Replies

cowboyway: "I've been using Napolitano because he's not Southern and his facts are completely irrefutable.
You'll notice that brojoke attacked the man and not what he said; typical libtard tactic."

First, it's important to note that Napolitano is hightly respected among conservatives, but that he is prone to historical inaccuracies.

Second, the Napolitano material you quoted is not history, it's religion -- like the Apostles Creed among Christians, it represents the core foundation beliefs of our Lost Causer Religion: that secession was not about slavery, that the North started the war, etc., etc....

So we have debated all of these points, at huge length, across many threads.
Napolitano adding his voice to the chorus neither increases nor reduces the validity of Lost Causer arguments.

It's simply important to note that whatever value Napolitano has as a conservative and judge, as a historian he's, well, weak.

I, for one, would rather have Judge Napolitano on my side. Unreconstructed history is hard to find in the mainstream. We are fighting a 150 year old fairy tale and brainwashing facilitated by the martyred Lincoln.

The Judge acknowledges there are two sides to the story and it isn't CRAZY to discuss all sides instead of just the fairy tale version.

First, it's important to note that Napolitano is hightly respected among conservatives, but that he is prone to historical inaccuracies.

Please tell us, what are the inaccuracies?

but that he is prone to historical inaccuracies.

Provide evidence or retract your statement.

Napolitano material you quoted is not history, it's religion

Point out the non-historical material in this LINK, please, and provide credible references to back you up.

beliefs of our Lost Causer Religion: that secession was not about slavery, that the North started the war, etc., etc....

Actually, it points out the propaganda and mythology of your False Cause Religion: that the war was about slavery, that the South started the war, etc, etc.....

Napolitano adding his voice to the chorus

Then provide a detailed rebuttal. It's just that simple.

It's simply important to note that whatever value Napolitano has as a conservative and judge, as a historian he's, well, weak.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheese-n-crackers, brojoke! Have you ever bothered to read any of the bilge that you've posted!?!?

You have absolutely NO credibility as a historian. Zero, zilch, nada.

But, because I'm a fair and balanced Reb, go the link that I've provided you, point out the weaknesses and back them up with credible references. Here's your chance to shine.

I had to chuckle at pokie and his “completely irrefutable” facts. What Napolitano offers is nothing but subjective opinion. Naturally he is welcome to it but it shows a disturbing lack of critical thinking on his part. I’ve seen better constructed arguments offered up right here at FreeRepublic.

Napolitano is a smart guy and I expected better from him than a lame “Linkum tricked us!” argument.