-slavery position.

I don't. Napolitano has been unimpressive on his previous outing(s?) on TDS. Hell, I'm surprised/glad Stewart didn't replay the "is that Reggie Jackson in the audience" bit from his last showing there.

 

[Giuliani was there on 911]

Jon Leibowtiz has always been a piece of shit. I'm always surprised whenever I hear someone on our side of things say that he's decent. No, he's not. He's a progressive.

 

[dillo]

Im not sure slavery would have ever ended, the amount of slaves grew after we banned the importing of them from Africa.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Wilmore vs DiLorenzo in a pay-per view cage match. do it.

LOL!

http://www.ranker.com/list/politicians-i_d-like-to-see-cage-fight-for-votes/taylor

[url]http://www.ranker.com/review/ron-paul/1936730
[/URL]