Support NeoGAF

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Nothing will ever top Jason Jones being threatened with execution by mother-fucking Mikhail "I didn't know he was still alive" Gorbachev.

Jason Jones' segments in Russia made him officially the best.

 

[Aaron]

Would changing 'curbstomp' to 'owned' be appropriate, or wildly inappropriate?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Replace curbstomp with ether.

Great segment. Definitely need to look up the federal marshals point; I also thought Lincoln had them round up runaway slaves.

Can't trust anyone who doesn't believe the Civil War was a just war. If ending slavery wasn't a just cause worth blood and treasure, I don't know what is.

The Fugitive Slave Act was still technically in effect and partially enforced during the Civil War. However, Napolitano appeared to be suggesting that Lincoln was unilaterally in favor of returning fugitive slaves to their owners, and I think it's that part to which the judges were objecting. Yes, Lincoln thought he was bound to uphold all laws, no matter his own personal moral qualms against them, but the war also created an untenable situation, with thousands of slaves escaping behind Union lines. So Lincoln allowed many of his commanders to harbor fugitive slaves as "contraband", under the pretext that it would deprive the Confederacy from a considerable source of its manpower. Of course, once Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves became official policy of the US government anyway.

Napolitano is also wrong about the tariff issue. Lincoln said it himself, in a letter from 1858, that slavery was "the living issue of the day" and that tariffs was one of the old issues which would harm the electoral fortunes of the Republican party. Not that it wasn't already evident from the way in which Lincoln conducted the war. Tariffs had almost nothing to do with it.

 

[PushTheButtonMax]

I've never realized how weird Napolitano is.

 

[PBalfredo]

Would changing 'curbstomp' to 'owned' be appropriate, or wildly inappropriate?

Let's just say he got whipped

 

[Oblivion]

The Fugitive Slave Act was still technically in effect and partially enforced during the Civil War. However, Napolitano appeared to be suggesting that Lincoln was unilaterally in favor of returning fugitive slaves to their owners, and I think it's that part to which the judges were objecting. Yes, Lincoln thought he was bound to uphold all laws, no matter his own personal moral qualms against them, but the war also created an untenable situation, with thousands of slaves escaping behind Union lines. So Lincoln allowed many of his commanders to harbor fugitive slaves as "contraband", under the pretext that it would deprive the Confederacy from a considerable source of its manpower. Of course, once Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves became official policy of the US government anyway.

Napolitano is also wrong about the tariff issue. Lincoln said it himself, in a letter from 1858, that slavery was "the living issue of the day" and that tariffs was one of the old issues which would harm the electoral fortunes of the Republican party. Not that it wasn't already evident from the way in which Lincoln conducted the war. Tariffs had almost nothing to do with it.

And while being wrong on the facts, I'm still not understanding what point he's trying to make. That Lincoln never really wanted to help the slaves, and therefore is somehow worse than the the people who held slaves?

 

[davepoobond]

What in the hell do you have to be on to believe this revisionist take on history?

I don't even know what the point of any of it is

 

[ZackieChan]

Technically that is "reduced by 1/10th." Not quite the same connotation as the others.

O RLY?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate

And "reduced by 1/10th" is kind of underplaying the historical connotation of "killing one out of every ten soldiers," I think. When put as the latter, it certainly sounds like pwning.

 

[The Technomancer]

Let's just say he got whipped

Okay I'm now voting for this

 

[Ourobolus]

I'll get my climbing gear.

 

[megashock5]

I have a story about that I should tell GAF soon.

But feel free to edit the curbstomp out. What would you prefer to use?

Wasn't mollywhopped a thing here a while back?

 

[Mgoblue201]

And while being wrong on the facts, I'm still not understanding what point he's trying to make. That Lincoln never really wanted to help the slaves, and therefore is somehow worse than the the people who held slaves?

Obviously, Napolitano's stated reason is specious. Scholars overwhelming agree that slavery would not have ended on its own. Even the articles that focus on the brutality and hidden costs of the Civil War bear the caveat that "slavery was the cornerstone of the Southern cause, as the Confederacy's vice-president stated, and the source of almost every aspect of sectional division." Instead, I personally believe that Napolitano's argument is part of small government revisionism, in which Lincoln is to blame for an "unprecedented" expansion of federal power. The insistence, despite all evidence, that slavery was waning by 1860 makes Lincoln's use of power seem unjustified.

Of course, the reality was quite different. The major issue at the time was the expansion of slavery into federal territory, not its eventual obsolescence. Support for slavery was fanatical; left unchecked, the entire institution would do everything in its power to silence criticism, to destroy even mild opposition, and to grow beyond the confines of the south. Lincoln knew that slave holders were intent on getting their way. As he said in his Cooper Union Address:

"When you [the southern people] make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication. Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events."

Of course, Lincoln tried everything Napolitano suggested: limiting the expansion of slavery into federal territory (upon the belief that this would put it toward a "course of ultimate extinction"), compensating slave states for emancipation, etc. None of this had much of an effect. But I doubt the facts particularly matter to Napolitano, because in his interpretation Lincoln is always the cause of the Civil War. By 1860, Lincoln already knew that Republicans would be blamed if the Union broke apart, and he had a good riposte prepared. He said of the slave holders:

"You will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'"

 

[ISOM]

Obviously, Napolitano's stated reason is specious. Scholars overwhelming agree that slavery would not have ended on its own. Even the articles that focus on the brutality and hidden costs of the Civil War bear the caveat that "slavery was the cornerstone of the Southern cause, as the Confederacy's vice-president stated, and the source of almost every aspect of sectional division." Instead, I personally believe that Napolitano's argument is part of small government revisionism, in which Lincoln is to blame for an "unprecedented" expansion of federal power. The insistence, despite all evidence, that slavery was waning by the 1860 makes Lincoln's use of power seem unjustified.

Of course, the reality was quite different. The major issue at the time was the expansion of slavery into federal territory, not its eventual obsolescence. Support for slavery was fanatical; left unchecked, the entire institution would do everything in its power to silence criticism, to destroy even mild opposition, and to grow beyond the confines of the south. Lincoln knew that slave holders were intent on getting their way. As he said in his Cooper Union Address:

"When you [the southern people] make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication. Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events."

Of course, Lincoln tried everything Napolitano suggested: limiting the expansion of slavery into federal territory (upon the belief that this would put it toward a "course of ultimate extinction"), compensating slave states for emancipation, etc. None of this had much of an effect. But I doubt the facts particularly matter to Napolitano, because in his interpretation Lincoln is always the cause of the Civil War. By 1860, Lincoln already knew that Republicans would be blamed if the Union broke apart, and he had a good riposte prepared. He said of the slave holders:

"You will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'"

Heh, Lincoln was prophetic. That line could be used to describe the current teaparty.

 

[Hawkian]

He looks a little freaky with the weight loss. Good for him and all, but there's something weird, can't put my finer on it.

 

[davepoobond]

He looks a little freaky with the weight loss. Good for him and all, but there's something weird, can't put my finer on it.

His head is still full of fat

 

[Hawkian]

His head is still full of fat

I mean it's a pretty noticeable change in the face

 

[StudioTan]

He looks a little freaky with the weight loss. Good for him and all, but there's something weird, can't put my finer on it.

He also dyed his hair which makes him look different.

 

[davepoobond]

Head aka the brain aka "things he thinks he knows that are true that aren't actually true"

 

[Hawkian]

yes that fat has certainly not been trimmed.