Skip to main content

View Diary: Jon Stewart has 3 history professors rip apart Fox's Andrew Napolitano's slavery revisionism (152 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not really a threat of abolition.... (4+ / 0-)

    ... at any time within the next 50 years -- but a near certainty of no more expansion of slavery.  Since the money to be made from producing slaves (assuming a free and growing marketplace for slaves) was greater than the amount of money to be made from using slaves to produce mere goods (agricultural and manufactured), this was a an insufferable strangling of the economic rights of the Southern aristocracy.

    •  They foresaw abolition (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook

      because if slavery wasn't expanded to the west, then as new states were admitted to the union, the balance of power would shift to free states.  Once the free states had large majorities in congress, the abolition of slavery would be a certainty.  

      It's no accident that the actual fighting began in Kansas over the question of whether the state would be admitted free, or slave.  That was long before the 1860 election, even before John Brown's brave but foolish stand at Harpers Ferry.

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 12:21:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The stupidest thing Napolitano said all evening (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook, tethys

        was that he would have assisted, even fought in, a slave rebellion. Such rebellions brought down well-armed state militias on them, as was the original intent of the Second Amendment. If a rebellion got beyond what the local militia could suppress, other state militias and even the US Army would have been called in.

        This is far beyond the level of idiocy at which Rand Paul claims that he would not have patronized a segregated business in the Jim Crow South.

        I noticed several Southern Dog Whistles in what he said, such as "Lincoln's War". He did not explicitly call it the War of Northern Aggression, but that was the narrative he was working from.

        Now if we can just get Stewart and Ken Ham together for a game show, with a panel consisting of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and Richard Dawkins. Oh, and John Hodgman in a beard as Charles Darwin. Something like

        I did not discover, much less invent, Evolution. Indeed, the idea of evolution was familiar to the Pre-Socratics. It was discussed in modern scientific terms in the 18th century, long before I set out on the Beagle, but had not been explained. Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact, which we saw dimly in a myriad other facts, and now see more clearly every day as we gather more and more facts. My theoretical contributions to explaining Evolution were Natural Selection and Selection in Relation to Sex, both of which are easily observable and have been amply and extensively confirmed.
        But much funnier.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 12:46:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Looking far ahead... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook, tethys

        True, perhaps -- but the ability to eventually pass a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery was many, many decades away.  On the other hand, the economic threat of blocking the expansion of the internal slave trade was immediate -- and made more urgent by increasing soil exhaustion (by imprudent agricultural practices) in the deep South.  The only way the Southern slave aristocracy could continue to live in the manner to which it had grown accustomed was to force the expansion of the realm where slavery was allowed, the sooner, the better.

        Lincoln was a threat to the South only in that he would not be an ally in expanding slave territory -- but probably this wasn't too important, as popular opinion in the non-South no longer supported expansion.  Lincoln's election was seen as an opportunity not because he was actually expected to be a "tyrant", but because he was expected to be weak and ineffectual, and unable to mobilize a powerful military effort to oppose the South's conquest of the border states and west.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site