I have listed the pro slavery presidents - no response but sputtering. I will and John Marshall to Taney between the two that is almost the entire eighteenth century up to the War. Both slave owners and Southerners. Then I listed the top figures in the Congress Clay and Calhoun - no response from you but sputtering. Southern power in Congress was cemented by the 3/5s rule allowing Slavers to vote as though their chattel was 3/5s of a man. You just pretend this increased power did not exist. So that is Executive, Judicial and Legislative all under control of the South and Slavers. What is your problem with this obvious and indisputable fact.
Livingston is the best you can do? He isn’t even a historian much less a credible one and I wouldn’t trust his philosophical analysis any more than his political. Nor does the school he teaches at have any reputation of excellence in any field.
Nothing he says can change the fact that the Slavers readily admitted that they fought for slavery. It is only their modern apologists who claim they fought for some Noble Cause rather than the ability to use the Whip and the Lash. They weren’t such hypocrites.
How does that validate your statement that "the South completely controlled the federal government until 1860"?!? (Hint: links from reputable sources would be a good start...)
Look, I know that you're dumber than a bag of hammers but c'mon!
John Marshall to Taney between the two that is almost the entire eighteenth century up to the War.
Are you suggesting that these two men were dictators and that the north wasn't represented in congress or the SC until after the Wah? I guess disHonest Abe's emancipation was further reaching than originally suspected....
FWIW, the Stars-n-Stripes flew over slavery much longer than the Stars-n-Bars.
the 3/5s rule allowing Slavers to vote as though their chattel was 3/5s of a man.
Wow. You really aren't very bright are you? The 3/5's rule was proposed by the yankees James Wilson and Roger Sherman because they (the north) didn't want blacks to count as a whole human being.
You've previously stated that you don't like to use quotes or links but I'm thinking that you simply don't read and that all you do is spout liberal, yankee propoganda.
Nor does the school he teaches at have any reputation of excellence in any field.
Like I said, you're dumber than a bag of hammers...
Nothing he says can change the fact that the Slavers readily admitted that they fought for slavery. It is only their modern apologists who claim they fought for some Noble Cause rather than the ability to use the Whip and the Lash.
States Rights was the Cause and slavery was the occasion and you can't provide any references and/or sources (other than your own absurdity and feeeeeeeelings, of course) to refute that.
BTW, while you're foaming at the pie hole trying to rebute the facts that I've so graciously provided for you, try reading (a difficult task for you, I know) about how your beloved northron comrades treated slaves and freedmen: