Judge Napolitano stirring up neo-yankees.

Appears that some of my Union leaning friends are all up in arms about the comments Judge Andrew Napolitano made on the Jon Stewart’s show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-11-2014/the-weakest-lincoln). I have read the comments of Brooks Simpson and Al Mackey and I am amazed they would attack the Judge on these points.

First let’s take a look at Brooks Simpson’s page at http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/the-daily-show-fizzle/  Brook’s does the typical spin a roo of facts to make his agenda driven case. His opening comment is the Fugitive Slave act was to implement a provision in the Constitution. If that is so I cannot find that information at http://www.civil-war.net/pages/fugitive_slave_act.asp.  He continues with the Atlantic slave trade deaths and The War for Southern Independence deaths comparison makes no sense. Maybe, maybe not, the exact total figures for each remain unknown today.

 Brooks continues on the game “The Weakest Lincoln “game and the idea that tariffs were not the cause of the war, yet he gives no reason why. I am just assuming being somewhat familiar with the position of these folks that he thinks slavery is the cause of the war. How anyone can possibly think slavery was the cause and not tariffs simply escapes me.  Simpson knows the truth, yet his agenda driven stance will not let him post the truth.  I want to go on record as posting to Brooks Simpson’s chat room several times that slavery was not the cause of the war. Simpson has yet to dispute that statement.

 Now taking a look at Al Mackey’s page at http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/dont-get-your-history-from-pundits-or-fake-news-shows/comment-page-1/#comment-5269 Like Simpson, Mackey’s big compliant seems to be with the Fugitive Slave law. Note that intentional or not he seems to disagree with Simpson in saying the FSL “The Fugitive Slave Law was just that–a law.” He then goes on to try to paint a glowing picture of Lincoln loving the slaves. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Lincoln didn’t care about the Negro or the slaves; in fact he had a program to remove them from the United States. Also if Lincoln so loved the Black man why did nearly one-quarter of all those housed in “contraband camps” die? The fact of the matter is Mackey doesn’t want the truth to be told.

 As Mackey goes on with his commentary he, as background, he relates the story of the 3 slaves who escaped to Fort Monroe in 1861. The actions of Gen. Butler lead to the contraband act or the First and Second Confiscation Acts. These acts, as Mackey, points out states that “any slave of a rebellious or disloyal owner was automatically freed.  All a slave coming into Union lines had to do was tell the Union officers his owner was disloyal.” The loyal slave owner gets his slave returned to him. A couple more acts that Mackey points out supposedly frees slaves up to and including the Emancipation Proclamation. That is just not true. Go here http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html and you will find this–“Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomack, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.” So if the area was under Union control a loyal slave-owner you got to keep your slaves.

In conclusion both of these agenda “historians’ only tell part of the truth.  It is a shame they attack Judge Napolitano on some very weak points. I wonder why they didn’t make the same sort of attack on Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and her claim the Constitution is 400 years old? Biased maybe?  I wouldn’t want either of these educators teaching my kids 5th grade history.

 It does appear to this reader these attacks are based on the fact that the judge is telling true historical fact and that is something they cannot stand.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s