"Your source on Taney is even more bizarre - he's a left wing reparationist crackpot who is employed by the SPLC and whose "history" comes across as the ramblings of an agenda-driven hack (which he is) when compared to virtually any other source on Taney, be it positive (like Curtis) or negative (like Fehrenbacher)."
Ad hominem attacks that do not refute the accuracy of the author's views. Can't attack the message? No problem. Attack the messenger! I think, also, you'll see that I quote Finkelman once to give you a taste of a real left-winger - as compared the the gratuitous left-wing smears you paint on my other sources - including Jaffa and Rehnquist! Outside of Bledsoe, J. Davis, Stephens, and Hitler, I have no idea who is on your approved list of pro-southern sources.
Post script - "Reparations" for slavery is a despicable idea. There are no living ex-slaves; there are no living ex-slave holders. Present day society is not responsible for the past evils. There are many citizens of this country who never had a slave-holding ancestor, or whose family may have come to the country well after the demise of slavery. Reparations belong to those who have been wronged and made by those who committed the wrong.
You are not understanding a key matter here, capitan. When YOU appeal to an authority as your argument, to wit an argumentum ad verecundiam, and that authority is NOT a credentialed and recognized expert and/or that authority espouses an unconventional view that goes against the overwhelming scholarly position on the same subject, it is NOT argumentum ad hominem to point out the said lack of credentials, recognition, and/or universality as a means of demonstrating the fallacy of your original argumentum ad verecundiam.
Can't attack the message? No problem. Attack the messenger!
Bullsh*t. I've made well over a hundred posts on other forums and this one making salient and valid criticisms of the messages you posted from the likes of Farber and Jaffa, virtually all of which you have ignored in favor of ad verecundiam appeals to their names.
I think, also, you'll see that I quote Finkelman once to give you a taste of a real left-winger
IIRC you quoted Finkelman three or four times including one with the suggestion that I should read him before I exposed the fact that he was a left wing kook. I also see that you are still defiantly displaying your heavily egged face from that little incident with this unproven claim that you intended to post a left wing nut job all along.
as compared the the gratuitous left-wing smears you paint on my other sources - including Jaffa and Rehnquist!
I've never called Rehnquist a liberal. I have stated that Jaffa professes to be a conservative and generally aligns that way, yet has an abnormally large number of connections and shared positions with the left for somebody who is supposedly a conservative leader. Beyond that, your sources are the likes of Finkelman and Farber - bona fide leftists with undisputed credentials on that side of the political spectrum.