Lincoln Interesting Discussion about Lincoln by Judge Napolitano

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's been a little back-and-forth about a judge vs. a night late host as to which is more creditable. Referring to Napolitano, however, as a judge implies some learned knowledge and intellect. The 'judge' title, when used with Napolitano carries about the same weight as it does with Judge Judy or Judge Wapner. He's a political commentator for Fox News, which is a nice way of saying he's just a paid shill. And not a very good one at that: Fox pulled him from the air for saying stupid stuff.

Personally, I think Wapner and the good Judge Judy should be respected as better legal minds, and certainly more interesting.
 
There's been a little back-and-forth about a judge vs. a night late host as to which is more creditable. Referring to Napolitano, however, as a judge implies some learned knowledge and intellect. The 'judge' title, when used with Napolitano carries about the same weight as it does with Judge Judy or Judge Wapner. He's a political commentator for Fox News, which is a nice way of saying he's just a paid shill. And not a very good one at that: Fox pulled him from the air for saying stupid stuff.

Personally, I think Wapner and the good Judge Judy should be respected as better legal minds, and certainly more interesting.

Although I don't agree with his version of the Civil War, here is a biography of Judge Andrew Napolitano.
 
Judge Nap lays out his case against Lincoln in a precise and logical manner. The factual basis of his argument can not be denied. The myths surrounding 'Honest Abe' are formidable and his reputation will endure with those who decline to delve deeply into the historic record. I wish I could rely on late night comedians to confirm my bias, but I don't stay up that late.
 
There's been a little back-and-forth about a judge vs. a night late host as to which is more creditable. Referring to Napolitano, however, as a judge implies some learned knowledge and intellect. The 'judge' title, when used with Napolitano carries about the same weight as it does with Judge Judy or Judge Wapner. He's a political commentator for Fox News, which is a nice way of saying he's just a paid shill. And not a very good one at that: Fox pulled him from the air for saying stupid stuff.

Personally, I think Wapner and the good Judge Judy should be respected as better legal minds, and certainly more interesting.
Triggered?
 
From Wikipedia:

American Civil War history[edit]
Napolitano has made numerous claims about the American Civil War, which are rejected by historians. These claims include those that the Civil War was President Abraham Lincoln’s war by choice, that slavery was dying anyway, that Lincoln could have freed the slaves by paying the slaveholders, and that Lincoln armed the slaves.[31][32] More specifically, in a Daily Show segment, Napolitano said that Lincoln started the war "because he wanted to preserve the union, because he needed the tariffs from the southern states," a claim rejected by a panel of three distinguished historians of the Civil War: James Oakes, Eric Foner, and Manisha Sinha.[32] Napolitano argued that Lincoln could have solved the slavery question by paying slaveholders to release their slaves, thereby avoiding war.[31] However, Lincoln did offer to pay to free the slaves in Delaware, but the Delaware legislature rejected him.[31] Napolitano also asserted that Lincoln attempted to arm slaves, but two prominent historians of the Civil War said they had never heard of such an effort and PolitiFact rated the claim "pants-on-fire".[31][33]Napolitano has asserted that slavery was dying a natural death at the time of the Civil War, a claim that one of the historians on the Daily Show panel rejected. The historian said, "Slavery was not only viable, it was growing ... This idea that it was dying out or was going to die out is ridiculous."[32]

Napolitano has also said that Lincoln enforced the Fugitive Slave Act by sending escaped slaves back to their owners during the war; PolitiFact notes that "while there were cases when Lincoln enforced the law during the Civil War, he did so selectively when he thought it would help keep border states in the Union fold. When it came to slaves from Confederate states, the weight of the government actions fell heavily on the side of refusing to return escaped slaves."[31]
 
Judge Nap lays out his case against Lincoln in a precise and logical manner. The factual basis of his argument can not be denied. The myths surrounding 'Honest Abe' are formidable and his reputation will endure with those who decline to delve deeply into the historic record. I wish I could rely on late night comedians to confirm my bias, but I don't stay up that late.

A must turn to source that lays to rest the historical facts controversy now and for all times.

three-stooges.jpg
 
From Politifact on the Napolitano/Jon Stewart "Lincoln Debate"

In proof that the past is never settled business, Daily Show host Jon Stewart and Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News threw down last week over whether the Civil War needed to happen. Napolitano argued that the bloody conflict was President Abraham Lincoln’s war by choice. Stewart couldn’t see how Napolitano, a libertarian, could oppose a war against the ultimate denial of freedom, American slavery.

We checked four claims from their energetic debate, two from each of them. Neither passed with flying colors.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/mar/19/napolitano-stewart-debate-civil-war/
The actual "debate" on The Daily Show:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/po508...---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top