Stewart Goes After Napolitano Over Slavery

[TakeAStepBack]

Play repeater all you want. Was the State of Kentucky a loyal "northern" state? Riddle me that, son.

The answer is "no". Before you try to revise history. They were a neutral state that had brother on brother. kentucky also drew secession plans. They were admitted into the confederacy to boot. But you keep up the shallow hair splitter argument that you lost from the jump. That's what Statists do.

 

[paperview]

Play repeater all you want. Was the State of Kentucky a loyal "northern" state? Riddle me that, son.

The answer is "no". Before you try to revise history. They were a neutral state that had brother on brother. kentucky also drew secession plans. They were admitted into the confederacy to boot. But you keep up the shallow hair splitter argument that you lost from the jump. That's what Statists do.

Play Patterico games all you want, son, --

After a short period of neutrality, yes, Kentucky was a solid Union state, by about September of 1861, via their established government. Were there sympathizers? Of course. Was there a shadow government? Yes. That din't mean diddly squat in the whole scheme of things, son.

It is something you can, as they say...look up.

You keep searching for ways to make the CSA - aka "the South" in the North/South battle of the Civil War, - somehow not "the South" -- but it always returns bad for you.

Aww.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I dont need the south to be changed. Kentucky was a border state that was neutral. That state received the services of US Marshalls in returning slaves to their owners. That happened during the civil war. A.N. wasn't incorrect. Regardless of your play on words without clarification, he's STILL technically correct as Kentucky is a southern state. Any which way I serve it up A.N. was correct. You've failed to deliver a proper rebuttal to his assertion, as did the professors on the comedy show.

Spin all day and the historical record, and regional divide is still in favor of A.N.

And now I'm officially bored.

 

[paperview]

No. You are wrong. Wrong, Wronger than wrong.

Kentucky wasn't a "neutral" state by later 1861. They were loyal Union.

Your revisionist history will not pass -- and your play to make "the South" be Union territory isn't going to wash.

Sorry.

I'll fight this to the end because I know I have entire accurate history on my side.

You have a loyalty to a Lost Cause that is trying to redeem itself -- even after 150 years -- for a cause that sought to preserve, protect and promote enslaving human beings, a cause that all humanity sees as despicable to its every last inch.

And the dark hearts of the neo-confederates want to erase that history -- and I'm here to tell you:

That's not going to happen.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

They were not "loyal" unionists.

The legislation following the election became dominant unionist. And the governor was a hold out to union requests for soldiers, etc. the governor vetoed the and was over run. Which only forced the confederacy out, which remained in Bowling Green until 1862. The State was highly divided and leaned southern sympathizer until the Unionists moved in. In no way was Kentucky a loyal Unionist State. That's pure Statist bullshit using the lies of omission to paint your portrait (as usual).

Andrew N. was correct. You can continue on without me now. As I have no need to debate this, nor continue to watch Statism inaction over the lies of omission.

 

[paperview]

They were not "loyal" unionists.

The legislation following the election became dominant unionist. And the governor was a hold out to union requests for soldiers, etc. the governor vetoed the and was over run. Which only forced the confederacy out, which remained in Bowling Green until 1862. The State was highly divided and leaned southern sympathizer until the Unionists moved in. In no way was Kentucky a loyal Unionist State. That's pure Statist bullshit using the lies of omission to paint your portrait (as usual).

Andrew N. was correct. You can continue on without me now. As I have no need to debate this, nor continue to watch Statism inaction over the lies of omission.

Try all you want, your revisionist history will not stand.

Oh, you 'll find diddly squat for US Marshalls returning slaves to their owners in the small segments of the sympathizers in the confederate Kentucky holdouts too.

The state spoke: They were Union.

"In another special election in August to elect a new legislature, Unionists scored a resounding triumph, winning seventy-six of a hundred seats in the house and with holdovers twenty-seven of thirty-eight in the senate.

With Unionists in firm control of the legislature and the congressional delegation, it was only a matter of time until Kentucky's policy of neutrality was discarded."
...
The decisive event that drove Kentucky out of its neutrality was not Frémont's rash act but the Confederate army's invasion of the state in September 1861. In quick order, U.S. forces under Ulysses S. Grant occupied Paducah, Kentucky, the legislature demanded the withdrawal of the Confederate forces, and when the Confederacy refused, it requested federal aid to expel them. Lincoln promptly responded by sending additional troops to occupy the state, and Confederate forces were soon driven from Kentucky.

Despite the establishment of a shadowy Confederate government and General Braxton Bragg's subsequent invasion in 1862, Union control of the state was never undermined.

In his first annual message, Lincoln observed: "Kentucky ... for some time in doubt, is now decidedly, and, I think, unchangeably, ranged on the side of the Union."[30] His Page [End Page 24] tactful handling of the state in these early months of the war contrasted sharply with Confederate leaders' imperious approach. As E. Merton Coulter concluded,

"The South, too impatient to be tolerant and too impetuous to be tactful, lost the greatest prize of the West—Kentucky.

Abraham Lincoln and the Border States

 

[paperview]

Nothing you will ever say will ever make the confederate sympathizing Andrew Napolitino's statement correct.

Ever.

Andrew...

 

[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!

In dozens of posts in all my years here, I have reminded people of the above remarkable detail.

How states fighting for States' rights were fighting against States' rights as part of their reason to secede.

It's been a solid notation to me that in the many times I've posted this fact -- not one time has a person on the side of the South addressed it.

Not one time. It remains ignored.

There's a reason they never address it. It kills the States' Rights argument.

 

[paperview]

See?

Never.

Never any answer.

Tells you everything.