The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Hmm, so Stewart and Wilmore seem to be saying that the U.S. couldn't have ended slavery in the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all of the other Northern states did (not to mention the British empire, the Spanish empire, the French, the Danes, the Dutch, the Swedes, and many many others during the nineteenth century), namely, peacefully. (For reference, see Jim Powell's Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery; and Joanne Pope Melish's Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780-1860).

Rather, Stewart and Wilmore seem to be saying that 750,000 dead Americans (and even more than double that number maimed for life), to say nothing of the total destruction of the voluntary union of the founders, was in fact the only way to end slavery. Southerners (only six percent of whom actually owned slaves) were, according to Stewart and Wilmore, "willing to die to preserve slavery" and so, therefore, the Great Oz (er, I mean, The Great Abe) did what was necessary...

So says this renowned historical sage, Jon Stewart, and his cast of clowns...

White Libertarian bullshit Trance.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by eric3579.

https://www.facebook.com/LewRockwell?hc_location=timeline

were you gonna plagiarize the whole commentary for us?
do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter?
is that your thing?
you come into a thread and regurgitate some obscure comment and pawn it off as your own idea to impress some viewers and embarrass the poster?

see,the sad thing about a guy like you is that in a few years your gonna start to do some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life:
1.dont do that!
and..
2.you spent 150 grand on a fucking education that you could have gotten for 1.50 in late fees at the public library.

First person works better

And you just did the same thing.

Calling something bullshit does not constitute a counter-argument.

Also, saying that being anti-war is "white libertarian bullshit" is kind of insulting to non-whites.

However, being anti-war is certainly libertarian.

But saying that it's bullshit simply says more about you than it does about being anti-war.
Still, as we've seen with the likes of John McCain or Dick Cheney, there's no arguing with warmongers like you

The point is, for what the Civil War cost, they could have, for example, bought all the slaves and freed them, like the British crown did. The South may have seceded to preserve slavery, but the North did not go to war to end slavery, but to prevent secession (from Lincoln's own words). The North didn't go to war with slave-owning northern states, did it?

Slavery was economically inefficient, and with the northern states abolishing slavery, the South would have let go of it in possibly a short time. Low wage workers are much more economically efficient. And only 6% of southerners owned slaves. They would have had a hard time competing.

If you don't like the argument, take it up with Thomas DiLorenzo, the controversial professor at Loyola University. Or reference the two books cited in the post above. Or Tom Woods Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

@Yogi, @enoch, Consider the fact that, had the American colonies not seceded from England (not unlike what the Confederates attempted to do from the Union, eh?), the British Crown would have ended slavery in the American Colonies without war and far sooner than it did. So, for those who say that it was right to "end slavery now no matter the cost," was the American Revolutionary war a good thing, given that it prolonged slavery for as long as it did?

The Civil War cost ten times what it would have cost the Federal government to simply buy all the existing slaves and free them. Already at that time, importing new slaves was illegal in all of the states, including the South. So that would have been the end of it. What if, say, 6 southern slave owners refused to sell no matter how much money they got (doubtful, but let's say they were crazy)? Would the Civil War have been worth it because of these six guys?

It would not have been worth it to either the North or the South. Their own neighbors would have set them free.
And southern legislators would have changed the laws to free them. If history shows us anything, it shows us that all politicians have a price.
The US bribes governments all over the world (it's called 'foreign aid'). Do you really think the southern governors would have been any different than all politicians throughout history?
Even now, do you prefer to bribe and threaten "rogue" countries or engage in so-called 'necessary' Iraq-style invasions?
The likelihood falls clearly on the 6% of southerners who owned slaves to take the money and retire rich rather than having to go to war.
Even explaining some math to them may have moved things along, like how hiring low wage worker was cheaper than the cost of keeping slaves.

I don't get your point.

The talking meat bag on Fox news is an idiot because he made the argument that Lincoln somehow started the Civil War to end slavery, thereby starting his further bullshit point that there were better ways to do this.

You acknowledge this in your first post when pointing out that Lincoln didn't start the Civil War to end slavery, but to preserve the union.

I'll go further than that and point out that he didn't even start the war at all.

Southern states entered a state of open rebellion, stole federal property and munitions and then fired on a federal garrison. Lincoln never embarked on some idealistic crusade, he put down a rebellion and restored the country.

The south rebelled out of a perceived threat his presidency posed to the institution of slavery since Lincoln's opinions on the matter were well known, but he never proposed ANY policy against the south, he never had a chance to. They were in open rebellion before he even reached the capitol.

So what are you exactly saying?

That slavery would have just ended on it's own? Yea, I guess maybe. Who knows. But any point saying this was some kind of option to Lincoln clearly misses what the opening choices of his presidency were all about.

And the joke goes sailing over your head.....

No I understood it. Seems like you missed it.

In that case, here's a hint:

Never explain the joke.

Right. Lincoln had "no choice" but to go to war just as Obama had "no choice" but to keep Guantanamo open, to drone civilians, to escalate the war in Afghanistan, etc. I guess you're right, if you go by the theory that Presidents are little more than high-paid puppets.

Given your historical expertise, perhaps you can enlighten me as to "what the opening choices of [Lincoln's] presidency were all about."

This is a warlike culture and your fellow Americans seem like war (until they are in it themselves). The neocon mentality permeates through both the left and the right. Except war is a serious evil and rarely does anything ever justify it. In all of US history, there have been only about 6 years in which the US has not been at war with someone somewhere. 6 years or so in over 230 years.

The economics of slavery would have ended it pretty soon, and it would have helped if the US federal government had not been enforcing "fugitive slave" laws which forced states to return escaped slaves.
Ending slavery was definitely a good thing. Just like ending the war with Japan. But the 'necessity' of the war to achieve that end is far from certain just like the 'necessity' of nuking Japan (twice!) seems rather absurd.
It's the neocon mindset. The 'necessity' to go to war, whether it's with Iraq, or with Afghanistan. With Mexico. With the British. With Spain. In Vietnam. In Korea. In Latin America. With the 'Indians'. Each of these wars were 'necessary' according to its apologists.

"War in the East. War in the West. War up North. War down South. Everywhere there's war."

War is the life of the State. This country, like all countries, was founded on slavery, and war. States do not come about peacefully and 'organically'. They are the product of coercion and war.

War apologists always have reasons why their wars are 'necessary' and only that war would have served. Ask Cheney.

But then, they also think that the situation now is 'necessary'. So I wish you luck and hope you are enjoying your wars.

I guess you missed the part where they told you that he tried exactly that, to 'buy' the slaves for a year, to no avail?
Slave owning Northern States? Explain please, I don't know about any slave states north of the Mason Dixon line at the time of the civil war, but perhaps my history lesson was incomplete. I'm fairly certain there were no northern states seceding.
Slavery was becoming more inefficient in large part due to the policies of the federal government taxing the products of slave labor at high levels than those of the industrial north. I was taught that that was a main reason for the move towards secession, causing the war, which leaves some saying 'see, it was about taxes' and others saying 'nope, it was about slavery'...they're both right and wrong, it was about many different things to different people and regions.

Okay, I'll try to explain again.

Whether or not Lincoln could have bought all the slaves is entirely irrelevant.

That is not why the Civil War was fought.

The south rebelled, for a variety of reasons, mostly because they thought they could get away with it, and Lincoln was left with a choice..

Let them go, or raise an army and preserve the union.

Buying the slaves wasn't an option.

Do you understand now?

I'm not a free university. It's not my job to educate you or to challenge your apparent historical expertise by telling you that there were four slave states which remained in the Union (Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, & Kentucky). I already responded to the rest of your comment in my previous posts above (and yes, taxes had something to do with it).

(On second thought, I guess I feel bad that you've been fed such bad misinformation.)

The idea of buying slaves never took root within Lincoln's administration, not because the South rejected it. And they circulated the idea after the war had started and they realized its costs, they did not try it out before starting the war as a preventative. So no, Lincoln did not try to buy the slaves to prevent the war. The idea circulated and went nowhere, and only after the war had started and was proving costly.

@newtboy:
A Minority View by Walter Williams:
"The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It detailed where slaves were freed, only in those states “in rebellion against the United States.” Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”"

And in Lincoln's own words:
“I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.”

The idea of buying the slaves possibly did not take root because Lincoln didn't really care about freeing the slaves, he cared about preserving the union, in his own words, and buying the slaves would not stop secession at that point.

Why didn't Lincoln buy the slaves before the war starts?

In his own words: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” ~Lincoln
&
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” ~Lincoln

He went to war to prevent secession, not to free the slaves. He was not looking for peaceful solutions to end slavery. And yes, most taxes the Federal government collected at the time came from the South. Coincidence?

Trancecoach is arguing with himself and doesn't seem to realize it.

In one breath, he rightly states that the Civil War wasn't about ending slavery, but perserving the union. Then in the next breath asks why Lincoln didn't avoid the war by purchasing all the slaves.

Hey Trance, do you even realize how contradictory you are?

And Just to be perfectly clear, secession predated the Lincoln administration! To ask, why didn't he do this or that is to ignore the situation he faced before he was even sworn in.

"On December 20, 1860, shortly after Abraham Lincoln's victory in the presidential election of 1860, South Carolina adopted an ordinance declaring its secession from the United States of America."

War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery. Get it?

This is what happens when you get your history from political pundits like Thomas Wood Jr.

Try reading a real historical text on the period.

I recommend "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson.

Hey look, I guess I'm a free university!

Delaware is actually within the "northern" side of the line which forms an L with Delaware to the East of it. But what does the line have to do with anything being discussed? They are also BELOW the north pole, so what?

"Whether or not Lincoln could have bought all the slaves is entirely irrelevant."

Irrelevant to what? Jon Stewart's comment?

"That is not why the Civil War was fought."

And?

"Buying the slaves wasn't an option."

It was not an option because that would not have prevented confederate secession. As you say, Lincoln did not care about freeing the slaves only about preserving the union no matter how many were killed or maimed in the process. It is totally relevant to Judge Andrew Napolitano saying that if Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves, the Civil War would have been unnecessary. But as you say (and he would agree), freeing the slaves were not Lincoln's concern.

So you are right, totally correct. For someone who did not want the South to secede and for whom it did not matter if the slaves were freed or not (in his own words), as long as the South would keep paying its tariffs, paying to free the slaves and avoiding bloodshed was not an option. Avoiding bloodshed was not his primary concern. Preventing secession was.

From his first inaugural:
"[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority."

Basically, obey the "national authority" or suffer bloodshed and violence.

Which they did.

While the "bloodshed and violence" were unnecessary to free the slaves, had that been the goal, at least it would have been a worthy goal even if the means were monstrous. But "bloodshed and violence" to "preserve the union" or to collect taxes, that's beyond the pale.

I only ask this of those who insist that Lincoln went to war to "free the slaves" (which is what Stewart and Wilmore suggest in the video). Obviously if you dismiss that as nonsense, then sure, the answer is obvious, because he didn't care to, he just wanted to preserve the union. So, where's the contradiction?


"War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery."

Again, I understand what you are saying, I only mention the freeing of the slaves for those (like Jon Stewart and Larry Wilmore apparently) who insist that the war was about "freeing the slaves."

Tom Woods would agree with this. In fact, he's written about it: that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery."

You obviously haven't read him.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, and many libertarians agree that it was (in your own words) a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". Get it? There is no disagreement there. Get it?

The issue of buying the slaves' freedom is only for those who say that the war was "necessary" to free the slaves. But it was not and it was not the main reason the war was fought. Get it?

So, about this you are in fact in agreement with Tom Woods and Andrew Napolitano and you are in disagreement with Jon Stewart. Get it?

1. But the war was was not 'necessary' to end slavery (as Jon Stewart, Larry Wilmore and some who posted here and many others claim). There were other options to end slavery.
2. It was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery".

Those two statements are not contradictory statements. Get it?

So, yes, @Taint, you are correct, to force the southern states to stay in the union, Lincoln had little option but to proceed with the war, just like to annex the Soviet Satellite states, Stalin had little option but to invade those countries.

Get it?

States below the Mason Dixon line were (and are) not considered "northern" states, even though some of them did not secede. That's why I mentioned it in the first place. Just ask someone who lives in one if they're a Yankee and see how that goes!
I did note that Delaware is East of the Mason Dixon, not North or South.
These "border" states were also the ones Lincoln tried (and failed) to compensate for the 'loss' of their slaves...before the war. (because his cabinet didn't follow along is testament to the fact that he put his political opponents in his upper administration in order to NOT be a unilateral decision maker...that didn't work.)

You seem to forget that the south attacked Federal forts and 'captured' federal property first...and declared secession. The South STARTED the war...no matter who you blame for the reason they did it.
(and I am a 'southerner' by birth).

And wow, do you really not understand the difference between the United States and Soviet Union? let me explain, the Soviet Union was not a union the satellites had a choice about. They were mostly forced into it, and forced to stay in it. The United States 'union' was entered into voluntarily by all states.

Get it?

Nice cherry picked quote. From your own link:

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Delaware is considered a northern state. Maybe not by you but by others.
And when I lived in Maryland, everyone there seemed to consider it a northern state too. But ok, you don't consider it a northern state. Cool.
(Ask anyone in Boston if he is a "Yankee" and see how that goes!)

But what's your point now? You agree that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". That's why he did not invade or interfere with the border states. They did not secede. So how is this relevant to the original point about Jon Stewart thinking otherwise and going off on Andrew Napolitano about it? And are you now trying to claim that the north was acting in "self-defense" because of southern attacks on federal forts?


"In 1862, the General Assembly replied to Lincoln's compensated emancipation offer with a resolution stating that, "when the people of Delaware desire to abolish slavery within her borders, they will do so in their own way, having due regard to strict equity." And they furthermore notified the administration that they regarded "any interference from without" as "improper," and a thing to be "harshly repelled.""

The proposal was never put to a vote. It was not tried in other states. And it was not addressed directly to the slave owners but to politicians in the Assembly. No effort was put into it.

Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves.

The most charitable thing I could say is that Lincoln tried but failed to come up with and implement any other way to end slavery but to engage in 'bloodshed and violence' (putting aside that he claimed to not care to end slavery except as a way to get one over on the South).

Still, that only says something about his competency, his "political genius" as some say (or lack of it), but not about whether there were other options available that could have worked without the 620,000 dead and 800,000+ more maimed-or-disfigured-for-life.

Of course, there is no empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that any more than there is any empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that, without two nukes, Japan would have lost the war, or that without the Korean war, the Communists would have taken over the world, or that without the Iraq invasion, Saddam would not have built "weapons of mass destruction" to unleash on the world.

What if 'peaceful secession' would have neutered the federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (which Lincoln strongly supported), creating a flood of runaway slaves that could not have been stopped and would have broken the back of the slave system'?

The Soviet Union collapsed on its own without the US and its allies going into a bloody war against it. Maybe if the US had started a third world war with the USSR, it would have collapsed sooner. But it certainly would not have been worth the 'blood and violence'. And it is far from certain that the 5 years of Civil War accelerated the end of slavery, while it has certainly served to bolster and continue the decades of segregation, discrimination, and abuse that followed.

The first Republican president seems to have set a precedent for later Republican neocons. When faced with a problem ---> go to war.

You are confusing me with others you are 'debating'.
I have always thought that the Union went to war to preserve the union...they did not go on a crusade to eradicate slavery. I'm not sure anyone here has ever made that claim.
And yes, the north sent in the army because the south attacked federal forts and took federal property.
Not sure what you're saying here, you now seem to admit that Lincoln tried compensated emancipation before joining the war, only to be rebuffed by the states...I'm not sure where you get the idea it was only tried in Delaware.
And yes, that's how government works, the federal reps and the 'local' reps hash out the laws...in this case the locals said 'not now, and on our terms if and when' to compensated emancipation, and the federal reps had little backing besides Lincoln.
As I see it, Americans did all of those tactics employed by the British etc. Perhaps the federal government didn't try them all, but Americans did.
Contradictory sentiment, false implication, and simple ridiculousness in the 'charitable' paragraph. "Get one over on the south"? Hmmmm.
When a violent insurrection starts, the present government will nearly always engage in kind.
Peaceful secession may have worked...too bad the south had to get violent first.
Again, to you, are you saying it was all about slavery, or about preserving the union? You seem to flip flop there.
Again you intentionally miss-state the obvious, not when faced with a problem, but when faced with an ATTACK. He didn't go to war with Mary Todd Lincoln, and she was certainly a problem!

Your ethics are noted.

Personally, I find the idea of 620,000 killed in war and more than 800,000 disfigured or maimed for life, far more repugnant than paying to free slaves.

But we each have our preferences.

Get it?
Do you really?
How about this "cherry picked quote?"

"“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.”

Get it?

Neither of which compare to 12 MILLION slaves taken from Africa.

It's tragic that so many had to die, but the fault lies with those who kept slaves.

And your quote shows that Lincoln didn't believe in racial equality. That's unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant to his position on slavery:

This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

Joking aside, these 'border states' are usually not considered union or confederate, (north or south) when discussing the civil war because they supported both. That was my real point about the Mason Dixon line, border states, and not calling these states 'northern'. MmmmmmK?

"That someone would even contemplate advocating the purchase of slaves in this day and age shows just how fucked up and repugnant so-called "libertarian philosophy" is."

This is a total non-sequitur.

"I know personal property is a core tenet of libertarianism, I just didn't realised it extended to people."

It doesn't. Go peddle your clumsy straw-man arguments elsewhere.
You are in no position to talk about "repugnant" morals when you prefer 620,000 dead over paying to free the slaves.

You either actually believe that (and are morally bankrupt), or you don't and you're just trolling. Either way, your comments say more about you than they do about the argument at hand.

(Oh, and by the way, everyone is against slavery in 2014. No one is impressed by your "hatred" of it. Please.)

"Hey Everyone, Look At Me, I'm Against Slavery!"

"It took a lot of courage to oppose slavery in, say, 1855. It takes zero courage to oppose it today. This is one reason I am convinced that those who are most ostentatious in their aversion to slavery in 2013 are the least likely to have opposed it at the time."

They did not secede. They stayed in the union. So they were union states.
But whatever.. Don't call them "northern" if you don't like. Call them border union states or whatever you want.

Lol, I'm being accused of moral bankruptcy by someone who thinks slave owners should have been compensated.... right.

I would have preferred no deaths. I would have preferred no slavery in the first place.

But if 620000 deaths is the cost for millions of people and over 100 million of their ancestors to live in freedom... I'll take that.

I have explained my reasoning for the terms I used, which are the norm for those discussing this topic.
You are welcome to your own opinion.

And you are incorrect that "everyone is against slavery in 2014". It has been often reported that there are more people being held in 'slavery' today than during the civil war around the globe, so obviously 'everyone' is not against it!
And some of us are proponents of voluntary indentured servitude, which some people might call slavery.

The point is, who in 2014 ever found himself dismissed from his post, or held up to scorn, for opposing slavery? That's what I mean by "everyone is against" it.

In a minimal way, perhaps me after my last sentence. ;-}
In a more disturbing and realistic way, anyone involved in running a human trafficking ring.

You know folks involved in human trafficking who are opposed to slavery?

What?!

I know OF folks involved in human trafficking who are opposed to slavery. I don't have to know them to know they exist. Some of these kids for instance have probably been killed for saying so or refusing to enslave others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uls-bYzcBjQ
(report on Joseph Kony)

..and yes, I did understand you were likely being facetious, but you didn't hit 'sarcasm', so who knows? Way to dodge!

Since this topic appears to have gone off the reservation, let me reign you back in for a moment.

I encourage you to re-watch the video we're commenting on.

This whole discussion, including the commentary by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, is all a response to Judge Napolitano's comments, on what is supposed to be an actual news network and, I imagine, supposed to be taken seriously?

Napolitano says: "Instead of allowing it to die, helping it to die, or even purchasing the slaves and then freeing them, which would have cost a lot less money than the Civil War cost, Lincoln set out on the most murderous war in American history."

That's what he said. In this very video, which is what we're all commenting on.

I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here.

You're attacking the comedians for making jokes about this and accusing them for doing what Napolitano just did!

He's the one claiming that Lincoln attacked the south to free the slaves!

So, again I ask, what are you even talking about?

This video, the daily show response, all of this argument, was supposed to be about Napolitano being totally wrong. I originally commented here because you were parroting his claims that Lincoln had a lot of options, but chose "murderous war" instead of buying every slave or whatever other imagined option you think he had.

So either you understand why the Civil War started, and we agree, as you sometimes seem to indicate, or you're in agreement with Napolitano and his view that Lincoln started the Civil War as one of his apparently many options for ending slavery.

So which is it?

Do you understand why you make no sense?

Oh, I see your problem now. No, Fox is not an actual news network, it's purely a propaganda machine. And no, they should never be taken seriously...if ever they tell the truth, it's a complete accident.

Yeah, far be it from me to stand between you and your hacktivism! lol

" I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here."

Where did you quote me? I missed that.

I am not "attacking" the "comedians." I quoted/"plagiarised" Thomas DiLorenzo who pointed out "[Jon Stewart's] "hit" was about how the Judge wrote in one of his publications that the U.S. probably could have ended slavery the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all the other Northern states did, as well as the British empire, Spanish empire, the French, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, and others during the nineteenth century did: namely, peacefully. . . . " and that Stewart (in his inimitable wisdom as an historical scholar) was wrong in his assertion that war was the way to go.

And, whatever Lincoln's reasons were for going to war, of course there are always options other than imperialism (despite what manifest destiny might have you believe). Same as Truman having options other than nuking Japan. Or Bush the second having options other than invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whatever Lincoln's "reasons" were for going to war and thereby leading to the slaughter of 620,000 people and the maiming/disfigurement of over 800,000+ others, these reasons are not the same as what his options were, and the white washing of history does not change this very basic fact.

Andrew Napolitano agrees that Lincoln did not engage in war to end slavery but to bring back the seceding confederacy, as the clip Stewart clip shows. He also shows a clip, presented without context of Napolitano talking about the war being unnecessary to free the slaves. That is addressing those many who believe the war was fought to free the slaves. Napolitano in the original interview is addressing both camps: those who think the war was about slavery and those who think it was about tariffs or something else to indicate either way, it was unnecessary. Watch Napolitano's statements on Lincoln in full, not taken with zero context like Stewart does, and you will see that even if he thinks the war was about something other than slavery, he says that. Even if it had been about slavery as many people, namely Lincoln fans, and even historian have argued, even still, it was an unnecessary "murderous" war. There is no contradiction there. If you think it was about slavery, then still it was the wrong approach to it. And more likely it was not even about slavery. So his comments are meant for someone who thinks it was about slavery. Stewart just edited out the context, as he typically does. The context being that he is addressing the persistent idea that the war for Lincoln was or became about slavery.

Maybe it needs more simplification. Napolitano's point:

Some believe the civil war was necessary to liberate slaves. But if Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves, there were a number of options to pursue. Instead, he 'set out on the most murderous war in American history'. Because the intention was not to free the slaves to begin with.

What about that makes no sense? If anything, the "debate" on this point is what "makes no sense."

BTW, among those who believe the war was not about taxes is Jon Stewart.

Nope, your comprehension is apparently even lower that I thought. The Mason Dixon line point was finished with before you brought this point up by stating (incorrectly) "(Oh, and by the way, everyone is against slavery in 2014. No one is impressed by your "hatred" of it. Please.)"...this was clearly wrong, and I corrected you. Eventually you 'admitted' your mistake by turning to derision instead of being able to answer.
I classify your lack of response to my answer to your ridiculous question ("You know folks involved in human trafficking who are opposed to slavery?" my answer being "I don't need to know them to know they exist" and an example of exactly the kind of people I was talking about) as admission that you had no answer to give.
Alll you could come up with was "Yeah, far be it from me to stand between you and your hacktivism! lol" (whatever that's supposed to mean)
To me, that means you conceded that you had no response and you 'lost', or that you now understand that there certainly ARE people involved in human trafficking that don't want to be and know it's wrong. That's my position every time when someone ignores the 'debate' and moves to ridiculous derision, like you did.
Get it now?

P.S. I classified your concession that these 4 states bordering the Mason Dixon line are not considered 'northern' or 'southern' as a coming together in understanding of the terms being used.

Yes, that is apparently what Napolitano said...but this statement is foundationally incorrect.
Lincoln did not 'engage in war' as you seem to indicate, he responded to a violent armed insurrection, attack, and secession. Most reasonable people would see that as the South engaging in war and the union responding to attack.
(perhaps I misunderstand your use of the word 'engage'. Technically he did 'engage' after being attacked, but I think you are implying he started the war. That sentiment is incorrect.)
You seem to want to ignore those facts and the implications that logically follow them.

No one advocates slavery, maybe a few freaks here and there, but it certainly takes no courage to oppose it in the US in 2014.

"I would have preferred no deaths." Agreed.

"I would have preferred no slavery in the first place." Even better.

"But if 620000 deaths is the cost for millions of people and over 100 million of their ancestors to live in freedom"

It need not have been this way. But it happened. That's not the moral bankruptcy.
Preferring the maiming and death of 620,000+ people (the overwhelming majority of whom were not even slaveowners), over freeing the slaves through payment (simply because you don't like the idea of it!), yes, that's morally bankrupt.

You may say, "well paying for them" was not an option. But the objection was that you find paying for liberation more repugnant than the slaughter of 620,000.. which is what I call morally bankrupt..

(Somehow, I doubt that you could be so morally bankrupt and believe such things -- and still function as a human being -- so it seems that you may just be trolling, simply to disagree with me, in which case, this non-debate is beneath me.).

This interview reflects views that are closer to my view point in which Lerone Bennett, Jr., among other things, argues that Lincoln in some ways actually hindered, rather than helped, to free the slaves.

I wonder if Jon Stewart "has the balls" to do a hit piece on Mr. Bennett?
I doubt it.
Bullies will be bullies.

"Not only is Lincoln a church, he is also an industry."

What the fuuuuuck.

History happens, good or bad, it happens. Stop talking about it like it's some pattern that repeats itself and for which can you decide a better outcome for it. It doesn't and you can't -- it just seems that way because we're only invested in the patterns that appeal most to our world view.

You see what you want and then you justify your world view by what you see.

God, who the fuck cares if Lincoln was good or bad, he's an icon. He was assassinated so he paid his dues. What does America represent? White occupation of native land or saving the world from the nazis? It represents freedom, even if it falls short of its own ideals. It's in your head. It always is. Go watch more Game of Thrones. (JK, but frealz yo.)

He also had a sweet beard.

And a sweet hat.

"your comprehension is apparently even lower that I thought"

"Please."

"this was clearly wrong"

"I classify your lack of response to my answer to your ridiculous question"

"that means you conceded that you had no response and you 'lost'"

"That sentiment is incorrect"

"You seem to want to ignore those facts and the implications that logically follow them"

I hope you realize that none of these are "arguments."

Get it? Is that the best you can do? Get it?

These are irrelevant to the Jon Stewart video.

Let me know if you have any factually relevant arguments to make.

EDIT: And we can probably move beyond all the question begging, hmmk?

That is a more reasonable statement, but it still ignores the (small?) minority of American human traffickers that know it's wrong to do but fear reprisal if they speak up. They may be few, but they do exist.

edit: and it still contradicts itself because it starts off with an absolutist statement, then hedges.

"Most reasonable people would see that as the South engaging in war and the union responding to attack."

This is not a factual argument. This is your opinion based on your ignorance of what "most reasonable people" think or not about it. These are speculations or fantasies about what "most reasonable people" think or not. These are also not "arguments." (But I do find it rather telling how important it seems to be for you for me to "lose." Hmmmk? "Lose" according to whom? You? And what does that even mean, that I "lost?" It won't change the facts. What is this "competition" you're waging? It certainly isn't with me...)

I must agree with you there. Compensated emancipation, if it could have been done successfully and non-violently (big if's), would be preferable in my eyes to 'war', even though I can understand the opposition to it based on today's morality.
I believe there are nuances and unknowns being ignored or unknown to ChaosEngine and yourself that is clouding both of your viewpoints here. There's no way to know if 'paying for freedom' (the way I like to look at the idea of compensated emancipation) could have worked or the unforeseen repercussions of it, since it wasn't given a chance.
I'm not going to comment on Jon Stewarts motives or morality, they are not germane to the subject I'm discussing.

...thanks to the advice of an 11 year old girl during his campaign, from what I've read/been told.
http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln50.html
I thought that was funny.

Please what? You made a jump back to an argument that had been solved because you had no response to the argument I had made on the new topic we were discussing. Either you did it from lack of comprehension, or simply as a ridiculous attempt to cloud your failing argument. Either calls for derision.
You stopped making arguments and moved onto derision without arguement. That means I no longer have an argument from you to correct or debate.
You started the "get it?" questioning, so don't whine about it coming back on you. Turnabout's fair play. Get it?
I hate to tell you, but some of those are arguments. Others were explanations of position, made for your benefit because you seemed to have difficulty comprehending.
I've made numerous relevant arguments, all of which you've conceded. What more do you need to know?

No, it is a statement of fact, or statement of an opinion based on asking many reasonable, educated people what they think. edit: and based on some internet investigating to see what the consensus seems to be. I'm glad you could at least see what it is not, now perhaps try to see things for what they are.
To me, when a debate moves from discussion of the ideas on to only simple derision, it's concession by the one doing the derision that he/she is out of ideas and has no legitimate response to offer. That's a loss of the debate. I'm not sure how your debate teacher taught you, that's how mine taught me.
It's not important for me for you to loose, or me to win, but that is how I see it when discussion stops and derision starts, as a loss. It is important to me that people understand that.
Coming to agreement, or at least true understanding is a win, for both sides.

EDIT: when one group declares itself sovereign and fires on another sovereign group, they have declared war. That is what the confederates did at Ft Sumter.

"What more do you need to know?"

Um, how about your argument, for starters...

My argument about what? I thought we finished all the arguments when you started the derision, with you conceding the points by default.
That's why I asked what ELSE you need to know, for my arguments, re-read. They're there.

edit: to clarify (and not force re-reading of a wall of text) my arguments were
1. That border states are not considered confederate or union when discussing allegiance during the civil war, because they all supported BOTH sides.
2. that the first shots fired in the civil war were fired by the confederates, making them the one's that 'started the war' in my, and many others opinions.
3. that the blanket statement "everyone is against slavery in 2014" was incorrect, and remains so, no matter how you wish to modify it. Blanket statements are almost always incorrect on some level.

I honestly don't know what you're referring to with regards to 'derision,' but i don't really care. Probably best for us to drop it since it now appears that you're turning to some rather irrelevant issues. The original point about the "border states" was not how to label or refer to them, but to show that Lincoln did not 'emancipate' or invade them, thereby showing his motivations had nothing to do with freeing the slaves.

I don't know who specifically 'shot first' but this is what happened:

"Ft. Sumter was located in the middle of the harbor of Charleston, SC where the U.S. forts garrison had withdrawn to avoid incidents with local militias in the streets of the city. Unlike Buchanan who allowed commanders to relinquish possession to avoid bloodshed, Lincoln required Maj. Anderson to hold on until fired upon. Jefferson Davis ordered the surrender of the fort. Anderson gave a conditional reply which the Confederate government rejected, and Davis ordered P. G. T. Beauregard to attack the fort before a relief expedition could arrive."

The Confederacy ordered an attack on a fort in what it saw as its territory and therefore under Union occupation. The Union saw it as their fort.
Again, a survey of the opinion of people you know about who 'started it' does not the same thing as that "most reasonable people" would see it like you do.

More irrelevant splitting of hairs: in the United Sates of 2014 practically no one openly advocates institutionalized slavery or openly argue their "right" to own slaves. So for practical purposes, (almost) everyone is openly against slavery.
That, in any case, is totally irrelevant to the Jon Stewart video and so your comments are far from relevant.

"I'm not going to comment on Jon Stewarts motives or morality, they are not germane to the subject I'm discussing."
It's all well and good that you're not going to comment on Stewart's motives or morality, but most of what you constitute your "arguments" are not germane to what I'm discussing here, or to any of my original points prior to your digressions and tangential discussions about which I frankly have little interest. No offense.

You can think anything you want, I support that. But you don't need to include me in your 'discussion', do you? And you're right -- reviewing the many threads on this video in which I was involved, it appears that the "get it?" questioning was Taint's origination, which I carried over into your thread.
Point is, No, I didn't start it.

"I've made numerous relevant arguments"

Relevant to what? This video? What were they?

"Either calls for derision."

Yes, derision is clearly your style.

"I'm not sure how your debate teacher taught you, that's how mine taught me."

Who is/was you 'debating teacher?' I don't/didn't have one/any.

"It is important to me that people understand that."

Is this about what's "important to you that people understand?" Is that your motivation for this 'discussion'? I fail to see the point.

In any case, like I said, best to better drop it. If you really want to debate something, watch the Bennett video I posted above. Seems like much better material for a substantive debate than anything you and I've discussed thus far.

"I believe there are nuances and unknowns being ignored or unknown to ChaosEngine and yourself that is clouding both of your viewpoints here."

By the way, this opinion is again not an 'argument' much less a 'fact'.

"I must agree with you there. Compensated emancipation, if it could have been done successfully and non-violently (big if's), would be preferable in my eyes to 'war'"

And yet, this is one of Napolitano's arguments that Stewart decided to ridicule (thus inspiring my original comment). But as a 'comedian' he can get away with non-arguments and instead rely on "funny faces" and other contortions (unlike some other folks I can mention). Maybe some eye-rolling.

Well, I thought I had been quite clear. The 'derision' with no argument from you was "Yeah, far be it from me to stand between you and your hacktivism! lol"
I understand why you want to ignore and/or drop it...that's fine.
My point was to clarify your statement "The North didn't go to war with slave-owning northern states, did it?", and it took quite a while to understand you were simply ascribing the label "northern" to any non-seceding state. You mistook that for me arguing that he went to war to free the slaves...I never said, or intended to imply that. It may have entered into his motivations, but was not the stated reason, or even the logical reason for joining the war.
Your description of events ignores the fact that 100% of the territory was part of the union, and taken by this new 'confederacy', an act of war by invasion/usurpation/theft.
My 'survey' included numerous websites descriptions, websites about the war not just based on one side or the other. As I said, you are welcome to disagree, but should be prepared to be challenged when you state claims about "northern/union slave owning states" It was all about that labeling.
Life is in the details. Blanket statements (especially obviously untrue ones) should be challenged. I can finally agree with your statement about public sentiment about slavery today. I agree, I split hairs to gain understanding.
I agree, I may have made a tangential argument, but I did it to clarify your argument (at east to myself), which seemed to be about what happened and how, not about Jon...mostly, that's why he's not germane.
Very well, if you have no interest that's fine. When you write pages of text about my digressions, it indicates the opposite. I hope you understand that. If you really aren't interested, just ignore me.

Wow, never heard of an opinion, huh? Hence the "I believe" part.
I am not Jon, I didn't argue that. I do say it's a huge "if".

You started it with me.

Relevant to your comments, which I was responding to.

Derision can be my style, when I think it's called for. I rarely offer ONLY derision, but do when that's all I'm offered.

I have a mental block with names, I can't recall their names. I've had 2, plus a mother that instilled debate in me as a normal conversation process....thanks mom.

Yes, my reason for any discussion is to foster understanding, if not agreements.

I'm not interested in more biased videos for more biased discussion. I'm satisfied with this one, and I can drop it, if I don't get a notice that you sent another text wall (like mine).

What kind of roundabout hackneyed self-serving defensive truffula-tree titulatious tripe am I reading?? Newtboy, yer a serious piece-a-work son not-to-mention, a legend in your own mind!

"Your description of events ignores the fact that 100% of the territory was part of the union"

That's why it's called secession. It was all one 'union' and then the Confederacy decided otherwise, they seceded, or attempted to.

"When you write pages of text about my digressions, it indicates the opposite. I hope you understand that. If you really aren't interested, just ignore me.""

You do have a point about this. Anyway, we may even agree more than disagree, except about some definitions that, while not as precise as could be, keep in mind the medium this discussion is occurring in, not the ideal for formal debating, more like informal statements and comments of what comes to mind, not dissertations.

In addition to the "sarcasm" box, we should probably get a "jus' sayin'" box as well.

Are Newtboy and Trancecoach married?

*related=http://videosift.com/video/TDS-Judge-Andrew-Napolitano-Discusses-Slavery-with-Jon

TDS: Judge Andrew Napolitano Discusses Slavery with Jon has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.