Judge Right, Daily Show Wrong, on Fugitive Slaves

The Daily Show’s alleged experts yelped when Judge Andrew Napolitano told them the fugitive-slave law was enforced even during the Civil War, with federal marshals returning slaves to slave states even then. As usual, the blowhards are wrong, and the Judge is right.

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • nuwriter

    “Argue with facts”, you always say… then why do you so often argue against facts. It would be great if you’d argue with facts.

    Yes, Lincoln made some anti-slavery statements. He made just as many pro-slavery statements, and even more pro-slavery actions.

    The man represented slave-owners in fugitive slave cases.

  • Neoconned

    He has been nowhere near civil, and he has ignored question after question to just recite his al sharpton style “you are a racist” talking points that he is copying and pasting from some blog and/or that he learned while earning a bachelors degree in history that he bragged about, as if that is some sort of impressive accomplishment.

    He won’t answer most points and questions asked because it exposes his total ignorance and there are no legit answers to give while still holding the views he does.

    With the latest new blog entry by Tom at the top, he completely annihilates this neocon/progressive (same diff on history). If this guy refuses to address most of the comments by us, there is no way he is addressing the newest blog entry that destroys him worse than Obama does to women and kids every day in the Mid East.

  • nuwriter

    You do love your straw men, don’t you.

    You also love to completely ignore arguments wholesale.

    No one is pretending to lecture you on liberty. You are actually being lectured on liberty. You’re just not listening, because liberty is something that you pretend to care about.

    Nobody is arguing that the South should have been allowed to secede for the purpose of preserving slavery. They also aren’t arguing that preserved slavery would have been the result of secession. Forcing southerners to be ruled by a government that does not have their consent is wrong. That a vast majority of Southerners owned no slaves at all.

    They are arguing just the opposite. That with secession would have come the end of the fugitive slave laws, and it would have become much easier for slaves to escape – and thus drive up the costs of owning slaves, quickening its end.

    But even more than that, taking Lincoln’s relations with the South off the table – his crimes against the citizens of the North are enough to more than damn him.

    His suspension of habeus corpus was done in the North. His draft was done in the North. Escaped slaves were put into forced labor in the North.

  • nuwriter

    Every battle of the war was not fought to free the slaves. Nobody with any knowledge of the war claims this.

    That the slaves were freed may have been the result but it is such a god awful wrong statement on historical levels that you’d think a Lincoln-worshiper wrote it.

    The North did not “wait” three months to wait for them to come to their senses. It took three months for Lincoln to assemble his invasion force. Even then they weren’t ready, and were soundly beaten. If he’d have had an army that was ready, he would have invaded the next day.

    The events at Sumter do not justify the butchering of 750,000+ people.

    Nobody here is “rooting” for slavery you repugnant liar. You admit this at several points here, then run back to it when you feel like you’re losing ground.

    You’re rooting for violence against innocent people. You’re rooting for torture and the murder of 750,000+ people, and then you have the unmitigated gall to think that this gives a fascist like you the moral high ground.

    I’m sorry slug, but it doesn’t work that way. Yes, speaking with you is like speaking with a third-grader. You don’t know a whole lot, but you’re dogged in your defense of what little you think you know.

  • nuwriter

    So far you’ve only been showing how little you know.

  • nuwriter

    Your law professors clearly failed you then.

    War does not settle issues like this. That’s a pretty remarkable thought for someone claiming to be a sentient human being to have. Violence is not an arbiter of right and wrong. Were your fascist viewpoint to be true, all crimes would by their very nature justify themselves. I could kill you, and the fact that I had killed you would settle the question of my right to kill you. Obviously this argument is nonsensical.

    So when referring to Jefferson, you’re using Calhoun’s ideas? Jefferson got his ideas from Calhoun? Really. Considering that Calhoun was 16 in 1798, that would have been a neat trick.

    I hate to tell you, but Jefferson’s ideas were not even new to him. They go back much further.

    But more to the point, Calhoun’s views on nullification had nothing at all to do with slavery, and everything to do with tariffs. That his nullification worked, and the tariff was reduced would seem to make someone saying that nullification was “laughed off in the 1830s” look really foolish.

    Again, you’re aware of the nullification in Wisconsin of the Fugitive Slave Acts during the 1850s.

    You oppose nullification, so by your logic, you supported slavery during the 1850s.

    You also, as a Lincoln cultist, support a supporter of Jim Crow. You are by now aware of the Illinois Black Codes – which were more draconian than those of the post-war South.

    Yes, you do love to cherry pick.

    Are there any other faults of yours that you want to assign to others?

  • nuwriter

    Are there people in your life who buy the “cause I said so” argument?

  • Kumau69

    I was reading the comments about the Fugitive Slave Law and the
    Nullification Act and they were very interesting. There are some
    important factors that was not mention in the subject matter. The Dred
    Scott Decision of 1857 let it be known that blacks either slaves or
    free, could not be Americn citizens and therefore had no standing to sue
    in Federal Court. In other words negros had no rights that whites are
    bound to respect.

    In 1861 Abraham Lincoln made this statement, ”
    My paramount ojective is to save the union, and it is not either to save
    or destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any
    slave, I would do it.” Lincoln’s only reason in issuing the
    Proclamation Emancipation was an effort to cripple the South economic
    base, which was depended on cheap labor. The whole economic system of
    Capitalism is base on cheap labor and consumption. The Civil War was a
    political/economic war, it had nothing to do about freeing the slaves.
    Wall-street wanted a piece of the action and the South said no.

    only way the Nullification Act came be implemented is if the States are
    Sovereign they are not. In 1871 the District of Columbia became a
    Corporation under the rule of England, they do not honor the US
    Constitution they have their own Corporate Constitution that governs
    them that comes under Roman law called Lex Fori. In 1913 when the IRS
    and the privatey own Federal Reserve that prints our money which,
    according to Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution only the US
    congress can do, is agaisnt the law and a act of treason. In 1940 all
    the states gave-up their sovereignty and became franchises of the
    corporate government in DC. All states come under Maritime law, Law of
    the sea on land. The states will have to get their Sovereignty back,
    the only legal way would be to petition the World Court in the Hague.

    the reason President Bush and Obama were able to implement the NDAA
    (National Defense Authorization Act) and other acts taking are freedoms
    away, because DC doesn’t recognized the US Constitution.

  • neoconned

    That’s funny – I am sure just about everyone here was thinking that while reading your posts! Keep ducking questions that are asked of you over and over and insulting people – you really are doing a great job to converting and explaining your side of things here.

    You couldn’t be doing a worse job if you tried. Is this really some libertarian masquerading as an Al Sharpton/Maddow/MSNBC/NPR brain dead progressive to evoke a great reaction out of the people who actually know the history?

    Either way – it is hilarious to see you being destroyed and avoiding multiple direct questions and points and then just repeating a few talking points that were clearly stated by some other source, since you lack actual first hand info on anything you are debating beyond a 7th grade civics textbook. Keep up the great work!

  • neoconned

    You said in another post that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, it is always correct, and that federal law has to abide by the Constitution because the Supreme Court determines what is constitutional!

    So the irony here is that you are the one defending the Dredd Scott case, just like you are defending the Supreme Court upholding the Fugitive Slave Act, just like you are attacking Wisconsin’s state supreme court for upholding nullification, just like you are attacking the Wisconsin people for refusing to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act, and just like you are supporting progressive hero FDR’s rounding up the Japanese and putting them in camps – which the Supreme Court also upheld just a few decades ago.

    Got that? Based on your arguments that the Federal law is always supreme in every instance, that the SC is the final arbiter of the Constitution, and that if the SC rules something is constitutional than it always is – you are a supportive of slaves not being people, the Fugitive Slave Act, and rounding up minorities and putting them in camps if the President decides it needs to be done. I am sure you will be cheerleading the next time Obama blows away a teenage US citizen because he decides it needs to be done – especially if the SC upholds it, which they almost certainly would do if it was ever even challenged.

    I am sorry you hold so many racist and fascist views – so no wonder you are attacking Tom Woods with such vigor.

  • neoconned

    As real professional standup comedians like Artie Lange and Norm Macdonald have mentioned, people like Maher and Stewart just aren’t funny by comedian standards. They often rely on giving a silly face or snark at the camera and audience – which we now know often consists of interns and paid laughers – to give the clear message to the clapping seals in the audience that it is time to laugh and cheer.

    On a live show like Maher’s that cannot be edited – unlike the heavily edited Stewart show – I have seen Maher look absolutely idiotic several times. Ron Paul and Glenn Greenwald in particular have made Maher look like a teleprompter reading local tv news anchor stumbling and stammering, and he always quickly attempts to change the subject to something else. Paul was polite enough to let Maher do so, while Greenwald did not and made Maher look like Ms Teen South Carolina when discussing foreign policy.

    Stewart was one of the many who thought Obamacare would result in lower prices, keeping one’s doctor, and more coverage – which shows exactly how intelligent he is when it comes to understanding abstract arguments and basic logic. Stewart also sent his reporters to Colorado to try and understand why voters recalled two sitting senators over supporting gun control. The people interviewed didn’t even know the election was held – yet the problem is people in CO recognized the streets the interviews were done at, and they were all in Denver – all the way across the state from the Pueblo and Colorado Springs districts!

  • neoconned

    Wait – so there has to be a specific clause now for the government to be able to do something? Where is the clause for 95% of what our government does on a daily basis then?

    Or heck, we could always use your own ridiculous reasoning and say it is the “general welfare” clause – something the supporters of that line of thinking use for everything! We could do it, too!

  • neoconned

    Not judging people in history by today’s standards is unfair? That is what people like you do EVERY TIME you attack the Southern states! You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If you are going to call everyone in the South racist when 6% owned slaves, then we are going to dare to speak about Lincoln’s own words and actions.

    And in those words, Lincoln made it very clear as to why he opposed slavery – not for any moral reason, but because he did not want white poor laborers to have to compete against cheaper, recently freed slaves that Lincoln stated over and over were inferior and that the white man would always be superior. Then he wanted to ship all of the blacks out of the country to Haiti, Liberia, or anywhere but here.

    Oops! There goes your moral highground.

  • Mike

    Yup. Whose the “neoconfederate-facist-in-favor-of-slavery” immoral idiot now, eh?

    LOL! Fools like Timb don’t see the implications of their own desperation. I sometimes get a kick out of these idiots.

  • Mike

    He’s WAY to THICK to see that. I’m laughing as I’m typing this. His kind of stupidity and arrogance is very amusing.

  • Mike

    He KNOWS you’re not defending slavery. He’s a cowardly little liar who can’t argue the points so he does what any good Idiot Leftist does, accuse the opposition of racism (one of the two favorite smears). He’s a pathetic little maggot who is unwilling to face reality.

    But great job nuwriter in refuting him over and over again.

  • Mike

    “So when referring to Jefferson, you’re using Calhoun’s ideas? Jefferson
    got his ideas from Calhoun? Really. Considering that Calhoun was 16 in
    1798, that would have been a neat trick.”

    “Again, you’re aware of the nullification in Wisconsin of the Fugitive Slave Acts during the 1850s.

    You oppose nullification, so by your logic, you supported slavery during the 1850s.”

    LOL!! Owned!

  • Neoconned

    People who spent their whole lives in history also told me at every level of college and school that the EP “freed the slaves.” Or that Lincoln was against racism and for equality between the races. Or that Lincoln wanted the slaves to be freed and live in equality with the whites afterwords. Or that Lincoln would do anything to stop slavery, and he certainly would not have proposed making it permanent!

    A five minute google search gives quote after quote from the dictator himself showing that all the things the “experts” like the one open communist and lifelong Marxist from that panel said or what all of my history teachers and textbooks stated are 100 percent not true.

    So spare us your appeal to authority – especially when you are disagreeing on the blog of an Ivy League PhD historian!

  • Neoconned

    So do you teach your classes that Lincoln freed the slaves with the EP as every single one of mine.

    You are a perfect example of why home schooled kids do so much better on tests and in college than govt indoctrinated ones.

  • Neoconned

    I will have to break it to my friends in Kentucky and West Virginia (where apparently secession was legal – HA, HA!) that they are now considered to be Yankees but a lifelong communist professor from the Stewart show and a govt school history teacher.

    “Every person” may apply to your classrooms, but certainly not every person in the world. Proof that you live in a NPR/MSNBC echo chamber. If you were the guy on YouTube with the beret, then you look exactly like I pictured you.

    I am sure you are also an Obama voter who decried Bush’s assaults on the constitution with civil liberties and war, and now cheerlead am even worse Obama. Only question: Subaru or Volvo?

  • Mike

    “So spare us your appeal to authority – especially when you are disagreeing on the blog of an Ivy League PhD historian!”

    A lot of irony here isn’t there? lol.

  • http://comparegoldandsilverprices.com/ Bilderberg CEO

    “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—that 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; and 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.”

    –Abraham Lincoln – White Supremacist, Racist

  • DissidentRight

    It’s refreshing to hear what actual racism sounds like, in a day and age when leftists and neocons apply the term to anyone and everyone who strays off the Politically Correct talking points.

  • Thum994

    “Lincoln made them fire on the fort because……well, he just did.”
    -Like God works in mysterious ways or something… :D
    He also wanted to send negroes back to Africa. Holy smokes! Just three days before he was shot, he was working on plans to entice negroes to Panama, Liberia, anywhere but his neighborhood! While he was still in Illinois, he did everything he could as legislator to keep black people out of Illinois, especially those who were free!

  • Mike

    Like I said, WAY too thick.

  • Mike

    Yup. Pretty straight forward isn’t it? Remember though, it’s ok when Lincoln does it but not anyone else.

  • blockthiscnn

    I’m pretty sure everyone that has lived or is living has lived in history. The only ones who haven’t lived in history are those who aren’t here yet.