Patterico's Pontifications

3/13/2014

Andrew Napolitano Punks Jon Stewart and His Panel of So-Called “Experts”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:08 pm

Jon Stewart had libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano on a couple of nights ago, and the two debated Lincoln and the Civil War. I have been reading and listening to a lot of hard libertarians lately, and I have learned that they tend to be highly critical of Abraham Lincoln — and in truth, they have several good arguments concerning Lincoln’s behavior. He did not fight the war to free the slaves; he promised in his First Inaugural Address to retain slavery in the states that had it, and to return fugitive slaves to those states; he suspended the writ of habeas corpus and imprisoned his critics; he fought a brutal war; and he attacked states that had exercised their long-understood right to secede from the Union.

That said, his war did have the effect of freeing slavery. And Lincoln’s atrocities — like Nelson Mandela’s in a different struggle for equality and human rights — tend to be overlooked by most historians who prioritize the greater good of freedom.

It all makes for an interesting debate, but that’s not the point of this post.

The point of this post is to rag on Jon Stewart and his entourage of pointy-headed professors for getting the facts wrong. In particular, Napolitano made the point that U.S. Marshals were used to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, dragging slaves back to their owners in the South. Napolitano went so far as to say that this ugly use of federal force continued even after the War Between the States had started!

STEWART: “So even they had banned it, people were still using people as property, and isn’t that what the war was about?”
NAPOLITANO: “The president used — forgive me, Abe — the president used federal marshals to chase down slaves that had escaped and returned them to the south during the Civil War.”
PROF. FONER: “That’s not true!”
PROF. SINHA: “That’s not true! Absolutely not.”
[Laughter]
STEWART: “Point of order! Point of order! How is that not true?”
PROF FONER: “Didn’t happen.”
PROF. OAKES: “Because it’s not true. Didn’t happen.”
NAPOLITANO: “Do you know how difficult it is for a judge to be judged?”
LINCOLN: “If I may say –”
STEWART: “Yes, I’m sorry, Mr. Lincoln.”
LINCOLN: “That answer is crazier than my wife. Hello.”
STEWART: “Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have left for the Weakest Lincoln. We’ll be right back.”

So there was general mockery all around at Judge Napolitano’s expense. The experts had spoken: Napolitano was wrong. I spent some time trying to research this issue last night and came up empty. The U.S. Marshal’s web site confirmed that marshals enforced the Fugitive Slave Act, but the site does not tell the reader when the marshals stopped enforcing the horrid and immoral law. Web searches yielded sites that seemed mostly uninformed on the timing of it all.

But guess what? It turns out that Napolitano was right. Tom Woods sets the record straight:

Please do take the time to actually watch the Woods video. He is a great communicator and I listen to his podcast every day. (I recommend you subscribe!) He has an engaging manner and makes his arguments with facts and dignity — my kind of guy.

Woods cites passages from a scholarly work that establishes that U.S. Marshals were used to arrest slaves and return them to slave owners in the border states, such as Kentucky and Maryland. Napolitano was right, and Stewart’s panel of so-called experts was wrong.

The best the professors could argue, I suppose, is that the states to which slaves were returned — states like Kentucky and Maryland — were border states that had remained “loyal” to the Union (even if the reasons were not always rooted in “loyalty,” as evidenced by the fact that, for example, Lincoln’s imposition of martial law is what prevented Maryland from seceding).

But Napolitano did not say that U.S. Marshals had returned slaves to “the Confederacy” or to “the deep South.” Rather, he said that U.S. Marshals had returned slaves to “the South.” And Kentucky is undoubtedly part of the South. (For that matter, so are West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware.) If that is not immediately obvious to you, and for some reason you require proof, I will point you to the U.S. Census, which includes in its classification of “the South” states such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia — all border states that, while not part of the Confederacy, permitted slavery and benefitted from the actions of U.S. Marshals who scooped up those poor runaway slaves and returned them to their “rightful owners.”

And I will note further that the professors did not say:

Hold up, there’s a nuanced objection to your argument! If one twists the definition of “the South” to exclude states like Kentucky, or if one redefines your statement concerning “the South” to apply instead to the “deep South” or “the Confederacy,” then you are not 100% accurate!

No, that’s not what they said. What they said was: “Not true! Absolutely not! Didn’t happen! Nyaah nyaah!” (OK, they said almost all of those. Three out of four ain’t bad.)

And from what I can tell, they were wrong. All three of them.

I’d like to end this post by saying: I’m not done. My next step is to write the professors (and Stewart) and request that they correct the record, or dispute Woods’s evidence. Those professors are:

And in coming days, I want to do a post about the strange way the interview was edited. I both TiVoed it and watched it online — and it turns out that Napolitano was kicking Stewart’s rear end in a passage that curiously got omitted from the TV version.

But that’s another post . . .

P.S. The first video in this post was obtained using the services of an excellent site called Grabien.com. If you see anything on TV and want to get a clip of it, contact them and they will take care of it. That’s what I did. I am in regular contact with one of the founders and he is a great guy and very accommodating. I recommend the site highly.

UPDATE: It is worth noting that Lincoln was absolutely anti-slavery on a personal level. He was just more interested in saving the Union than in abolishing slavery.

181 Responses to “Andrew Napolitano Punks Jon Stewart and His Panel of So-Called “Experts””

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Great post, boss. I look forward to the responses from the professors but I will not hold my breath in regards to Stewart.

    felipe (6100bc)

  3. Of the South and its leaders and warriors, ’tis often and justly said, in effect, “Never did so many noble men fight in such wicked of causes.”

    But it can also justly be said of the North and its leaders and warriors, “Never did so many noble men stumble and stay their hands, and equivocate and compromise, and en route betray some important principles, in service of others that ultimately proved just.”

    Close study of Lincoln shows that he had wide pores and many warts. He was a man, dealing with other men and women, all people of many parts. We’ve seen many leaders with flaws, but few with so many ultimately redeeming features.

    Lincoln is among my heroes — not only despite, but in important ways because, of his flaws and inconsistencies.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  4. To quote the next President of the United States:

    “What difference at this point does it make?”

    The whole point of these lefty exercises is to paint conservatives and libertarians as clowns, which they are able to do with willing participants and the ignorant audience rabble.

    Trying to fight the ignorance of entertainers and their complicit “experts” through today’s media is a losing game and any result should be observed, noted and ignored.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  5. That “horrid and immoral law” was based on Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution (until it was amended by the 13th Amendment):

    “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

    Kevin M (dbcba4)

  6. I don’t know about the others, but Professor Foner pretty much owns the history of Reconstruction. Would be better to ask him about the relationship of the Democrat Party and the KKK during that time. And let the howling ensue. He has described, in print, the KKK as the military arm of the Dems fighting Reconstruction.

    Kevin M (dbcba4)

  7. This entire post operates on a flimsy piece of intellectual sleight of hand.

    There were two sides in the Civil War. They are known as either “the Union” and “the Confederacy” “the North” and “the South.” Just about no one uses the term “deep south” to refer to the Confederacy as a whole (it’s used at times to refer to the Original Seven), so it’s profoundly dishonest to say that the professors should have assumed that Napolitano was referring to border states that fought on the side of the North when he talks about slaves being returned to the South by US Marshals. If he wanted to say “Lincoln has US Marshals return slaves to “slave states that didn’t secede” or “border states” there’d he could have said that and his meaning would have been clear.

    And of course there are several are other typical Lost Cause distortions in this post that have been picked up in the 20th and 21st century by people who amusingly claim to be lovers of freedom (e.g. Maryland would have joined the South without the imposition of martial law, which is hardly clear), that there was a long-understand right to secede (reality: the Southern states long felt that had the right to secede if slavery was threatened).

    Jonathan (43bb26)

  8. I don’t understand why anyone would deign to go on Stewart’s show in the first place. Doing so grants him a legitimacy that is undeserved and helps to perpetuate his status as a liberal media icon. His Janus schtick of sometimes comedian/sometimes would-be serious pundit has gotten old. He never has the balls to speak truth to power (such as when Obama was on his show, and he tossed him inane softballs) and, he only gets remotely edgy when the winds of public opinion are safely at his back. Otherwise, he plays it safe and predictably toes the Leftist line.

    Guy Jones (df6cf0)

  9. The War of Northern Aggression was entirely unconstitutional and illegal. It was also completely right and necessary.

    Ya think the differences between the 47% takers and the makers in this country can end without a wrenching bloodshed? Individual liberties will be taken from those who can contribute (work), but don’t.

    This republic simply cannot survive the degree to which personal responsibility and societal/cultural buy-in have been lost.

    Sites like this are essential to the cause of truth – just as AN’s challenge of the profs was. We must not allow half-truths based on some notion of “fairness” and guilt guide our laws.

    The very great irony in all of this is that it is the former CSA states which today most closely adhere to the constitution and crucial Judeo-Christian principles generally.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  10. I would like to enter this letter into evidence.

    Lincoln hated slavery, but the war was not about freeing slaves, except indirectly. Lincoln went to war in order to preserve the Union.

    It’s also noteworthy that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states which had rebelled. Slaves in states which had remained loyal were not freed until the 13th Amendment was ratified.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  11. Ah, Patterico. Teh Narrative is set. And let’s be honest: Jon Stewart, like most politicians, is anything but intellectual. Do you honestly feel that he sits down and thinks…instead of snarking and giggling at his own wit?

    Well, on that latter, he is half-right.

    The media will do all the covering up and airbrushing to support the approved Narrative.

    Simon Jester (16b7b5)

  12. This entire post operates on a flimsy piece of intellectual sleight of hand.

    There were two sides in the Civil War. They are known as either “the Union” and “the Confederacy” “the North” and “the South.” Just about no one uses the term “deep south” to refer to the Confederacy as a whole (it’s used at times to refer to the Original Seven), so it’s profoundly dishonest to say that the professors should have assumed that Napolitano was referring to border states that fought on the side of the North when he talks about slaves being returned to the South by US Marshals. If he wanted to say “Lincoln has US Marshals return slaves to “slave states that didn’t secede” or “border states” there’d he could have said that and his meaning would have been clear.

    So, you call my post “profoundly dishonest” and then suggest without qualification that Kentucky “fought on the side of the North”? The truth is that Kentucky was a “neutral” state and soldiers from Kentucky fought for both sides.

    And of course there are several are other typical Lost Cause distortions in this post that have been picked up in the 20th and 21st century by people who amusingly claim to be lovers of freedom (e.g. Maryland would have joined the South without the imposition of martial law, which is hardly clear), that there was a long-understand right to secede (reality: the Southern states long felt that had the right to secede if slavery was threatened).

    Virginia explicitly retained the right to secede and this was implicitly assented to by the other states, all of which had equal rights. The case for the right to secede is strong.

    And it is “hardly clear” that Maryland would not have seceded, you say, omitting the fact that Lincoln arrested all the pro-secession leaders and held them without trial? And I’m being profoundly dishonest? OK then.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  13. While not a Lincoln scholar I’d begin tracking down my surmise in the first volume of Catton.

    Lincoln opted to preserve the Union because a prolonged war over slavery was unavoidable in any event. Assignment of the West to slave or free territories, and eventually states, was unresolved.

    Missouri and Kansas alone had endured an intolerable fight.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  14. Thank you for your steaming like of butthurt, Jonathon.

    JD (6347b4)

  15. Thank you for your steaming pile of butthurt, Jonathon.

    JD (6347b4)

  16. Other, significant problems Lincoln had to deal with, were his own rabidly vindictive party, the main opposition, the Democrats, not only didn’t want war with the South, they were happy to let tnem keep their slaves(see McClellan, George).

    And the Chief Justice was a doddering old fool, of no use to anyone, his decisions were so off-the-wall.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  17. If the secession was legal, then firing on Fort Sumter was an act of aggression.

    If secession were illegal, then firing on Fort Sumter was an act of rebellion.

    Michael Ejercito (906585)

  18. 17. Mary Todd was emotionally disturbed, his sons Eddie and Tad died.

    His efforts at conciliation in the Union, like, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, done to hurt the South’s war effort by denying them laborers, in returning the escaped slaves met with, predominately, failure.

    Even a cabinet member schemed to oppose him for election, as well as did former General of the Potomac, McClellan.

    A whole lot of suck borne by one man.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  19. I’m gratified that you failed to respond to my actual point, which I’ll state again to give you the chance to reply. People refer to the two sides in the Civil War as, “the North” and “the South.” When you talk about “the South” in the context of the Civil War, you’re talking about the states that constituted the CSA, not the broader geographical/cultural region. However you feel about the the means used to keep Maryland in the Union, it was in no way part of “the South” during the Civil War.

    As for the supposed errors in my post:

    Many Kentuckians indeed fought for the South and many more were deeply sympathetic to the Southern cause. Still, after an the initial period of neutrality, the state government came down on the side of the Union, so saying that it was a neutral state is not accurate.

    With Maryland, the point isn’t that there’s no chance Maryland would have seceded even without the imposition of martial law (it might well have), but that the opposite was by no means a guarantee either. Maryland was a deeply divided state and it’s hard to know which way it would have gone if left to decide freely.

    The “Virginia retained its right to secede” claim is a bonus bit of historical misunderstanding.

    Jonathan (893911)

  20. Please don’t repeat neo-Confederate myths.

    The Maryland legislature voted 53-13 that it lacked power to declare secession, and against calling a state convention that could in theory have such power. The legislature met on April 26 1861; the only parts of the state under martial law were Baltimore (where pro-Confederate rioters attacked Union troops) and Annapolis (used as an alternate route to Washington). The legislature met in Frederick, 40 miles west, with no Federal soldiers anywhere nearby.

    The only people that believed in a right of unilateral state secession were pro-slavery Southerners, and not even all of them. Secession was anathema in the rest of the country.

    Napolitano is right about enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act under Lincoln. Lincoln was prepared to do what the Framers had done: compromise with slavery as it existed rather than break up the country. He believed that preserving the Union, and thus sustaining constitutional democracy, was fundamental to every other good – including the long-term abolition of slavery, which he hated. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, which meant all of it, including the parts he didn’t like. By showing that he would enforce even the Fugitive Slave Clause, he established the moral authority to fight to enforce the rest of the Constitution in the “Confederate” states.

    Rich Rostrom (98cd13)

  21. Great post, boss. I look forward to the responses from the professors but I will not hold my breath in regards to Stewart.

    Comment by felipe (6100bc) — 3/13/2014 @ 8:18 pm

    Of course not, whenever the going gets tough, Stewart shrugs and says he’s just a comedian.

    Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e)

  22. … He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, which meant all of it, including the parts he didn’t like. By showing that he would enforce even the Fugitive Slave Clause, he established the moral authority to fight to enforce the rest of the Constitution in the “Confederate” states.

    Comment by Rich Rostrom (98cd13) — 3/13/2014 @ 10:55 pm

    Unlike our current president who apparently thinks it’s okay to not enforce laws he “disagrees” with.

    Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e)

  23. Excellent post.

    I suspect they will quickly toss the clown nose on to explain both the inaccuracy and the extreme reaction to it. As well as editing out inconvenient parts of the debate.

    When you stack a debate four to one and edit out any parts where the one is winning, as well as claim his truthful info is “retarded”, then you can do an effective job at political propaganda, which is what this show often amounts to.

    Dustin (e55213)

  24. And the Chief Justice was a doddering old fool, of no use to anyone, his decisions were so off-the-wall.

    Lincoln basically had them go away for the duration of the war.

    It is interesting to note that the previous President (Buchanan) had lobbied the Court hard on the Dredd Scott case (they did things like that back then). He thought that if the Court ruled against Dredd Scott, that would settle the slavery issue once and for all. It’s no wonder that he’s considered the second worst US President, after Obama.

    Kevin M (dbcba4)

  25. 12. “profoundly dishonest”

    A puce badge of courage.

    Anyone remember the dain bramaged ‘Puce’ troll Allah abused in an early incarnation. A champion of Sadam before hostilities and Baghdad Bob.

    ‘Jonathan’ takes me back.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  26. We were still fighting the War of Northern Aggression on the playgrounds when I was in elementary school in Mt Sterling, Kentucky.

    The Confederate Dana (3e4784)

  27. Of course not, whenever the going gets tough, Stewart shrugs and says he’s just a comedian.

    Comment by Tanny O’Haley (c0a74e) — 3/13/2014 @ 11:17 pm

    He’s teh King of Smarm.

    Colonel Haiku (4f0257)

  28. Comment by Jonathan (43bb26) — 3/13/2014 @ 8:41 pm

    A suggestion? Never post while imbibing adult beverages. This is a dangerous form of multi-tasking for some.

    Colonel Haiku (4f0257)

  29. brother jonathan
    ’tis a far far better thing
    to not remove doubt

    Colonel Haiku (4f0257)

  30. I took my daughter to a historical village in Illinois where the minister’s house had a hidden room in the cellar. It was part of the Underground Railroad. Should the subject come up again, she is now old enough to understand why it was necessary because of Section 2, Article IV, even though Illinois was a free state. We have discussed that “persons held to labor” (without that phrasing though) were not only black slaves. That there were also white slaves, indentured slaves for a term of years, and apprentices. But, most importantly, I think I got her to understand that slaves were still considered “persons” under our Constitution and that slavery was “simply” a legal status that could be changed by changing the law.

    That Abraham Lincoln hated slavery is like saying he was a tall man, BTW. It came through loud and clear in every word and deed of his. If he put preserving the union before abolishing slavery, it was like putting out the fire in the kitchen before cooking the meal.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. #19, J, The “Virginia retained its right to secede” claim is a bonus bit of historical misunderstanding.

    No misunderstanding about it. Virginians then and now recognize that any association they voluntarily join, they may voluntarily leave. After all, legitimate governments don’t operate like the mafia or street gangs where death is the only way out. Secession is the ultimate process whereby states can protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government. Otherwise, the states themselves are enslaved.

    During the War for Southern Independence while Lincoln was raising armies to invade and subdue the South, he was also facilitating the efforts of Virginia’s western counties to secede and form the new state of West Virginia. That’s hypocrisy writ large and a direct violation of the US Constitution.

    In addition, before the war slaves were indeed declared freed in Northern states, but in New Jersey former slaves were retained in perpetual servitude by being defined as apprentices indentured for life. US Marshals dutifully returned runaway apprentices to their lawful masters.

    ropelight (db38bb)

  32. Napolitano was half right. The Fugitive Slave Act was only applicable to the union states that permitted slavery, i.e., Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and DC. The key ruling:

    It is the President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. That means all laws. He has no right to discriminate–no right to execute the laws he likes and leave unexecuted those he dislikes. And of course you and I, his subordinates, can have no wider latitude of discretion than he has. Missouri is a State in the Union. The insurrectionary disorders in the Missouri are but individual crimes, and do not change the legal status of the State, nor change its rights and obligations as a member of the Union.

    Would that Obama governed in such a manner. The fugitive slaves of “disloyal owners” were emancipated.
    Second point, Patrick. I would be very careful using Thomas E. Woods, Jr. as an authoritative source (link).

    Bird Dog (130699)

  33. 12. “The truth is that Kentucky was a “neutral” state and soldiers from Kentucky fought for both sides.”

    Kentucky was neutral for about five months, until September 1861. I don’t doubt that there were Kentuckians on both sides.

    Bird Dog (130699)

  34. #31, BD, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 replaced the FSA of 1793 and was applicable to all states, it required authorities to return fugitive slaves to their owners even if the runaway was located in a non-slave state. It was designed specifically to enforce the Constitution’s Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3.

    No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

    After the war, the 13th Amendment which outlawed slavery rendered the issue of return moot.

    ropelight (db38bb)

  35. That’s blurred, too. We still had the western frontier to protect from the Indians and U.S. Army troops there included Southerners.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. We were still fighting the War of Northern Aggression on the playgrounds when I was in elementary school in Mt Sterling, Kentucky.

    Beyond that or the ultimate correctness of Napolitano, this society will forever be tarnished by the so-called “peculiar institution,” by the foolish, contemptible, greedy need of various people and groups generations ago to, in effect, force human machinery into the American scene.

    The interminably devastated condition of various urban areas, including crime rates that are higher than they’d otherwise be, schools that no sane person would want to attend, and excessively corrupt (and extremely, blindly liberal) local governments, are sort of the gift that keeps on giving. And since it’s as bad as, if not much worse today than, it was decades ago before the era of the “Great Society” and “war on poverty,” — and overall social liberalization of this nation — one can assume it’s a permanent gash on the face of the US.

    Again, it’s a gift that keeps on giving. Thanks a lot, a whole lot, people of the past—and this current generation ain’t helping matters much too.

    Mark (d72f8d)

  37. UPDATE: It is worth noting that Lincoln was absolutely anti-slavery on a personal level. He was just more interested in saving the Union than in abolishing slavery.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  38. I’m gratified that you failed to respond to my actual point, which I’ll state again to give you the chance to reply. People refer to the two sides in the Civil War as, “the North” and “the South.” When you talk about “the South” in the context of the Civil War, you’re talking about the states that constituted the CSA, not the broader geographical/cultural region. However you feel about the the means used to keep Maryland in the Union, it was in no way part of “the South” during the Civil War.

    I already pre-responded to your argument in the post. What did the professors say?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  39. Please don’t repeat neo-Confederate myths.

    The Maryland legislature voted 53-13 that it lacked power to declare secession, and against calling a state convention that could in theory have such power. The legislature met on April 26 1861; the only parts of the state under martial law were Baltimore (where pro-Confederate rioters attacked Union troops) and Annapolis (used as an alternate route to Washington). The legislature met in Frederick, 40 miles west, with no Federal soldiers anywhere nearby.

    What myth am I repeating? Were the secessionists in jail without trial or not? If so, you think that affected the vote in any way?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  40. That “horrid and immoral law” was based on Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution (until it was amended by the 13th Amendment):

    “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

    Indeed, and Lincoln made that point in his first inaugural, explaining why he planned to uphold it.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  41. The “Virginia retained its right to secede” claim is a bonus bit of historical misunderstanding.

    Jonathan, I can say unequivocally that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Look it up, friend.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  42. #36, P, Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, but he also wanted to resettle former slaves in Africa, the Caribbean, or in Central or South America. And, he was forcefully behind surreptitious efforts to do just that both before and after the Emancipation Proclamation.

    Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page in Colonization after Emancipation, Lincoln and the Movement for Resettlement show there’s more than enough evidence in the historical record to say with confidence that Lincoln was actively engaged in promoting black colonization both before and after the Emancipation Proclamation.

    Lincoln’s defenders are apoplectic and attempting to find some way to undermine the indictment, but facts tend to be rather stubborn.

    ropelight (db38bb)

  43. Listen Carefully to Napolitano. He is WRONG.
    Lincoln used marshals to return fugitive slaves BEFORE the civil war.
    During the civil war, the nation was split and he felt the law no longer applied. There wis historical fact on this. Do a search on General Benjamin Butler.
    “While in command at Fort Monroe, Butler declined to return to their owners fugitive slaves who had come within his lines. He argued that Virginians considered them to be chattel property, and that they could not appeal to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 since they claimed independence. Furthermore, slaves used as laborers for building fortifications and other military activities could be considered contraband of war.[52] The U.S. Congress later mandated that other Union commanders refuse to return slaves to their former masters, using similar arguments. Butler promptly received official approval for his decision from President Lincoln.”

    dwilliams (2dad7f)

  44. Lincoln’s defenders are apoplectic and attempting to find some way to undermine the indictment

    I wonder how many of those people are the same ones who are resistant to, and dumbfounded by, the fact that 3 major pillars of the Democrat Party, and liberalism, during the 20th century — Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman (not to mention Bill Clinton’s reportedly casual and purposefully vindictive use of the “n” word) — were surprisingly, appallingly bigoted/racist behind closed doors? Among that crowd, I’m surprised they’d be so emotionally beholden to Lincoln since he was, after all, a Republican.

    Mark (d72f8d)

  45. You forgot that Lincoln intended to conquer Mexico and install the freed slaves there, ropelight. The neo-Confederate myth that Lincoln wanted to resettle the freed slaves goes together with the other neo-Confederate myth that the reason the South wanted to keep slavery was because it was afraid of what would happen if it freed them. At least the assertion that Lincoln was gay is not getting a lot of traction these days. Except, maybe, with Mark.

    nk (dbc370)

  46. [The delagates] Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_

    SarahW (267b14)

  47. And I sure hope I’m not being apoplectic. Been there, done that and its no fun. ;) Just very distrustful of revisionism.

    nk (dbc370)

  48. Secondary source which you may refer to when visiting my fair state: Sic semper tyrannus

    SarahW (267b14)

  49. Delegates. Cheez

    SarahW (267b14)

  50. 33. “BD, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 replaced the FSA of 1793 and was applicable to all states…”

    I’m sure that was true up to April 1861, rope, but my blockquote was taken directly from Attorney General Edward Bates. On the same page in Campbell’s book is the following, codifying Bates’ opinion:

    On July 17 [1862], Congress passed a law which said that no slave escaping from one state into another would be delivered up except for a crime unless the slave belonged to a loyal owner. The slaves of disloyal owners who came into the Union lines were declared free.

    Bird Dog (130699)

  51. 29. The town, actually villages just to the west, where I grew up, then known as Spring City, WI was also on the Railroad.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  52. The blacksmith told us that 1) farriers not blacksmiths shod horses back then and 2) horses in Illinois mostly did not need to be shod because the ground was not hard.

    nk (dbc370)

  53. Bird Dog wrote:

    Kentucky was neutral for about five months, until September 1861. I don’t doubt that there were Kentuckians on both sides.

    Kentucky proclaimed neutrality, but my Confederate brethren moved in, and then so did the Union scoundrels. The state government asked both to leave, but was more vociferous against our honorable Confederate soldiers, an eventually proclaimed loyalty to the Union. A shadow state government, loyal to the Confederacy, was formed, and voted to join the CSA. The CSA accepted this, and the central star on the battle flag represented the Bluegrass State.

    The Southern Dana (3e4784)

  54. I guess some Kentuckians could endure ripping the slaves out of the warmth and familiarity of their cradle to grave security, and throwing them out into a cold, unfeeling world to fend for themselves. Others, more kindhearted, could not.

    nk (dbc370)

  55. Kentucky had a somewhat smaller slave population than states further south. Due to the smaller size of the farms, there just wasn’t as much demand for slaves, and after 1850, many Kentucky slaveowners started selling off slaves to go further south.

    The Dana from Kentucky (3e4784)

  56. Then call us rebels, if you will,
    We glory in the name,
    For bending under unjust laws,
    And swearing faith to an unjust cause,
    We count as greater shame.

    –Richmond Daily Dispatch, May 12, 1862

    ropelight (db38bb)

  57. If the secession was legal, then firing on Fort Sumter was an act of aggression.

    No, the Union’s not evacuating Fort Sumter was an act of aggression. The South’s attack was legitimate preemptive self-defense. How could they be expected to leave it there, a hostile country’s military base on its territory, right in its heartland, able to fire on the city or harbour at will? What country would put up with such a thing? Can you imagine the UK telling the Continental Congress that it would recognise the colonies’ independence but keep all its troops in place?!

    Milhouse (50cb78)

  58. I was under the impression that escaped slaves were considered “contraband” during the Civil War – but of course, that was only true of the states that were in rebellion.

    Abe — the president used federal marshals to chase down slaves that had escaped and returned them to the south during the Civil War.”
    PROF. FONER: “That’s not true!”

    In my opinion, Professor Foner was right.

    In this context, “the South” means the area outside of the control of the Union.

    Otherwise, Napolitano should have said: slave states that remained in the Union and maybe he could have added even sometimes some southern territory federal under federal control.

    If you say “the South” you mean the Confederacy.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  59. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was set in Kentucky – the idea being, this is the best of slavery.

    Harriet Beecher Stowe showed in her novel that, however, a slave could be sold south.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  60. One thing’s certain; Jon Stewart is still a comedian.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  61. Missouri was also split. Harry S. truman came froma family that sided with the Confederacy.

    I think Mark Twain was briefly in the Confederate army, before he went to California and what became Nevada.

    Jesse James was there as a Confederate guerilla – later, after the war, he moved to Hot Springs, Arkansas for awhile, dressed in Union blue, and robbed travelers.

    He was much admired (or relished) by Bill Clinton when he was Governor.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  62. 44. (intenended I thinmk as something not true)

    You forgot that Lincoln intended to conquer Mexico and install the freed slaves there,

    I never heard of that idea. Is somebody ACTUALLY CLAIMING THAT?

    I don’t think so.

    http://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/french-intervention

    In 1862, French Emperor Napoleon III maneuvered to establish a French client state in Mexico, and eventually installed Maximilian of Habsburg, Archduke of Austria, as Emperor of Mexico. Stiff Mexican resistance caused Napoleon III to order French withdrawal in 1867, a decision strongly encouraged by a United States recovered from its Civil War weakness in foreign affairs. Earlier, during the Civil War, U.S. Secretary of State William Henry Seward followed a more cautious policy that attempted to keep relations with France harmonious and prevent French willingness to assist the Confederacy. Consequently, Maximilian’s government rebuffed Confederate diplomatic overtures.

    At one point Lincoln had had an idea of colonizing freed slaves, but I never heard of Mexico as a destination.

    Lincoln also was quite happy to let Jefferson Davis (and other leaders of the Confederacy ) escape there, since he didn’t really want to execute him.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  63. There was nothing good, noble or defensible in the Confederacy. Slavery, even as they practiced it, was their second worst evil. Their worst was trying to tear this great country apart and make it like the rest of the Americas — a bunch of Mexicos, Guatemalas and Belizes. And they would have kept on trying, even after Lee’s surrender, turning America into another Mexico with a new revolution always brewing, if not for Sherman during the war and the radical Republicans after. Sherman understood that the South needed to be stomped down so hard, its manhood decimated and its infrastructure razed, that it could not rise again until the next century. And the radical Republicans also did their best with Reconstruction. A pretty good job as it turned out, actually.

    nk (dbc370)

  64. And made a handsome profit doing it while looking down their noses at better men.

    ropelight (db38bb)

  65. I’m afraid I have to agree with Jonathan on this one. Just a few days ago weren’t we ridiculing NPR for claiming that the D senators who voted against confirming Adegbile were southerners? If Delaware and West Virginia (and arguably Indiana) are “southern” then 3 or 4 of the 7 (not counting Reid) were indeed southern, and NPR was not wrong in calling them that.

    Milhouse (50cb78)

  66. Obviously our Windy City barrister does not believe in divorce, given that he abhors the idea of a union being broken if one partner thinks it’s bad or abusive.

    The Southern Dana (3e4784)

  67. If Lincoln had simply let the original seceding states go, this would effectively have moved the northern end of the Underground Railroad to the new border. The northern tier of the Confederacy (and remember that Virginia would have stayed in the Union) would quickly have lost all its slaves, and then turned abolitionist.

    Milhouse (50cb78)

  68. With President Tiger Beat’s disastrous policies wrecking the economy as well as injuring the definition of what it means to be a free nation, the entire country is going south.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  69. The Mason-Dixon Line (fm Wiki):
    “…In popular usage, the Mason–Dixon line symbolizes a cultural boundary between the Northeastern and the Southern United States (Dixie). After Pennsylvania abolished slavery, it was a demarcation line for the legality of slavery. However, its latitude was not such a demarcation beyond the Pennsylvania border since Delaware, a slave state, falls north and east of the boundary. Also lying north and east of the boundary was New Jersey where, in reality, slavery existed, in limited numbers, until 1865. It was not until 1846 that New Jersey abolished slavery, but it qualified it by redefining former slaves as apprentices who were “apprenticed for life” to their masters. Slavery did not truly end in the state until it was ended nationally in 1865 after the American Civil War and passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Missouri Compromise line had a much more definitive geographic connection to slavery in the United States leading up to the Civil War.[1]…”

    Politically, its western end seemed to terminate at the Ohio River, leaving territory to the north of the river “free”. But, that probably led to the “Missouri Compromise” with MO being on “the other side” of the river but culturally a Southern out-post.

    Unfortunately, the politics of slavery touched pretty much everything, and still does in many cases.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  70. 67. Comment by Milhouse (50cb78) — 3/14/2014 @ 12:15 pm

    If Lincoln had simply let the original seceding states go, this would effectively have moved the northern end of the Underground Railroad to the new border. The northern tier of the Confederacy (and remember that Virginia would have stayed in the Union) would quickly have lost all its slaves, and then turned abolitionist.

    Well, abolition with compensation to the slaveholder. They wouldn’t have lost all of their slaves so quickly.

    Now this was obvious, so what was going on in the minds of the pro-secession people?

    Theye were really after political power.

    Lincoln was right. The war was about people splitting up the Union so that ambitious people might gain high office that they could never get in the bigger Union.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  71. In other news:

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304185104579437573396580350?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304185104579437573396580350.html

    Satellite Data Reveal Route of Missing Malaysia Airlines Plane

    Jetliner ‘Pinged’ Satellites With Location, Altitude for Hours After Disappearance

    the Chinese satellite picture was not seen by any other satellite, nor did anybody see the debris, so I don;’t know what went on there.

    And there’s this:

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/03/12/Oil-rig-worker-claims-he-saw-Malaysia-Airlines-flight-crash/3951394660041/

    Otherwise the plane veered west, after having two things turned off at different times.

    The Indian government was asked to check if it landed (or crashed) on any uninhabited islands, and they are looking.

    The cell phones ringing obviously had to do with the cell phone company. But somebody should have explained that by now.

    There was testimony this week in London that ten years ago, Al Qaeda plotters based in malaysia asked foe a shoe bomb (not to try to damage the plane but to get into the cockpit)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  72. Milhouse wrote:

    If Lincoln had simply let the original seceding states go, this would effectively have moved the northern end of the Underground Railroad to the new border. The northern tier of the Confederacy (and remember that Virginia would have stayed in the Union) would quickly have lost all its slaves, and then turned abolitionist.

    Well, maybe.

    My question is: when would slavery have ended in the Confederacy had it been allowed to exercise it’s natural right to secede? My guess is that by the mid 1880s to 1890s it would have almost died out, because slavery is such a lousy economic system, and can’t really survive industrialization. It might have persisted in the form of house servants for a while longer and never really been outlawed — the Confederate Constitution would have made outlawing slavery outright difficult — but it would have died out.

    The Kentuckian Dana (3e4784)

  73. Mr Finkelman wrote:

    Lincoln was right. The war was about people splitting up the Union so that ambitious people might gain high office that they could never get in the bigger Union.

    And how would that be? Other than President and Vice President, the Confederate officeholders were all elected at the state level, and there was absolutely nothing in remaining in the Union which would have prevented the Confederate senators and representatives from being elected to the federal Congress.

    The historian Dana (3e4784)

  74. “No misunderstanding about it. Virginians then and now recognize that any association they voluntarily join, they may voluntarily leave. After all, legitimate governments don’t operate like the mafia or street gangs where death is the only way out. Secession is the ultimate process whereby states can protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government. Otherwise, the states themselves are enslaved.”

    There is only twos way to change the Constitution of the US, The Amendment process and a Constitutional convention. You don’t change it by firing on the federal government. That’s call insurrection. I have never understood why Neo-Confederates keep arguing that a union brought into being by all the states, can be destroyed at their leisure by one. And especially because they didn’t like the outcome of a Presidential election. Were states going to secede every time their preferred candidate didn’t win? That way lies anarchy.

    Mike Giles (760480)

  75. The problem, simply stated, is that federal subsidies to higher education enable institutions to hire useless idiots and eventually give them tenure.

    Get the federal government OUT of all higher education funding and subsidies, and then at least if the institutions choose to hire ignoramuses, they will do it on their own dime and students will patronize them with their own dimes, not the taxpayers’.

    Estragon (ada867)

  76. Mr Giles wrote:

    I have never understood why Neo-Confederates keep arguing that a union brought into being by all the states, can be destroyed at their leisure by one.

    When South Carolina seceded, did that destroy the United States and somehow force Massachusetts and Rhode Island out as well? Had the Confederacy been allowed to secede peacefully, it would have meant that the United States was smaller, but it would not have destroyed the US.

    The Constitution, when it was up for ratification, had a fair amount of opposition, with Patrick Henry the most famous of the anti-federalists. It it had been held at the time that ratification of the Constitution and the formation of the United States would mean that no state could ever leave, I rather doubt it would have been ratified at all.

    I wonder: how many here would say that Ukraine and Kazakhstan had no right to leave the Soviet Union?

    The historian Dana (3e4784)

  77. #74, MG, it wasn’t the outcome of an election, Southerners had endured presidents they didn’t like before Lincoln’s election, and they’d have endured him as well, but after Fort Sumter when Lincoln illegally raised an army to invade the seceding states, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina refused to bow to federal tyranny and joined the Confederacy.

    Those 4 states declined to secede over the issue of slavery, but they would and did fight to preserve their independence.

    ropelight (db38bb)

  78. It might have persisted in the form of house servants for a while longer and never really been outlawed — the Confederate Constitution would have made outlawing slavery outright difficult — but it would have died out.

    I’m willing to bet that sex slavery might have persisted for longer.

    Kevin M (dbcba4)

  79. I don’t know about federal marshals, but I do know that federal resources were being used to catch slaves. There is one particularly noxious story i read that went like this.

    Two slaves thought to buy their freedom with intelligence. That is they went to a union unit and gave them military intelligence. this intel was used to the unit’s great advantage. then their master showed up, an officer in the military, demanding the return of his slaves. The union troops said they would oblige. one slave made a run for it and was shot by union troops.

    Feel free to be appropriately horrified.

    Aaron "Worthing" Walker (23789b)

  80. 71. My money, i.e. nothing at all, is on the 777 being in Burma or Bangladesh.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  81. The Indian government is looking at islands. Like in Lost?

    But US government officials think it most likely crashed into the Indian Ocean.

    Really, a variant of the Flight 93 scenario looks the most probable – and somebody in Malaysia really doesn’t like the idea.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  82. Comment by The historian Dana (3e4784) — 3/14/2014 @ 1:22 pm

    Other than President and Vice President, the Confederate officeholders were all elected at the state level, and there was absolutely nothing in remaining in the Union which would have prevented the Confederate senators and representatives from being elected to the federal Congress.

    But they wouldn’t get positions in Congress, or legislation that they wanted.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  83. Every.ubody would shun the slavve state reps/

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  84. A lot of historical nonsense has been spouted on this comment thread, beginning with Johathon and his ridiculous assertion that “the South” is synonymous with “the Confederacy” and subsequently picked up by other revisionists. Therefore making Napolitano wrong.

    The fact is “the South” had a meaning that predates the Civil War. The term referred to slaveholding states, since by the 1830s slavery was considered a Southern phenomenon.

    People back then, both Southern and Northern, talked about it as such. To the southern slave holders it was their “peculiar institution. To the norther abolitionists “the South” and “the Slaveocracy” were synonymous.

    http://www.powayusd.com/teachers/clewis/abolitionism_in_the_united_state.htm

    Second, once revolutionary idealism resulted in immediate or gradual emancipation throughout the North, slavery became an exclusively Southern institution. The debate over slavery now had potent sectional overtones, and it quickly emerged as the most divisive topic in national politics.

    Napolitano used the term “the South” in its historically correct context. To pretend that the term “the South” was invented for the Civil War as an alternative way to refer to “the Confederacy” is either an act of monumental ignorance or extreme intellectual dishonesty. If you’re going to assert that Napolitano didn’t know what he was talking about because he referred to “the South” rather than the border states then by the same token neither did this guy:

    Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slave-holders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment.

    What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave.

    Frederick Douglass – July 4, 1852

    http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/douglass.htm

    Steve57 (5d6714)

  85. Besides President and Vice President, there are also Cabinet level positions.

    For the last two elections before the Civil War the person elected as President was a more or less pro-slavery (or at least neutral) northern Democrat and southerners like Jefferson Davis had been in the Cabinet. (Secretary of 1853-1857)

    They’d be consigned to a permanent minoroty in Congress.

    The real fireaters never did take positions in the Confederacy.

    Sammy Finkelman (20cc53)

  86. After the Civil War, well, there gradually developed the senioroty system, they were all Democrats, they went into the military.

    Sammy Finkelman (20cc53)

  87. ridiculous assertion that “the South” is synonymous with “the Confederacy”

    In the context of the Civil War, when not modified or explained, it is.

    Sammy Finkelman (20cc53)

  88. Wrong again, Sammy. The fact that “the South” and slavery were synonymous is too deeply ingrained in history to support that absurd assertion.

    I suppose even if I find a quote from Frederick Douglass referring to slaveholding states as “the South” or some variation thereof during the Civil War you’d contend that Frederick Douglass was using the term incorrectly. Because that’s just how you roll.

    Steve57 (5d6714)

  89. Even if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully, war because of slavery would have broken out between it and the North long before slavery died a natural death. And sooner rather than later. It was way too inflammatory an issue. Look at the Kansas-Missouri border wars. The South would have re-legalized the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the North would have blockaded, cannons would have gone off at sea instead of at Fort Sumner. Or Southern slave-catchers would be raiding the Underground Railroad depots all across the new border. Or Northern “John Browns” would be doing rescue raids deep inside the South. Or by ship along the coast. No, war is always bad but it was good that the pus was drained out sooner rather than later and saved the limb as well as the life of the country.

    nk (dbc370)

  90. If Delaware and West Virginia (and arguably Indiana) are “southern” then 3 or 4 of the 7 (not counting Reid) were indeed southern, and NPR was not wrong in calling them that.

    If my aunt had nuts she would be my uncle.

    JD (dd904d)

  91. true no one foresaw
    teh Rise of teh Sammys ’til
    it was far too late

    Colonel Haiku (224dfe)

  92. never hits rich vein
    with Sammy’s data mining
    it’s always Fool’s Gold

    Colonel Haiku (224dfe)

  93. Bueller?… Bueller??

    Colonel Haiku (224dfe)

  94. 81. The US government is a known bad actor.

    At this point it appears the pilots greased the passengers at 40,000 feet for an hour and then disappeared to the NE.

    Most likely motive was to deliver a heavy lift aircraft for nuclear device suicide drop.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  95. Listen Carefully to Napolitano. He is WRONG.
    Lincoln used marshals to return fugitive slaves BEFORE the civil war.
    During the civil war, the nation was split and he felt the law no longer applied. There wis historical fact on this. Do a search on General Benjamin Butler.
    “While in command at Fort Monroe, Butler declined to return to their owners fugitive slaves who had come within his lines. He argued that Virginians considered them to be chattel property, and that they could not appeal to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 since they claimed independence. Furthermore, slaves used as laborers for building fortifications and other military activities could be considered contraband of war.[52] The U.S. Congress later mandated that other Union commanders refuse to return slaves to their former masters, using similar arguments. Butler promptly received official approval for his decision from President Lincoln.”

    But the post shows it happened after the war started. Did you watch the Woods video?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  96. No, they did not, Patterico. They are pushing their Narrative.

    JD (dd904d)

  97. it looks like he didn’t make a distinction here’

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4i3094.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  98. Second point, Patrick. I would be very careful using Thomas E. Woods, Jr. as an authoritative source (link).

    Bird Dog,

    First of all, your RedState link is tendentious and does not persuade me. For one, it accuses Woods of being a founding member of the League of the South. The link that purports to prove that is dead. Here is what Woods himself has said:

    Someone pointed me to a video you recently posted to YouTube. I am in fact not a member of the League of the South, though I did attend a meeting in 1994 when a decentralist organization was said to be forming. I was 21 at that time.

    Every link in the RedState piece that says Woods has published pieces “for” the League of the South (sure they didn’t just reprint his pieces?), or that he has spoken at one of their conferences, is dead. I confess I don’t know a lot about the League of the South, but I know that a lot of people like to equate support for the Confederare states’ right to secede, or abhorrence for the Civil War, as racist beliefs. I don’t think they are. (I have evolved in this belief, by the way, as I have learned more about the founding.) Meanwhile, I am a good way into two Tom Woods books and have listened to him for literally dozens of hours in podcasts, and I think I have a good idea whether he is a racist. He is not. He is a big states’ rights supporter, not a fan of Lincoln, and a fan of the right to secede. Not a racist.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  99. SarahW,

    Thanks for quoting the language that shows Jonathan was wrong. If he comes back, let’s see him deal with that and show how I misunderstand everything.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  100. I am shocked, shocked I say to find professors from liberal universities find opinions easy and fast, but facts to hard to deal with.

    According to a building dedication plaque on the U of Chicago campus, Lincoln was a Democrat. When pressed on the matter the school administration explained he was a Democrat because he believed in democracy. Ok then.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  101. It’s at Northeastern Illinois University’s Frank Lloyd Wright building and it’s from 1905. Maybe in 1905 they had “believer in democracy” as a definition of democrat; or maybe the guy who ordered the plaque got Lincoln’s party mixed up (or maybe the guy who cast it) and they had run out of money to get a new one; and maybe no one noticed and if they did they weren’t looking for a pointless grievance.

    nk (dbc370)

  102. “He is a big states’ rights supporter….”

    Actually, not so much! Woods is evolving.

    I listened to this a couple hours ago and thought that you would enjoy it because of the particular topics that were covered including those to California. However, it does bear on Woods’ current opinion on states’ rights. He sees it as better than the current situation, but not the best possible.

    It also gets into America’s best, most freedom-loving President—Glover Cleveland.

    It also talks about the horrible effects American empire has on American families.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  103. The guest’s description of himself reminds me of me:

    to the left of the Democrats and the right of the Republicans

    Yup—the place where wisdom lies (not that I’ve reached it, necessarily, but it doesn’t exist in following one political ideology and thinking all other political ideologies are stupid and there were no good reasons for any of the beliefs that they derived over the centuries).

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  104. Mr. Napolitanio is wrong about Lincoln enforcing the fugitive slave act.

    The argument seems to be predicated on two assertions, which are misunderstandings of history at best or intentionally misleading at worst.

    The first is that Lincoln showed support for the fugitive slave act. Both when he was running for Senate and, most famously, in his first inaugural. But people who point this out don’t really know the historical record or Lincolns actual position. The first is that, while he voiced support for the fugitive slave act, when pressed for details he always supported a version of the fugitive slave act that would have DESTROYED the fugitive slave act.

    At the time, judges determined if a slave was free or not. And marshals and judges got paid more on the number of returned slaves. It was not uncommon for southern marshals to bribe judges to declare black men runaway slaves. It’s not an accident that something like 97% of cases involving runaway slaves had a conviction. So the Republican Party and Lincoln came up with a very clever way to neuter the fugitive slave act. He would declare his support in public on the fugitive slave act but when pressed for details he would also state he would support an act that required TRIALS BY JURY!

    Of course, this was completely unacceptable to the south. Because, 1) most of the time southern marshals had no evidence that a black man in the north was actually a slave. 2) it would have moved the expense to the slave holder since they were required to provide evidence. 3) Northern juries would likely acquit because they abhored slavery. It would have esentially ended the fugitive slave act. And it gave Lincoln the political high ground. It allowed him to say on the one hand, “If the south wants a fugitive slave act so bad, I’m not going to oppose it for the sake of the union. It’s also the law of the land, and as executive I must enforce it.” while on the other, “All I’m asking is that they require proof of their property. We wouldn’t allow a southerner to come into your home and take your bed without proof, would we?” (Not actual Lincoln quotes, just way of thinking.) Thus, Lincoln assumed a position that was both politically expedient, on public moral standing for the age, AND would have effectively destroyed the fugitive slave act which was a Republican aim.

    There is no evidence that while Lincoln was president he did anything to support or enforce the fugitive slave act. Yes, southern delegates from states that hadn’t succeeded would come to him, complain that the north wasn’t upholding its end of the bargin, and Lincoln would nod his head and say, “What a terrible thing that is. I will make sure the law is enforced.” But then he would never actually do anything!

    The second arguiment is that, no suprise, marshals captured slaves. Thus they were Lincolns marshalls and he who was doing it. But not so fast. Marshals were appointed by the president. Most of the marshals that were actually capturing fugitives were marshals from southern states who had travelled north to catch their “runaways.” And those marshals had been appointed by southern sympathizing presidents or were ingraned in southern slave culture. I’m not saying northern marshals never returned a”runaway.” But it sure as hell wasn’t the norm.

    Lincoln had no practical way to remove these marshals. Whats he gonna do, point his finger and say, “Stop doing that?” Would that have actually worked. Hell, seven states had already succedded before he was even inaugurated. He didn’t want to antagonize or look like he was antagonizing the south further. When Lincoln could appoint a marshall, he would appoint anti-slavery marshalls. There’s no way he can be held responsibles for southern marshals, appointed before he was president, that were using their position as “Federal” agents to propogate the slave trade. And there was nothing practical he could have done to stop them during the middle of the war.

    It is not an accident that one of the reasons the suceeding states cited for succession was that the north wasn’t enforcing the fugitive slave act. Because it wasn’t And they knew damn well that Lincoln and Republicans were doing everything they could to destroy it.

    So the idea that Lincoln was in some way enforcing the fugitive slave act is a myth based on an incomplete understanding of civil war history. Lincoln never actually enforced the fugitive slave act. And the professors sitting on the panel were correct and Mr Napolitano is wrong.

    DJT (b13016)

  105. Basically, DJT, you’re saying Napolitano, to paraphrase Tom Woods, wasn’t nearly nuanced enough.

    It’s ironic, but makes sense.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  106. Two more comments.

    Since my post lacked any historical record, I’m going to supply some writing from Mr. Lincoln from 1850 when the Fugitive Slave Law was being considered.

    “There are some things upon which I feel that I am, and shall remain, inflexible. One of them is my opposition to the extension of slavery into territories now free, In accordance with this, I have been for the Wilmot Provisio… [Nonetheless] I can conceive of a case in which a dogged adherence to the Provisio by a few, might aid the extension of slavery [through the fugitive slave act] – that is, might fail in its direct object, defeat other restraining measures, and allow slavery to be pushed wherever nature would allow – and in such a case …I would at once abandon the Provisio. Again, of all political objects the preservation of the Union stands number one with me…
    “I have not at any time supposed he Union to be in so much danger as some other have… Still it is arrogant – silly perhaps – to entirely disregard the opinions of so very many great and good men who think there is real danger.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=c1odBTiRSJcC&lpg=PA266&ots=NToUh43z4m&dq=lincoln%20never%20used%20federal%20marshals%20enforce%20fugitive%20slave%20act&pg=PA282#v=onepage&q=lincoln%20never%20used%20federal%20marshals%20enforce%20fugitive%20slave%20act&f=false

    That’s an amazing passage from 1850. In it Lincoln sees how the compromise is leading to the fugitive slave act and thus a defacto extension of the tendrils of slavery across the union. Thus jeopardizing his great goal of preventing the spread of slavery. But on the other had, he admits that at time he doesn’t take the idea of civil war that seriously. So he can see one political result clearly, but not the other. It’s the sign of an incredibly keen political mind, but one that also has a blind spot because in his mind the idea of wanting disunion would be inconceivable.

    Further, he states as he always had, the number one thing is maintaining the union. Thus you see his dilemma whan he comes to the actual war. He wants to eliminate the Fugitive slave act, but preserving the union takes precedence. And his actions during the civial war follow these principles and conflicts that he grappled with over a decade earlier.

    My final comment is that I just noticed what this article is about. Mr. Napolitano stated, “The president used — forgive me, Abe — the president used federal marshals to chase down slaves that had escaped and returned them to the south during the Civil War.” But that’s not the statement some people are defending. They’re only looking at this part. “… federal marshals to chase down slaves that had escaped and returned them to the south during the Civil War.”

    That is explicitly true. You can’t argue with that. It’s factually true. Marshals did return slaves. But that’s not the question. The question is the first part, which is, Did Abe Lincoln use federal marshals to return slaves. And that answer is unquestionably no. Abe Lincoln used all his powers to destroy the fugitive slave act up to acts that would further imperil the Union. That was his Rubicon, he would do nothing that further imperiled the union. But he sure as hell did not “use” marshals to enforce the fugitive slave act.

    DJT (b13016)

  107. 105. …Lincoln had no practical way to remove these marshals. Whats he gonna do, point his finger and say, “Stop doing that?”

    Comment by DJT (b13016) — 3/14/2014 @ 8:29 pm

    He had a very practical way of removing these marshalls. It was called the US military operating under his September 1862 order suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

    Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;

    Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:…

    The idea the only thing he could have done was point his finger and say, “stop that” is absurd. He had the means at his disposal to have lots of people imprisoned on his order by often capricious military governors for doing anything that could be considered a disloyal act. He simply didn’t consider enforcing the fugitive slave act to be a disloyal practice. For the reasons you cite, he needed those marshals to enforce the fugitive slave act. Therefore, he used them to do exactly that.

    All you’ve managed to demonstrate is that he used them reluctantly. But use them he did.

    Steve57 (5d6714)

  108. Further, he states as he always had, the number one thing is maintaining the union. Thus you see his dilemma whan he comes to the actual war. He wants to eliminate the Fugitive slave act, but preserving the union takes precedence. And his actions during the civial war follow these principles and conflicts that he grappled with over a decade earlier.

    And its precisely for this reason he used federal marshals to enforce the fugitive slave act. You are arguing two mutually exclusive propositions. On the one hand he did what was necessary to preserve the union, but on the other hand Lincoln can’t be accused of actually using the tools necessary to preserve the union.

    Pick one. You can’t have it both ways.

    Steve57 (5d6714)

  109. DJT:

    So, I guess you are saying that the President at the time did not enforce the law of the land for political purposes.

    Regardless of Lincoln’s intentions, your argument seems to imply that an Imperial Presidency is better than a Constitutional Presidency.

    It’s funny how that works out when there is no Civil War involved.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  110. The law has nothing to do with morality. It often stands in opposition.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  111. DJT,

    Not persuaded. Anyone who reads the first inaugural will come away with a different impression than the one you have labored to create.

    Patterico (2c96b3)

  112. Christoph, I believe I listened to that podcast the day it aired. I don’t believe I remember Woods altering his lifelong position in favor of states’ rights in that 30 minutes. What are you referring to, specifically?

    Patterico (0a9e06)

  113. Ah, I listened to a few of Woods podcasts today and may have got it mixed up. Sorry.

    There was a good one where he was talking about more favouring doing away with the state rather than states’ rights per se. Also, an interesting discussion of dividing states similar to what happened with West Virginia.

    For example, California being so large as to be essentially ungovernable. He and his guest even had a kind word for Jerry Brown as kind of an idea man, if not a good governor. One idea Brown had talked about is breaking up California.

    Woods is smart enough to know people aren’t ready for a jump to true and unlimited freedom, but he’s less than impressed with large institutions that invariably become distant from people and oppressive. He favours as much local power as possible, hence, less megastates, more states rights, stronger community government, greater individual autonomy, less American empire.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  114. To clarify, although I hope I made this clear in my first comment, Woods doesn’t support a strong federal government over strong states. He, if anything, supports strong municipal governments and individual rights over either.

    Basically he’s moving a little more into the anarch-capitalist camp.

    You may find this recent video by another anarcho-capitalist entitled “The Truth about Abraham Lincoln” of interest. By all mean, fact check, and this thread has shown that the history surrounding Lincoln may be a little more complex than either his boosters or detractors maintain, but Molyneux — by trying to approach historical and political issues from first principles — if nothing else, brings fresh perspectives to things.

    I like him, but disagree with him strongly on some things also. Sort of how I feel about Woods, but there I disagree about different things (e.g., Woods’ religion).

    Anyway, while there are practical concerns — regional defense and preventing/prosecuting crimes — I have definitely become less enamored of government over this past decade and more in favor of individual freedom.

    Even when I disagree with Napolitano, which is often, I find his heart to be in the right place. He’s pretty much headed in the same direction, and from the same place philosophically, as I. In fact I remember seeing him in the YouTube comment not long ago after watching one of Molyneux’s podcasts, being impressed, and wanting to subscribe or get in touch with him or some such.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  115. So, am I reading this wrong, Pat?

    DJT says:

    Did Abe Lincoln use federal marshals to return slaves. And that answer is unquestionably no. Abe Lincoln used all his powers to destroy the fugitive slave act up to acts that would further imperil the Union. That was his Rubicon, he would do nothing that further imperiled the union. But he sure as hell did not “use” marshals to enforce the fugitive slave act.

    DJT is arguing that he didn’t use US marshals to enforce the fugitive slave act, except when failing to enforce the fugitive slave act would have alienated the slave states that hadn’t seceded.

    So he acknowledges that there were times when he had to enforce the fugitive slave act, and therefore needed US marshals to do so, and he himself provides the rationale and the evidence for enforcing the fugitive slave act. Then makes a blanket assertion that Lincoln didn’t use US marshals to do what he himself admits Lincoln had to do to keep the Union together.

    I could never make the argument, “Lincoln did what he had to do including things he didn’t want to do such as X to serve a higher purpose. Don’t you dare say Lincoln did X.”

    I could make an argument that its entirely forgivable that Lincoln enforced the fugitive slave act for the same reason its forgivable he suspended habeas corpus. He had to whatever was necessary to hold the Union together.

    But I could never proceed to deny Lincoln had ever enforced the fugitive slave act or suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War after explaining in detail why it was arguably necessary and therefore forgivable that he had done so.

    Steve57 (5d6714)

  116. It’s one thing to support government when it’s distant and doesn’t take much interest in your life unless there’s a war on, and even then, it didn’t start the war.

    It’s another thing when they want to lift up your balls and check under them when you want to go to Aunt Mildred’s funeral. Then it’s a bit offensive.

    And obviously, that is only one problem in a very long list of government interferences. The founders would not have stood for it! But the massive power, military and surveillance power, of the government has people cowed, frankly.

    So I agree with this chick and am simply trying to live more freely in my own life, screw the government. They may have guns and be able to force me to do different things, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to give them more than that emotionally as well. The west is so much more different, and less free, than what I was born into, and I did not sign off on these changes. So I reject them.

    Morality is not all the endless B.S. laws that have been piled up and it isn’t doing whatever hypermilitarized but dumbed down cops tell you to do or even what the NSA would prefer as they’re screening your emails and phone calls, it’s pretty much what we teach kindergartners: “Don’t aggress, don’t lie.” Not, “By all means put your finger and that scope in my ass if you suspect I might have a plant which, by the way, I don’t even like.”

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  117. Yes, there have been discussions of anarchism, including today’s (which I have not listened to) which I generally find unpersuasive, because what I do is necessary and I don’t see it happening in an anarchy.

    Patterico (fa03e5)

  118. At least the assertion that Lincoln was gay is not getting a lot of traction these days. Except, maybe, with Mark.

    nk, I admit to chucking a bit over your glibness, but just as some people can’t believe Lincoln was less than sweetness and light when it came to slavery, other people can’t believe he was, well, apparently somewhat similar to the current occupant of the White House. Incidentally, the correct term really is “bisexual,” not “gay.”

    dailycaller.com, May 2012: The first actually gay president was probably either James Buchanan or Abraham Lincoln. Both men were accused by contemporaries and later historians of being at the very least bisexual… [F]or Lincoln, the evidence [of his sexuality] is more circumstantial. Lincoln had a strained relationship with his wife, and though the two had four children, there were always questions about the affection and intimacy the two shared.

    Lincoln was close friends with Joshua Speed, a man considered effeminate by contemporaries, and the two shared both living quarters and a bed for four years. This was not highly unusual for the time, as men often slept together because of a lack of money or space, but the relationship may have been more intimate than a deep friendship. Lincoln wrote what many consider to be a homoerotic poem about Speed, and Lincoln broke off his engagement to Mary Todd when Speed left Illinois to concentrate on his own marriage and business pursuits. It was only after a respite from work and his personal life at Speed’s plantation in Kentucky that Lincoln reconsidered marriage. This certainly does not prove Lincoln was bisexual, but the circumstantial evidence points in that direction.

    Additionally, Lincoln’s bodyguard, Captain David Derickson, reportedly shared a bed with the president when Lincoln’s wife was out of town and had a close personal relationship with Lincoln that extended beyond business. Again, this was a rumor, and some historians have discounted it as hearsay, but the fact that Washington society was aware of it might indicate an element of truth.

    Interestingly, Lincoln’s supposed homosexuality led to the establishment of the Log Cabin Republicans, a modern political organization predominantly comprised of homosexual Republicans dedicated to same-sex issues.

    BTW, the article above — written by Brion McClanahan — included the following segment, which somewhat mirrors my own sentiments:

    As my friend and fellow Daily Caller contributor Jack Hunter said recently, “I would vote for a gay Obama married to Mitt Romney if he would cut government, shrink debt, bring home troops and follow the Constitution. I would also vote for a candidate opposed to gay marriage if he would cut government, shrink debt, bring home troops and follow the Constitution.” Yes.

    Mark (d72f8d)

  119. “The only freedom is freedom from illusion.”
    Stefan Molyneux

    “We avoid the horror of our own enslavement because it is so painful to see it directly.
    Stefan Molyneux

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  120. Yes, there have been discussions of anarchism, including today’s (which I have not listened to) which I generally find unpersuasive, because what I do is necessary and I don’t see it happening in an anarchy.

    I agree with Woods and Molyneux about most interpersonal morality issues, but frankly chide anarchists when it comes to national defense.

    No offense to you intended, but the current justice system is so awful overall, mostly as a result of all the laws that have been passed, that I could see a better free-market system emerging. Besides: you only have to deal with individuals or small groups or gangs at most.

    But I do find anarchism unconvincing when it comes to deal with the problem of three air wings, two army corps, and a fleet.

    However, I find empire and perpetual war bad ideas also.

    In a freer system, the average person would be less willing to pay for dubious laws that infringe on others’ voluntary choices, particularly if the option of not paying for them (or insurance for same). We’d pretty much all agree that rape, murder, assault, theft, and fraud should be illegal.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  121. forgotten, but not gone, i see…

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  122. Your passive aggression is hilarious.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  123. your ignorance is boring.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  124. If you don’t laugh at this, I don’t want to talk to you anymore. http://www.jumbojoke.com/new_illinois_license_plate.html

    nk (dbc370)

  125. And, ON TOPIC, here’s a North-South joke allegedly* told by Lincoln that I found on the internet:

    Bridge to Hell.
    “I once knew,” Lincoln said, “a good sound churchman, whom we will call Brown, who was in a committee to erect a bridge over a very dangerous and rapid river. Architect after architect failed, and, at last, Brown said, he had a friend named Jones who had built several bridges and could build this. Let us have him in,’ said the committee. In came Jones. Can you build this bridge, sir?’ Yes,” replied Jones. I could build a bridge to the infernal regions if necessary.’ The sober committee were horrified. But when Jones retired, Brown thought it but fair to defend his friend. I know Jones so well,’ said he, and he is so honest a man, and so good an architect, that if he states, soberly and positively, that he can build a bridge to Hades, why, I believe it. But I have my doubts about the abutment on the infernal side.’”

    “When politicians said they could harmonize the northern and southern wings of the democracy”, Lincoln continued, “why, I believed them. But I had my doubt about the abutment on the southern side.”

    nk (dbc370)

  126. *”The problem with quotes found on the internet is that it’s hard to determine their authenticity.” — Abraham Lincoln, 1868

    nk (dbc370)

  127. 98. Patrick, I wrote that post in 2005, so there should be no surprise that most of the links are dead, but the cutting-and-pasting from those links is legit. I’m sure that Mr. Woods would want to dissociate himself from that racist group. Implicit in my comment is that Woods was correct in citing Stanley Campbell, so I give you that.
    I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t comment on the right to secede issue. I’ll just note that a group of southern states seceded from the USA in order to perpetuate and continue a gross evil on millions of human beings, and Woods supports that evil, couched in “states rights” to take the racial component out of it, but a gross evil nonetheless.

    Bird Dog (130699)

  128. I’ll just note that a group of southern states seceded from the USA in order to perpetuate and continue a gross evil on millions of human beings, and Woods supports that evil, couched in “states rights” to take the racial component out of it, but a gross evil nonetheless.

    This kind of nonsense should make your brain hurt. By your construct, the gross evil is slavery, which you then claim he supports slavery, due to his actual support of states rights. Presumably because of dog whistles. This is typical ThinkRegress pablum.

    JD (dd904d)

  129. I think a lot of posters are missing the point which is you can’t blame Lincoln for marshals acting under the fugitive slave act.

    1) The Act was initiated before he was president.
    2) The fact was the fugitive slave act was a constitutionally passed act. So Lincoln couldn’t just ignore it in public comments.
    3) But he didn’t actively support it and worked within constitutional bounds to destroy it.
    4) He couldn’t just “send in the troops” because he couldn’t risk border states succeeding, he wouldn’t want to waste manpower, and it’s not practical.
    5) Pro-Slavery Marshals appointed before him were done in a constitutional manner.
    6) He couldn’t have instantly made any changes on the first day of his presidency because he didn’t have the authority and he had to deal with seven states that already rebelled.
    7) It wasn’t the modern nation state. Rails and telegraph were new. Marshals and communities often acted with independence. Pro slavery communities would follow the fugitive slave act, and anti slavery communities wouldn’t.

    Someone mentioned you can’t have it both ways, but how could Lincoln be the “imperial” president when he was the one obeying and working in the constitution? It was the south that succeeded to perpetuate slavery. And it was the north that was working within the constitution to halt its spread.

    The basic argument is, “Abe Lincoln was responsible because there were marshals who returned slaves while he was president.” That they were “his” marshals. But they were no more his than to say, “Abe Lincoln was responsible for slavery because slaves existed in his country when he was president.” Even thought his career was to first halt the spread of slavery and then, after the war came, to end it. It’s an inane argument.

    To take a modern example, look at Ukraine. The Ukranian president was a corrupt crook who consistently violated the Ukrainian constitution. There was a popular rebellion that overthrew him. Even his own political party branded him an outlaw. But does that mean Ukraine is responsible for Vladimir Putin sending in Russian troops? Or the fact that they didn’t instantly send in the army, and start a war, does that mean the new Ukranian Govt. support Russia taking over part of Ukraine. No, they’re trying to be smart, because their choices are limited, and they’re bad. But you can’t say with any seriousness Ukraine is responsible for bad Russian actors.

    Likewise you can’t blame Abe Lincoln for slave trading marshals following a law he didn’t like, didn’t actively support, that he never appointed, in states where he basically had little to no control.

    It comes down to this whole, did Abe Lincoln “use” federal marshals. I see that word used again and again. I think it’s intentionally meant to imply some image that President Lincoln was personally sending the orders for marshals to return slaves to slave owning states. Or that he was at least indifferent to the fugitive slave act and didn’t care. But that’s just not true or even partially accurate.

    DJT (b13016)

  130. 4) He couldn’t just “send in the troops” because he couldn’t risk border states succeeding, he wouldn’t want to waste manpower, and it’s not practical.

    He didn’t need to “send in the troops.” The troops were already there, enforcing his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman

    Why are you not aware of this?

    Besides, fugitive slave tribunals were operating outside the border states, including the District of Colombia, throughout the Civil War. They were operating in areas where there already were military governors. Areas he controlled.

    And he needed them to do so because, as you point out, he couldn’t risk the border states seceding.

    You are still trying to have things both ways, and you are ignoring the facts on the ground to press your very weak case.

    Steve57 (ab7166)

  131. Lincoln used the US marshals to enforce the fugitive slave act for the same reason he used US troops to arrest pro-Confederacy “Copperhead” Democrats throughout the Union and the border states as well.

    He couldn’t risk the border states seceding.

    Steve57 (ab7166)

  132. President Abraham Lincoln issued a Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation September 22, 1862 threatening to ‘…order the emancipation of all slaves in any state (or part of a state) that did not end their rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863.’

    Then, 2 months later,

    On Dec. 1, 1862, a clerk delivered Abraham Lincoln’s second annual message to Congress. It appeared to be nothing special until halfway through, when, invoking an earlier promise to address Capitol Hill on compensated emancipation, Lincoln abruptly recommended three amendments to the Constitution. The first two were for federal compensation for any state that abolished slavery before 1900, and for those loyal masters whose slaves became free by the disruptions of war. The third was for an affirmation of Congress’s power to support the colonization of African-Americans.

    The message was perplexing, a show of rhetorical fireworks – “we shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of earth” – dampened by calculations of future population growth. While the president’s contemporaries focused their incredulity on his plans for gradual emancipation and compensation, scholars have struggled more with the third amendment: colonization.

    That amendment, Lincoln argued, “Ought not to be regarded as objectionable,” because both Congress and would-be emigrants had to consent before the plan could work. Expressing his confidence in the eventual separation of the races, the president also criticized lurid fears that freedom would drive former slaves northward. Yet on Jan. 1, 1863, Lincoln issued an Emancipation Proclamation that dropped all reference to compensation and colonization…(from Sebastian Page’s 12/4/12 Opinionator column in the NY Times, emphasis added)

    Since all the Confederate states remained in secession and were actively defending themselves against invading Union armed forces Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect. (following is from Wikipedia)

    The Emancipation Proclamation outraged white Southerners who envisioned a race war, angered some Northern Democrats, energized anti-slavery forces, and undermined forces in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy. The Proclamation lifted the spirits of African Americans both free and slave. It led many slaves to escape from their masters and run behind Union lines to obtain their freedom.

    The Emancipation Proclamation broadened the goals of the Civil War. While slavery had been a major issue that led to the war, Lincoln’s only mission at the start of the war was to keep the Union together. The Proclamation made freeing the slaves an explicit goal of the Union war effort, and was a step towards outlawing slavery and conferring full citizenship upon ex-slaves.

    ropelight (4dd868)

  133. 129. “By your construct, the gross evil is slavery, which you then claim he supports slavery, due to his actual support of states rights.”

    Woods is de facto pro-slavery based on his own opinions about secession at that point in history. The South didn’t secede primarily because of states rights, they seceded because Lincoln was succinctly anti-slavery, which caused the southern leaders to prepare to leave the Union after it became clear that Lincoln would be elected. The South wanted to keep an evil practice in place despite the majority views of the nation as a whole.

    Bird Dog (130699)

  134. Seward and Chase were the real abolitionists in the cabinet, Lincoln was most opposed to the expansion of the ‘peculiar institution, seing how Jim Crow grew like kudzu a generation later, we can see his concern, that is one of the problems in Wood’s world view,

    narciso (3fec35)

  135. Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/14/2014 @ 4:58 pm

    Most likely motive was to deliver a heavy lift aircraft for nuclear device suicide drop.

    You are saying there was somebody who had access to a nuclear device – and a runway – but couldn’t afford to buy an airplane, or steal one in a less prominent way?

    At this point it appears the pilots greased the passengers at 40,000 feet for an hour and then disappeared to the NE.

    It only went up to 45,000 feet for a short time (43,000 is the limit)

    That might have bene done as part of a strugglefor control of the cockpit.

    I don’t know what they must have gone through on that plane.

    But it looks like a hijacking gone wrong. It could not have been the intention to fly the plane way out into the Indian Ocean. And if he inention was to crash the plane into the water, why do you need to fly five hours for that?

    Sammy Finkelman (20cc53)

  136. 107. Comment by DJT (b13016) — 3/14/2014 @ 9:41 pm Lincoln quote from 1850:

    Again, of all political objects the preservation of the Union stands number one with me… “I have not at any time supposed he Union to be in so much danger as some other have… Still it is arrogant – silly perhaps – to entirely disregard the opinions of so very many great and good men who think there is real danger.”

    But on the other had, he admits that at time he doesn’t take the idea of civil war that seriously.

    Not Civil War. Disunion. He didn’t think disunion would necessarily or even likely, result in war.

    And in 1850, secession was mostly a bluff.

    Sammy Finkelman (20cc53)

  137. Steve57: ridiculous assertion that “the South” is synonymous with “the Confederacy”

    SF: In the context of the Civil War, when not modified or explained, it is.

    88. Wrong again, Sammy. The fact that “the South” and slavery were synonymous is too deeply ingrained in history to support that absurd assertion.

    In the context of the Civil War, the “South” is the area controlled by he Confederacy.

    When people speak of the “North ” and the “South” and they sometimes use those terms, in the context of the Civil war, the south is the Confederacy. In other contexts, the “South” can have some other boundaries.

    I suppose even if I find a quote from Frederick Douglass referring to slaveholding states as “the South” or some variation thereof during the Civil War you’d contend that Frederick Douglass was using the term incorrectly. Because that’s just how you roll.

    Comment by Steve57 (5d6714) — 3/14/2014 @ 3:32 pm

    Sammy Finkelman (20cc53)

  138. northern and southern wings of the democracy”,

    “the democracy” here is a term for what is known as the Democratic party.

    Sammy Finkelman (20cc53)

  139. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 3/14/2014 @ 7:15 pm

    It’s at Northeastern Illinois University’s Frank Lloyd Wright building and it’s from 1905. Maybe in 1905 they had “believer in democracy” as a definition of democrat;

    WE’ve been through this already. The person who commissioned that in 1905, did indeed have a special definition of Democrat, which I think also had some kind of reationship to architecture.

    It was originally called the Abraham Lincoln Center and was not purchased by Northeastern Illinois University until 1969.

    Sammy Finkelman (20cc53)

  140. Chief Justice Tany saw to it that the slave-holding states were operating well within the constitution by retaining slaves.

    I also assert that under the 10th amendment, given there is no explicit Federal cementing upon ratification, the people of any state retained the right of sovereignty. Care to bet the outcome if a state made such a case before a Taney court?

    I fully agree that slavery was a horror. The proper thing was done, however illegal. Now, it is also the case that the North, Lincoln included, declared and executed a war upon sovereigns. They further trampled the constitution within its own jurisdictions due to the war THEY started.

    I hate it, but BHO has his historical precedent to ignore the law. The question becomes a moral and political one: Is his cause just enough to merit such?

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  141. Woods is de facto pro-slavery based on his own opinions about secession at that point in history.

    Bullpuckey. If he was pro-slavery, it should be easy to show. Simply equating his view on states rights now, with the results of states rights then, is mendoucheous.

    JD (dd904d)

  142. In the context of the Civil War, the slave states that did not secede are called “border states.”

    This:

    the president used federal marshals to chase down slaves that had escaped and returned them to the south during the Civil War.”

    is just wrong.

    Sammy Finkelman (20cc53)

  143. No, the Union’s not evacuating Fort Sumter was an act of aggression [if secession was legal]. The South’s attack was legitimate preemptive self-defense. How could they be expected to leave it there, a hostile country’s military base on its territory, right in its heartland, able to fire on the city or harbour at will? … Can you imagine the UK telling the Continental Congress that it would recognise the colonies’ independence but keep all its troops in place?!

    If the UK had granted the colonies independence on the condition that the UK be allowed to maintain its military in the United States, the Continental Congress probably would have and should have accepted the deal. But the bigger point is that America’s founding fathers were responsible for the Revolutionary War. If someone claimed that the founding fathers were to blame for the Revolutionary War, I would argue that they deserved credit rather than blame because I think that American independence is a good thing. I wouldn’t try to argue that the founding fathers were innocent victims of the war-mongering British.

    “Legitimate preemptive self-defense” is another name for war. And as we most recently saw in Iraq, wars of “preemptive self-defense” don’t always work out as well as the advocates for war predict.

    Some defenders of the Iraq war claim that the United States launched a successful war which ended in victory with the fall of Bagdad. Then some Iraqi’s, rather than acknowledge defeat, decided to start a second war, a war that the Bush Administration is in no way responsible for. The thing about coming up with clever ways to deny responsibility for the consequences of your actions is that, no matter how clever your arguments are, the consequences don’t go away.

    Seizing Fort Sumter may have been “legitimate,” but it didn’t work out so well for the South.

    Kenneth Almquist (e96bc9)

  144. I’ll start giving serious consideration to the assertions that the Confederate states had a right to secede, when I’m shown that their “persons held to service or labour” also cast their three-fifths of a vote on the question. I wasn’t there, but somehow, I can’t exactly tell you why, I have strong doubts that the slaves participated in the decision.

    And let’s go to the stupidity of the excuse that the South feared a race war should the slaves be freed. Even with the South’s destruction, even with Reconstruction, even with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, white Southerners managed to keep their black populations subjugated and subservient for another century. I happen to think it’s a newly-invented neo-Confederate fabrication. It may have possibly existed at the time in the fears erotic dreams of repressed Southern belles. But if fear of a race war had hold in any sizable part of the Southern population, it just shows that they were not stupid and evil merely to the extent demonstrated by the outcomes of the stupid war they started, but really, really very stupid indeed. Generations of cousins marrying cousins can do that.

    nk (dbc370)

  145. Nat Turner’s Rebellion (also known as the Southampton Insurrection):

    The slave rebellion took place in Southampton County, Virginia, during August 1831. Led by Nat Turner, rebel slaves killed anywhere from 55 to 65 people, the highest number of fatalities caused by any slave uprising in the American South.

    The rebellion was put down within a few days, but Turner survived in hiding for more than two months afterwards…There was widespread fear in the aftermath of the rebellion, and white militias organized in retaliation against slaves.

    The state executed 56 slaves accused of being part of the rebellion. In the frenzy, many innocent enslaved people were punished. At least 100 blacks, and possibly up to 200, were murdered by militias and mobs. Across the South, state legislatures passed new laws prohibiting education of slaves and free blacks, restricting rights of assembly and other civil rights for free blacks, and requiring white ministers to be present at black worship services.

    John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry:

    The raid was an attempt by the white abolitionist John Brown to start an armed slave revolt in 1859 by seizing a United States arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.

    Brown’s raid, accompanied by 20 men in his party, was defeated by a detachment of U.S. Marines led by Col. Robert E. Lee. John Brown had originally asked Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass, both of whom he had met in his formative years as an abolitionist in Springfield, Massachusetts, to join him in his raid, but Tubman was prevented by illness, and Douglass declined, as he believed Brown’s plan would fail.

    John Brown rented the Kennedy Farmhouse, with a small cabin nearby, 4 miles north of Harpers Ferry in Washington County, Maryland, and took up residence under the name Isaac Smith. Brown came with a small group of men minimally trained for military action. His group included 21 men (16 white men, 3 free blacks, 1 freed slave, and 1 fugitive slave).

    Northern abolitionist groups sent 198 breech-loading .52 caliber Sharps carbines (“Beecher’s Bibles”) and 950 pikes (obtained from Charles Blair, in late September), in preparation for the raid. The arsenal contained 100,000 muskets and rifles…

    Brown did not plan to have a sudden raid and escape to the mountains. Rather, he intended to use those rifles and pikes he captured at the arsenal, in addition to those he brought along, to arm rebellious slaves with the aim of striking terror in the slaveholders in Virginia. He believed that on the first night of action, 200-500 black slaves would join his line. He ridiculed the militia and regular army that might oppose him. He planned to send agents to nearby plantations, rallying the slaves. He planned to hold Harpers Ferry for a short time, expecting that as many volunteers, white and black, would join him as would form against him. He would move rapidly southward, sending out armed bands along the way. They would free more slaves, obtain food, horses and hostages, and destroy slaveholders’ morale. Brown planned to follow the Appalachian Mountains south into Tennessee and even Alabama, the heart of the South, making forays into the plains on either side…

    A free black man was the first casualty of the raid. Hayward Shepherd, an African-American baggage handler on the train, confronted the raiders; they shot and killed him.

    (cobbled together from Wikipedia and edited with emphasis added)

    ropelight (5d2732)

  146. At the outset of the War Against Southern Independence “persons held to service or labor” didn’t have a vote, nor did women whether in service or not. Slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of apportionment, that is allocating representatives to congress.

    Southerners would have gladly counted slaves the same as whites in order to increase the number of their voting representatives in the House. The 3/5th rule was the North’s doing. By denying slaves a full measure of personhood, the North maintained a dominating political advantage in the House of Representatives over the South and allowed them to pass overtly discriminatory legislation like the 1828 Tariff of Abomination for example. Which precipitated the Nullification Crisis of 1832, wherein the seeds of regional strife which eventually led to war were planted and nurtured.

    ropelight (5d2732)

  147. 143.”Bullpuckey. If he was pro-slavery, it should be easy to show.”

    The position of being in favor of seceding in order to keep millions as the personal property of others speaks for itself. The purpose of secession wasn’t to exercise this canard that people call states rights, it was to keep in place the evil practice of enslaving millions of human beings. There was no noble purpose for this split. It was craven.

    Bird Dog (130699)

  148. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-ice-agents-sue-over-obama-immigration-policy/

    Having broken the system, it’s a full time job making sure it stays broken. Sort of like cutting down a tree. You have to keep going back to cut off the shoots or the tree might grow back.

    Or, without constant harassment, if left to their own devices ICE agents and the Border Patrol might just do their jobs and prove the pols who say the system “is broken” are wrong. And demonstrate it requires constant breaking to force it to remain in its demolished state.

    Steve57 (ab7166)

  149. Had two tabs open; wrong thread.

    Steve57 (ab7166)

  150. I missed Jonathan’s rebuttal to SarahW’s proof.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  151. “War Against Southern Independence”

    Who the hell talks like this?

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  152. Comment by Kenneth Almquist (e96bc9) — 3/15/2014 @ 11:16 pm

    Some defenders of the Iraq war claim that the United States launched a successful war which ended in victory with the fall of Bagdad. Then some Iraqi’s, rather than acknowledge defeat, decided to start a second war, a war that the Bush Administration is in no way responsible for.

    No, it wasn’t Iraqis. It was foreign powers and organizations, like Syria, some people in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Al Qaeda, who didn’t want there to be an Arab democracy, and didn’t want to encourage the United States to try to do this again, and/or saw an opportunity.

    It was a long, long, long, time till President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfled realized this was a second war, and Democrats maybe till this day are pretending that it was not.

    For a long time, Rumsfeld thought this was coming from “bitter enders” and therefore that the scale of activity should only get smaller as time went on.

    By the way, a third war is starting up now, with ISIS, which has actually succeeded in recruoiting some well trained secular people..

    Sammy Finkelman (cb261b)

  153. Good Allah, between “Jonathan”, “Bird Dog”, and the Sammalanche, their is enough mendoucheity in this thread to fill the empty space between Biden’s ears.

    JD (68654e)

  154. they’re growing squirrels,

    narciso (3fec35)

  155. “War Against Southern Independence”

    Who the hell talks like this?

    Comment by AnaC (0af2e8) — 3/17/2014 @ 12:13 pm

    Lincoln raised an army and invaded the seceding Confederate states to prevent them from dissolving the political bands which had connected them with the Union, and prevented them from assuming among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitled them. Lincoln’s war prevented the Confederate states from achieving self-determination. He waged war against a Confederation of Independent Southern states.

    The bloody conflict wasn’t a Civil War, nor was it a War Between the States, however, it was a War of Northern Aggression, and most accurately, it was a War Against Southern Independence.

    ropelight (61843a)

  156. “Who the hell talks like this?”

    Confederate apologists. That’s who.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  157. Of course it was a Civil War, like the Loyalists, the Roundheads, and other factions of that nature,
    the fact that it was not successful, initially, although Jim Crowe accomplished much of those goals, is another matter.

    narciso (3fec35)

  158. narciso, in a civil war 2 or more factions fight for control of the central government. That definition fits the Roman Civil War, the English Civil War, and the Spanish Civil War among others, it does not fit separatist conflicts.

    Used in the American context the offensive term conceals aggressive armed invasion of a region seeking independence and self-determination.

    ropelight (61843a)

  159. AnaC, please see my comment at #56.

    ropelight (61843a)

  160. Since the Left Wing Education Propagandist Complex has successfully convinced a good percentage of Americans that the GOP is the party of slavery, we should merely refer to the American Civil War as the time in history when the Democrat Party seceded from America. Or something.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  161. It’s hard to imagine that somebody in this day and age could read something like the Texas statement of secession and want that side to have won out in history, rather than understanding it to be a scourge to be wiped from the United States of America:

    “In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color–a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  162. I have an 1864 book (without the front cover, and split in two by an S. M. Johnson (evidentally a Copperhead) published in New York by Carleton, Publisher, 413 Broadway – the book once belonged to Long Island [that’s actally only Brooklyn) historical society and at one point was sold for 50 cents.

    He writes, page 46:

    …. It is, in this view, simply impossible to benefit the negroes by abolishing slavery. If there is no other mode by which they can be improved in condition, their welfare demands that they shall, for the present, at least, be let alone. What the future holds in promise for them, it is not for us to determine….

    Arguments that slavery was a positive good had been made since about 1840, and those kind of arguments were a considerable cause of the Civil War. This is not how anyone thought back in the 1780s.

    Sammy Finkelman (cb261b)

  163. The New York Slave Revolt of 1712 was an uprising in New York City of 23 enslaved Africans who killed nine whites and injured another six. More than three times that number of blacks, 70, were arrested and jailed. Of these, 27 were put on trial, and 21 convicted and executed

    Conditions in New York were ripe for rebellion. Enslaved Africans lived within proximity of each other, making communication easy. They also often worked among free blacks, a situation that did not exist on most plantations. Slaves in the city could communicate and plan a conspiracy more easily than among those on plantations. They were kept under abusive and harsh conditions, and naturally resented their treatment.

    The men gathered on the night of April 6, 1712, and set fire to a building on Maiden Lane near Broadway. While the white colonists tried to put out the fire, the enslaved African Americans, armed with guns, hatchets, and swords, attacked them and ran off.

    Seventy blacks were arrested and put in jail. Six are reported to have committed suicide. Twenty-seven were put on trial, twenty-one of whom were convicted and sentenced to death. Twenty were burned to death and one was executed on a breaking wheel. This was a form of punishment no longer used on whites at the time.

    The severity of punishment was in reaction to white slaveowners’ fear of insurrection by slaves.
    After the revolt, laws governing the lives of blacks in New York were made more restrictive. African Americans were not permitted to gather in groups of more than three, they were not permitted to carry firearms, and gambling was outlawed. Other crimes, such as property damage, rape, and conspiracy to kill, were made punishable by death.

    Free blacks were no longer allowed to own land. Slave owners who decided to free their slaves were required to pay a tax of £200, a price much higher than the price of a slave. (from Wikipedia, edited and emphasis added)

    ropelight (61843a)

  164. Think how much better off we’d all be if by 1712 slaves all had gained their freedom and killed all their masters.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  165. The Conspiracy of 1741, also known as the Negro Plot of 1741 or the Slave Insurrection of 1741, was a supposed plot by slaves and poor whites in the British colony of New York in 1741 to revolt and level New York City with a series of fires. Historians disagree as to the existence of such a plot.

    Rumors of a conspiracy arose against a background of economic competition between poor whites and slaves; a severe winter; war between Britain and Spain, with heightened anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish feelings; and recent slave revolts in South Carolina and the Caribbean. In March and April 1741, a series of 13 fires erupted in Lower Manhattan, the most significant one within the walls of Fort George, then the home of the governor.

    After another fire at a warehouse, a slave was arrested after having been seen fleeing it. A 16-year old Irish indentured servant, Mary Burton, arrested in a case of stolen goods, testified against the others as participants in a supposedly growing conspiracy of poor whites and blacks to burn the city, kill the white men, take the white women for themselves, and elect a new king and governor.

    Two slaves were burned at the stake. Before their executions, they confessed to burning the fort and named dozens of others as co-conspirators. News of the “conspiracy” set off a stampede of arrests, although the fires ended. Trials and executions followed through the summer. At the height of the hysteria, nearly half the city’s male slaves over the age of 16 were in jail. The number of arrests totaled 152 blacks and 20 whites. They were tried and convicted in a show trial. John Ury, a teacher and suspected Catholic priest, was charged with instigating the plot. (from Wikipedia, edited with emphasis added)

    ropelight (61843a)

  166. 1741? Why push it off for 30 years? Did you ever figure out the date on that statement of secession?

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  167. Barack O’Drama has placed sanctions on Russia.
    These sanctions are so crippling that Putin has totally backed down from his aggressive invasion into Ukraine.
    See ?!
    That will teach them not to mess with Barack !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  168. AnaC, your insane comment at #166 disqualifies you from further notice.

    ropelight (61843a)

  169. Why? Does it get in the way of you romanticizing the white supremacists that didn’t want to be a part of the United States of America because the people in it “demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States” ?

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  170. 160. “in a civil war 2 or more factions fight for control of the central government”

    Nah, it was a civil war, by definition. Quote:

    A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.

    Quote:

    a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

    You can couch it as something else, like a “War of Northern Aggression”, just like you can couch the perpetuation of an evil as merely an exercise of states rights, but that just comes off as spin.

    Bird Dog (130699)

  171. Yes, that passage is a stickler in the narrative, Ana, they didn’t seem to have objections to Jim Crowe either, therein lies the problem.

    narciso (3fec35)

  172. An new troll or an old troll with a new name?

    SPQR (768505)

  173. If it hadn’t been for Fox News or George Boosh, there never would have been slavery.
    Or something !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  174. “Yes, that passage is a stickler in the narrative, Ana, they didn’t seem to have objections to Jim Crowe either, therein lies the problem.”

    Some of us critique the “war of northern aggression,” or whatever excuseful euphamism one chooses, for ending too soon.

    AnaC (0af2e8)

  175. Why can’t we just settle on the War of Southern Stupidity?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  176. #177, daileyrocks, because based on 1860 census figures, 8 percent of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6 percent in the North and an extraordinary 18 percent in the Confederacy. Of 180,000 African Americans who served in the Union army, 20 percent never went home.

    The horrible death toll wasn’t attributable to clever military tactics or farsighted strategy, it was simple slaughter of men who fought and died almost 150 years ago. Ridicule of their sacrifice, may provide a few fleeting moments of self-indulgent gratification but it does nothing to heal the nation’s wounds or to unravel the issues which brought those brave men into deadly conflict.

    ropelight (61843a)

  177. 178. …The horrible death toll wasn’t attributable to clever military tactics or farsighted strategy…

    Comment by ropelight (61843a) — 3/17/2014 @ 5:07 pm

    Just a general observation. Horrible death tolls usually aren’t attributable to either.

    Steve57 (ab7166)

  178. “The horrible death toll wasn’t attributable to clever military tactics or farsighted strategy, it was simple slaughter of men who fought and died almost 150 years ago. Ridicule of their sacrifice, may provide a few fleeting moments of self-indulgent gratification but it does nothing to heal the nation’s wounds or to unravel the issues which brought those brave men into deadly conflict.”

    And yet there were still plenty of Southerners left who wanted to continue with things like Jim Crow, or to resist reconstruction. The cause of freedom and progress would have been advanced if the men who perpetrated the Colfax massacre had instead been killed in the war.

    AnaC (0af2e8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4935 secs.