Slavery it is, sir.
Yeah, but it’s usually a comedy show that does not rebut claims made by idiots with spurious responses.
The proper rebuttal to Andrew Napolitano’s claim that Lincoln should have tried compensated emancipation is some combination of (a) he DID try it (which in fact they do also bring up), (b) it’s morally repugnant or (c) the US government didn’t have enough money (or (d) something else relating to the actual history of the situation). Instead they went with a superficially clever rebuttal which in fact falls apart instantly.
Things Jon Stewart says are usually either basically reasonable (and often funny), or very very clearly just silly jokes, this fell into an awkward middle ground.
It was a classical reference.
Compensation is repugnant? Slave owners would need some help in being able to farm. One wishes the Government could have given them tractors and harvesters for numbers of slaves freed.
They were slave owners. They didn’t deserve compensation. They deserved a good christian burial.
It’s not totally stupid. Buying the slaves would create a vast new market for them. People would invest in it, engage in it, trade in it, and, ultimately, profit from it. It would reward having slaves. It also would put free blacks at risk (as if they weren’t already!) because dishonest people would snatch them and try to sell them.
Another problem would be that the North would have an incentive to try to recover some of the cost. Some people would argue, “We’ve bought them: now let’s put them to work until they’ve earned back the cost of their freedom.” Simply buying them and letting them go would seem unthrifty to some pragmatists.
One wishes the government had freed the slaves in 1776 and told the slaveowners to go to fuck themselves.
Huh. Fox News anchor said something arrogant, inflammatory and retarded. I’ll alert the press.
But not Murdoch’s network, of course.
The Civil War was the best thing to have ever happened to the South. They needed an adult to come in, look around, and say “No more of this shit!”, and break them. Buying the slaves would have been an unacceptable transfer of money and power to these sadistic bastards. They needed killing, and the lot of them needed to know defeat. Anything less and their descendents would have been MORE arrogant than they are now, thinking they were the ones who were right.
I wouldn’t have spent one cent to buy them. No reward for assholes. The fact that many of them lost everything is exactly what they deserved.
Well, always nice to hear the voice of moderation…
The problem with what happened was that the devastation of the South led to long-lasting resentment. It would have been easier to bring them forward to a more civilized outlook if they weren’t poisonously bitter.
That’s a good trick when the President of the revolutionary government, the general in command of the revolutionary army, the legislator proposing independence and the legislator writing the document declaring independence all are slaveowners.
Simple solution: give the land to the people who farmed it. The slave owners can apply to be sharecroppers, ditch diggers, house servants–whatever work the freed farmers need done.
They couldn’t free them in 1776 because the colonies were still English.
They didn’t insist on freeing them in the US constitution, so slave owners were somewhat annoyed at slavery possibly becoming illegal, denying them their livelihood, being ordained in the constitution when they joined up, and all.
I particularly wonder about Texas, having so recently left being an independent country and becoming a state. “Perhaps this wasn’t such a good idea, fellows. We will just opt out.”
It must have been like joining a club, and finding that it had something you found repugnant, but they threaten you with violence if you try to leave.
Well, no. You’re arguing for compensated emancipation combined with a sort of eminent domain (and wow isn’t that an offensive analysis.) A libertarian approach would involve buying up slaves at auction up to the market clearing price. Which could end up being quite high. And it was the libertarian crackpots that the DS were skewering (alongside making the point that the underlying problem was, yes, treating humans like other people’s property.)
Andrew Napolitano also claimed that slavery was dying out at the time. It’s difficult to see how that would have worked, given that the compensated emancipation framework was attempted and rejected by the south. As an aside, he also is a 911 truther. I conclude that he is a crank and opine that his audience is gullible.
Poor slavers! What did they ever do to deserve such an assault on their liberty?
The problem with a moderate solution was that the southerners weren’t interested in one. They rejected the idea that slavery was a problem that needed to solved. They felt the only problem was that the federal government wasn’t doing all it was supposed to to support the institution of slavery.
Keep in mind that the federal government offered all kinds of proposals and guarantees to the southern states in the months after Lincoln’s election. The southern response was to secede and declare war on the United States. We didn’t push them over the cliff; they ran up to it and jumped.
This is truly what Southern Whites with political power feared, that one day it would come to this. And they were right, one day their property wouldn’t be property anymore and they would lose their source of income, social standing and their culture would be in upheaval.
The war with all it’s horror was truly necessary and for the greater good, don’t get me wrong, it just was never going to be simple.
Sure, and I get that, and if a solution could have been found that would have prevented all that bloodshed, it obviously should have been done.
What I have no patience for is that we should feel sorry for the poor slavers, that we need to think about how to compensate them for what was taken from them. If anyone needed compensation, it was the people whose freedom was stolen from them for all their lives. Reconstruction failed miserably at this compensation, and I think this failure still reverberates in modern America.
Weeeeell, if we’re going to get technical, they would have died unrepentant slaveholders and therefore not in a state of grace and should have felt lucky to get planted in consecrated ground and not in crossroads with stakes through their hearts. But I’m vindictive like that.
…and immediately after they were defeated military they bullshitted us all by claiming it was all about state rights, notwithstanding the articles of secession of Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Georgia. (Admittedly, I’m not clear about the other ones). To be fair, Northern whites were pretty willing to go along with such fictions. Sadly, I can see their point given the bloodiness of the war. But historians -one of them the conservative Nobel Laurette Robert Fogel - dismantled Napolitano’s shtick in the 1950s-1970s. This sort of crackpottery goes beyond embarrassment and even reflects poorly on the character of the Fox News audience. Presumably they find it reassuring.
Sort of like feeling sorry for the thief who has his stolen property confiscated. But that doesn’t quite capture it given that the former slaves were freed without land, capital, farm tools or seeds. All would have to be borrowed often from their former slavers.