[cr #1606 to nolu chan, Admin Moderator, All]
[cr #1606] For a person who proclaims his hatred of Lincoln
I have not proclaimed any hatred of Lincoln, but disdain for the fabricated mythology that some have adopted, and the nonsensical and/or illogical apologies in defense thereof. In so doing, I quote extensively from Lerone Bennett, Jr., a Black historian and editor of Ebony magazine for about a half-century.
[cr #1606] his endorsement of legal slavery
I have not endorsed legal slavery. I have observed the historical fact that the Constitution recognized and protected the institution of slavery.
My #710 acts as a complete refutation of your unsupported allegation, "I'm a Yankee, native New Yorker, now residing in Arkansas. I do not mind talking the slavery issue. Slavery was wrong, it was always wrong, and never could be justified. It does not speak to the legal issue of secession. If secession was a legal right, it was no less a right whether its purpose was good, bad, or dumb."
Quote me endorsing legal slavery or please admit this is another of your smears and false accusations.
[cr #1606] your modus operandi is to smear and misrepresent
That is what I just documented you doing. Your allegation provides no documentation.
[cr #1606] You revel in quoting Hitler
Quote me quoting Hitler, or please admit this is just another of your smears and false accuations.
[cr #1606] You'll find in four years I have had exactly two pulled - neither for overt profanity.
The total text of your #1488 read "GFY". I am sure you intended it to mean "Good for you" and its was pulled in error.
[cr #1606] If you can not debate the issues, then I suggest you stay off of these threads.
I am debating the legal issues. You have been consistently losing that debate. You have thus resorted to the imaginary case, attributing argument of attorney to the Supreme Court, attributing argument by a public defender in a Petition to an opinion of the Supreme Court, and attributing comment from a dissenting opinion to the opinion of the Supreme Court, and denying the seminal case on habeas corpus was about habeas corpus. In arguing about the Supreme Court case of Scott v. Sandford, you provided quotes from Fehrenbacher pertaining only to the Missouri case of Scott v. Emerson.
If you cannot debate legal issues without misrepresenting what has been said by others as the opinion of the court, or opining upon non-existent court decisions, or opining about decisions you have not bothered to read, I would recommend you stay out of those legal discussions.
[cr #1606] You have chosen the loathsome task of defending the actions and the principles of the Confederacy.
I have chosen to debate the legal issues and whether secession was legal. Whether slavery was legal is not debatable. It was. However wrong and unpleasant that may be, it is historical fact. Whether slavery was right or wrong is not debatable. It was wrong. You only inject that issue as a diversion when you are losing the argument on the legality of secession.
Hairball. Noted.