Stewart Goes After Napolitano Over Slavery

[longknife]

After an annoying popup, this story from Daily Kos seems to be a case of tearing the judge's comments to pieces. He said that Lincoln sent federal marshals out to capture and return escaped slaves to the south. The story is @ Jon Stewart has 3 history professors rip apart Fox's Andrew Napolitano's slavery*revisionism

Well, I decided to see for myself and did a Google search on the subject. Here's the link to the search @ https://www.google.com/search?clien...caped+slaves&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 and it provides some interesting results. Among them:

Whitman, Dickinson, and the Fugitive Slave Law – it empowered federal marshals to compel slaves to be returned to their owners? Isn't that what the judge said?

Lincoln and His World

So, the question is: Did these liberal professors really debunk Judge Napolitano's remarks or not? IMHO, once again, the judge was right on the spot and no amount of liberal spin is going to change that.

 

[Katzndogz]

A comedian v. Judge.

Yes, there is humor in that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Napolitano was right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Coming from the 57 States/400 Year Old Constitution Crowd...yeah, they have it right.

LOL

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Not to mention Guam sinking and the US flag on Mars. These idiots are bright!

 

[Truthseeker420]

How would Lincoln abolish Fugitive Slave Act? He can only sign bills that are passed by Congress. Napolitano is living in fantasy land.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Napolitano was right.

Right about what?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Napolitano was right.

Right about what?

Try to keep up.

I understand that it's difficult for you but do try.

 

[paperview]

The history professors had it right, and Andrew had it wrong.

Is it that hard to look up "personal liberty laws" that were in place in many northern states pre-civil war? Why did Nappy not know about General Butler's non-return of slaves, declaring them contraband of war -- a policy Lincoln agreed with?

Why did he not know about the First Confiscation Act and Congress passed/Lincoln signed Article of War Act that prohibited the US Army and Navy from returning fugitive slaves to their owners?

I mean some of this is basic stuff - but he got it wrong.

On that whole bit though, I especially liked the part where Napolitano said Lincoln tricked the South into shooting first.

 

[editec]

Today's CSA apologists lie and lie and lie about history.

They have no choice because otherwise the Rebs appear to be exactly what they were...people who believed that SLAVERY was good business, people who fired upon their own government, people who could have been hanged for treason.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Napolitano is correct. Even the US Marshal website confirms that they upheld/enforced the fugitive slave act.

But Statists love a good revision of history to make it as though they aren't a bunch of flaming hypocrites. Which they are.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Today's CSA apologists lie and lie and lie about history.

They have no choice because otherwise the Rebs appear to be exactly what they were...people who believed that SLAVERY was good business, people who fired upon their own government, people who could have been hanged for treason.

Except in this context no one lied. And your ad homs add diddly shit to your non-existent argument.

 

[paperview]

Today's CSA apologists lie and lie and lie about history.

They have no choice because otherwise the Rebs appear to be exactly what they were...people who believed that SLAVERY was good business, people who fired upon their own government, people who could have been hanged for treason.

Indeed.

The Lost Causers, keep on keeping on. Bogus "facts," revisionist history, and a horrible, horrible moral side they chose to align with.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Today's CSA apologists lie and lie and lie about history.

They have no choice because otherwise the Rebs appear to be exactly what they were...people who believed that SLAVERY was good business, people who fired upon their own government, people who could have been hanged for treason.

Indeed.

The Lost Causers, keep on keeping on. Bogus "facts," revisionist history, and a horrible, horrible moral side they chose to align with.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

U.S. Marshals Service, History, The Constitutional Imperative - Enforcing Fugitive Slave Laws and Segregation

As part of the famous Compromise of 1850, Congress passed one of the most roundly hated and

violently opposed laws in American history. The Fugitive Slave Act required U.S. Marshals in the north to return escaped slaves to their masters in the South. Northern abolitionists, who were intent on abolishing the institution of slavery, turned on the Marshals in a number of slave rescue cases.
But the Marshals, regardless of their personal feelings, had no choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law, meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced the law.

 

[paperview]

Napolitano is correct. Even the US Marshal website confirms that they upheld/enforced the fugitive slave act.

But Statists love a good revision of history to make it as though they aren't a bunch of flaming hypocrites. Which they are.

Napolitano was wrong.

The great irony -- and total hypocrisy of the South, who made it clear in their Declarations of Secession, in support and expansion of slavery,

while they held up the banner of States' Rights - was part of the reason they were getting so pissed was the Northern states were not upholding the Fugitive Slave laws --

that's right, they said part of the reason they were rebelling (to uphold "States' Rights) -- was because State's (in the North) were utilizing their rights!

 

[paperview]

U.S. Marshals Service, History, The Constitutional Imperative - Enforcing Fugitive Slave Laws and Segregation

As part of the famous Compromise of 1850, Congress passed one of the most roundly hated and

violently opposed laws in American history. The Fugitive Slave Act required U.S. Marshals in the north to return escaped slaves to their masters in the South. Northern abolitionists, who were intent on abolishing the institution of slavery, turned on the Marshals in a number of slave rescue cases.
But the Marshals, regardless of their personal feelings, had no choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law, meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced the law.

That doesn't support Nappy's statement. (but it's fun to see you run to Patterico.)

Maybe you missed this one.

Here, I'll repost.

The history professors had it right, and Andrew had it wrong.

Is it that hard to look up "personal liberty laws" that were in place in many northern states pre-civil war? Why did Nappy not know about General Butler's non-return of slaves, declaring them contraband of war -- a policy Lincoln agreed with?

Why did he not know about the First Confiscation Act and Congress passed/Lincoln signed Article of War Act that prohibited the US Army and Navy from returning fugitive slaves to their owners?

I mean some of this is basic stuff - but he got it wrong.

On that whole bit though, I especially liked the part where Napolitano said Lincoln tricked the South into shooting first.

 

[Stephanie]

lets see, who would I believe?

a judge or some left wing spewing comedian idiot?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

U.S. Marshals Service, History, The Constitutional Imperative - Enforcing Fugitive Slave Laws and Segregation

As part of the famous Compromise of 1850, Congress passed one of the most roundly hated and

violently opposed laws in American history. The Fugitive Slave Act required U.S. Marshals in the north to return escaped slaves to their masters in the South. Northern abolitionists, who were intent on abolishing the institution of slavery, turned on the Marshals in a number of slave rescue cases.
But the Marshals, regardless of their personal feelings, had no choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law, meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced the law.

That doesn't support Nappy's statement. (but it's fun to see you run to Patterico.)

Maybe you missed this one.

Here, I'll repost.

The history professors had it right, and Andrew had it wrong.

Is it that hard to look up "personal liberty laws" that were in place in many northern states pre-civil war? Why did Nappy not know about General Butler's non-return of slaves, declaring them contraband of war -- a policy Lincoln agreed with?

Why did he not know about the First Confiscation Act and Congress passed/Lincoln signed Article of War Act that prohibited the US Army and Navy from returning fugitive slaves to their owners?

I mean some of this is basic stuff - but he got it wrong.

On that whole bit though, I especially liked the part where Napolitano said Lincoln tricked the South into shooting first.

So your claim here is that the US Marshall.gov website has lied? No one, including Napolitano, claimed that there weren't cases of northern state abolitionists taking slaves to canada in defiance of the slave act. He said that federal marshall's were charged with returning them to slave owners. And they upheld that law and did so, moron.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

But you will continue to twist the argument to make it out like you have bested A. Napolitano. But you didn't. You're just flailing around in that self prescribed hypocrisy that you refuse to admit, feel shame over or change.