12 votes

The Daily Show - Full Episode - Tue Mar 11 - Judge Andrew Napolitano



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Is this a fair question to ask?

Let's concede, for the sake of argument, the sole reason the North fought the Civil War was to end slavery, I know this is generally not accepted, but just bare with me...

Now, imagine that you live in the south in 1860.

Imagine that you are eating at a restaurant, when a slave owner comes in and sits at a table.

Would you personally go up to the slave owner and demand he free his slaves?
If he declined, would you personally take out a gun and point it at his head?
If he still declined, would you personally pull the trigger?

Now, I have no idea what your answers would be or should be...in fact I really don't even know what my answers would be...

But, IF the answer is not a solid "yes" for all three of those questions, I don't see how you could support a war to end slavery.

Is that not a fair question?

I guess my point is, right doesn't become wrong or wrong doesn't become right just because the action is contracted out to others.

The Judge rocked some TRUTH!! If only all Daily Show watchers ..

….could see. Makes me think of all the audience members of the Daily Show laughing at nonsense from a liberal biased comedian. I have some friends who watch this show and it's easy to say they are liberal and misinformed. I think it's time to squash this liberal biased humor with some real truth about our history. Perhaps it is time for a liberty biased comedian making fun of the liberals and neocons, maybe??????

kind people rock

I'm going to have to score that for Jon Stewart

We beat liberals on so many issues, I'm good with letting them have this one.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Only cause he talked over the

Only cause he talked over the Judge, not for 100% accuracy.

Ableman vs Booth Supreme Court Case

I believe this is what the judge was referring to in the case of Federal Marshals apprehending fugitive slaves. This was not under Lincoln's presidency or during the Civil War, which was the judge's contention, but under Franklin Pierce the 14th president. However, in reference to the Fugitive Slave laws, Lincoln was pro enforcement as referenced in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates.

From wiki: "In 1854, abolitionist editor Sherman Booth was arrested for violating the Fugitive Slave Act[1] when he helped incite a mob to rescue an escaped slave, Joshua Glover, in Wisconsin from US Marshal Stephen V. R. Ableman."

Also listed on Cornell University Law School site below
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/62/506

Another thing to consider would be this site http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/timeline.html , It's a timeline of US Marshal service and it lists from 1851-1861 "Upon passage of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 by Congress, U.S. Marshals enforced the Act by arresting fugitive slaves and returning them to their southern masters. Marshals were required to enforce the law. Any negligence in doing so exposed Marshals and deputies to severe financial penalties. "

"Liberty is the soul's right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath laws are girded too tight. Without liberty, man is a syncope." -Henry Ward Beecher

They also tried to inflate

They also tried to inflate the perceived number of slaves lives saved by the war, but those numbers they gave was for all of the western hemispheres slave trade over the whole time of which the united states was a very small portion, the united states was more like 450,000 african slaves not the big number of 10 million they put out, they were misleading to try and make their argument. So 10 to 20 percent of that would be 45,000 to 90,000 africans killed due to the united states slave trade.

RE: The point about slaves being returned during the civil war

From a government web site:

"As the Civil War progressed and Union troops moved deeper into Virginia, enslaved African Americans began to walk away from their masters' home, seeking protection behind Union Army lines. By 1863, approximately 10,000 former slaves came to the city primarily from Maryland and Virginia. They saw Washington not only as a symbol of the Union and freedom, but also as an actual physical line which could be crossed to freedom.

"At the start of the war, the Union had no policy to deal with the African Americans seeking protection. Individual commanders made their own decisions. Some commanders put them to work for Union troops while others returned them to plantation owners. Union army officer Benjamin Butler refused to send three fugitives back into the bonds of slavery. He classified the escaping slaves as contraband of war. This term meant that once the fleeing slaves crossed Union Army lines, they were classified as property. All enemy property that fell into Union hands constituted contraband and would not be returned. Because of Butler’s actions, a federal policy was instituted on August 6, 1861 – fugitive slaves were declared to be “contraband of war” if their labor had been used to aid the Confederacy in anyway. If found to be contraband, they were declared free."

http://www.nps.gov/cwdw/historyculture/living-contraband-for...

The problem I have with people like Stewart and others who worship Lincoln is they perpetuate a myth the entire cause of the Civil War is slavery when it simply is not true. No one denies it to be a contributing cause but the other side simply refuses to talk about other contributing factors such as tariffs/taxation enabled by a north having greater federal representation, supremacy of states versus a federal political subdivision, etc. In their defense of Lincoln they always point to things like southern constitutions ignoring a mountain of federal and state legislative records leading up to the Civil War. They boast about who fired the first shot and conveniently ignore any of Lincolns actions leading up to it akin to the administrations handling of Japan leading up to Pearl Harbor. They conveniently overlook everything claiming the moral cause of slavery supercedes everything.

If that is the case ... so be it ... let's break out the guns because the moral cause of defeating modern tyranny supercedes everything and if their same reasoning is applied to today then by their own logic it is time to just start killing individuals who are supporting an unjust, tyrannical state economically enslaving its people.

If you want to know some of the reasoning behind declaring fugitives to be contraband under international law in times of war, here is some additional reading:

http://faculty.assumption.edu/aas/Reports/piercecontras.html

a tie

Nap's argument is reasonably sound but Stewart exploits the holes in it.

h-daddy

The Judge

did exceedingly well in the pit of vipers. I liked Lincoln too, as it seemed The Judge did. Why wasn't Thomas Delorenzo on the panel?

Jon looked so frustrated

That was hard to watch. 2014 country is going to shit, he brings the Judge on to talk about Lincoln...................... Talk about desperation.

Also

Stewart's comments about how buying the slaves would be communicating that they are property is horse poop. Ok so killing each other is a better solution? Hmmn lets not buy people but lets kill them instead.

One of those answers preserves human life the other does not.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

If i were on the show

I would have quoted all of the horrible racist things that came out of Lincolns mouth and then I would have said

"If you were a mob boss, and two thirds of your revenue disappeared into thin air, what would you do?"

Séamusín

quotes

Lincoln in his 4th debate with Douglas:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people…"

"I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate4.htm

Recent science has proven heritability of IQ

That it's more hereditary than environmental. This is likely the main reason for racial income inequality which is a huge source of political conflict. So in a sense Lincoln was right. Pretending that everyone is completely equal in all ways is detrimental to freedom because the market creates prosperity through unequal outcomes. Which highlights overall group inequalities. As a result, leftist academics created a narrative that 'white privilege' a system of unfair monopoly that whites collectively impose on blacks.

BTW Ashkenazi Jews & Asians both have higher average IQs than non-Jewish whites and both have higher average incomes in correlation with this. Also, as a disclaimer I believe that IQ isn't everything and that everyone has value in their own way. But it is a good predictor of what a person's income will be.

Unkut- Good points & I am sad to see your remarks downvoted

Perhaps people even on the DP are shy about recognizing IQ. They may be interested to read Steven Pinker's latest book, BETTER ANGELS of Our NATURE: Why Violence Has Declined.

In this book and towards the very end, he points out that study after study shows that the higher the education and IQ, the more likely that person's ethical political thoughts are "Classical Liberal".

While conservatives are below liberals in education/IQ, this last bit about Classical Liberals will now doubt be upsetting to many of Dr. Pinker's liberal peers.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

What Jon doesn't

seem to understand is that war may sometimes be necessary, buy only as a last resort. Lincoln did not exhaust all other options, in fact he did not try anything else.

I am sure Stewart realizes

that war is a measure of last resort. Why does Lincoln alone get the blame for not exhausting all options? In his inaugural speech he laid out his position with total clarity. There would be no war unless the southern states provoked it. How? By seizing federal property; Fort Sumtner. The Confederacy could have easily avoided war.

h-daddy

I am sure Stewart realizes

that war is a measure of last resort. Why does Lincoln alone get the blame for not exhausting all options? In his inaugural speech he laid out his position with total clarity. There would be no war unless the southern states provoked it. How? By seizing federal property; Fort Sumtner. The Confederacy could have easily avoided war.

h-daddy

Get real

It was South Carolina property. That is moronic logic not worthy of a DP poster. It was South Carolina property before they joined the union and it was South Carolina property when they left.

If this is not true then all of it is British property. South Carolina and the U.S. stole it from England, and so the Union could not claim legitimate ownership anyway.

And no I don't think any government legitimately owns anything, but if we're discussing which government 'owns' something then the first claimant has priority.

The south didn't invade the north, the north invaded the south. The south was supplying Ft Sumter because Lincoln refused South Carolina's invitation for them to vacate Ft Sumter.

President Buchannan had an agreement with the south that they would not attack Ft Sumter or Ft Pickens if the north did not try to reinforce them.

Lincoln knew this, waited for Congress to be out of session and then sent in reinforcements. The officer ordered to reinforce Ft Pickens disobeyed the order because he thought it had to be a mistake, and would put Union soldiers at risk.

Sadly the order to reinforce Sumter was obeyed. Even so they just lobbed shells at each other as a pretense so the northern forces could surrender with honor. They did, without battle casualties, and were sent home.

Neither side killed a single person on the other side.

This was Lincoln's excuse to launch an un Constitutional war.

SC never claimed ownership and

Sumter was no threat to Charleston or to shipping even if reinforced, resupplied, whatever.

The point is, that Lincoln should not get ALL the blame for the war. Could he have done things differently? Of course. So could have Congress, the Confederacy, SC, and J.Davis. Do you agree?

h-daddy

Congress can't get the blame

Congress can't get the blame on this. Lincoln engineered the situation so that Congress didn't have a say so. Lincoln invaded without a Declaration of War. Congress is very rarely blameless in anything, but starting the war can't be put on them.

The northern people were also very little to blame. If Lincoln thought the public supported him he wouldn't have rounded up state legislators, newspapermen, and anyone else who dared protest and tossed them in prison without trial. After enough of that people get the message and shut the hell up. When people stopped signing up to fight, he instituted an unconstitutional draft along with a (then) unconstitutional income tax to pay for it. So you can't put the primary blame on northerners in general.

The South can't be blamed for wanting what they had reason to believe were hostile forces inside their borders to leave. Which belief turned out to be correct, obviously.

Even if you somehow think a government can make a claim against some land inside another nations territory, Lincoln had to send forces through what was undeniably S.C. territory to get to Ft. Sumter with reinforcements.

Even though S.C. wanted them gone, they were supplying Ft. Sumter until the situation was resolved because they didn't want any excuse for Unions ships to cross the border.

Let's make this simple.

If things heat up between the U.S. and China and the U.S. evicts the Chinese embassy, but the Chinese refuse to leave, the U.S. is not likely to kill the Chinese. But if the Chinese claim they have to send in a battalion of Chinese regulars 'to keep the Embassy safe' after the U.S. has asked them to leave, there will be problems.

Same thing if the Chinese asked the U.S. embassy to leave, and we refused, and in addition we tried to send in some troops to 'safeguard American lives'. There would be problems.

your entire argument falls

apart when you realize the Fort was NOT SC property. Certainly the US had a right to maintain their own property and citizens.

h-daddy

Of course it was SC property

It was in SC.

If the US pulls out of the UN and asks the UN building to be vacated and they don't they are trespassing. The Iranian embassy is Iran's as long as the US says it is. If we say get out and they don't they are trespassing. A US base in another country is ours to use so long as they allow it. If the US is asked to leave and they don't they are trespassing. If Belgium pulls out of the EU and asks the EU to leave and they don't they are trespassing.

SC never sold any land to the Feds. No border moved. SC asked them to leave and they didn't. The US was trespassing.

This is actually a really

This is actually a really good point. I've never really thought of it like that before: The war MIGHT have been necessary (and justified?) IF Lincoln had first attempted, or even considered attempting, whatever peaceful options that may have been available at the time, before deciding that warfare will be the only remedy.

Even if this isn't completely accurate, seems that your average American is more likely to respond favorably to that argument. at the very least, it shields one from being attacked by emotional strawman arguments alleging that you're not against slavery or that you think issues about taxes/economics are more important than it, etc.

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies"

Stewart is blinded

by his government school education.

So because millions of slaves died its justified to go to war and have thousands of people die on top of that?

Lets fight death with death, evil with evil. This is not a winning or moral strategy.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

Cant see it on my phone...

Can someone tell me, did he do a good job or no?

Séamusín

...

Like Bill O'Rilley with a laugh-track

In the "interview" Judge Nap kept getting interrupted and was only allowed one sentence answers before John would spout off his proof of a government education, instead of listening and maybe learning something.
Then there was a "game show"... 3 statist "historians/educators" and a hot chic dressed like Lincoln against The Judge. Dumb.
The main argument was what started the Civil War... simple to me, same thing that starts every war- $$$