I Smash ex-Judge Andrew Napolitano's Daily Show Interview from October 2011
Napolitano's next interview with the Daily Show was about Ron Paul after I had joined the Ron Paul Movement after watching these interviews of Ron Paul on the daily show (and something on the Colbert Report). Napolitano later stayed quite as the GOP stole the internal elections and still works for them. That pretty much says it all but I can understand how the reasoning for listening to him might work, 'one of the few good ones on TV'. I just want to make it clear that Andrew Napolitano can't be trusted to tell the truth or do the moral thing. He's like some sort of ghost of years past following the bidding of, well, it should be obvious by now.
IN the following video Judge Napolitano came prepared to defend a very strange view on slavery that I've never heard anyone prove before (& I've read hundreds of non-fiction books on various subjects).
Andrew Napolitano - Judge Andrew Napolitano offers a contrarian perspective on Abraham Lincoln and his handling of the most horrific, unnatural, amoral institution in the world. (7:11)
What immediately makes me suspicious is that he is constantly saying he would do something which can never be proven, i.e. he claims we would be out fighting with the slaves which sounds brave and noble until you realize that it's not something he would - or could - EVER be in a position to do so. What he's saying is meaningless drivel. Why is he doing that? BTW, what's up with Napolitano kissing Jon Stewart. Is he a secret Arab?
As the video reaches the mid point I get the point of what Napolitano is doing. He wants to say it's best for the government not to interfere as slavery would have disappeared anyways. First, I seriously doubt that. people hate change, especially if you see blacks as property not human beings (which is probably why they weren't free from the start, i.e. a disagreement on whether black people were fully human and thus deserving of the 'inalienable rights'. Examples of definitions of black people at the time which explains the whole civil rights movement as well: Britannica 1798 - Britannica 1911).
In any case, Napolitano's argument is invalid cause the war was over political & economic matters i.e. the Southern slave owners wanted to take over the political and economics of the country so they launched a takeover bid, and abolishment of slavery was added later, probably to try and encourage a slave revolt. So, basically, Napolitano is not even right on his basic arguments. Why would anyone listen to him? Cause they don't know any better AND he is an eloquent speaker, especially when he agrees with you on stuff you know about and then leads you down the path he wants without using facts and non one fact checks him. Shows what cloth he's cut from.
Towards the end Napolitano blames Lincoln for the civil war while the first Military strike was from the Southern Slave Owners.