So the actual size of the federal army is my “personal belief”? Not facts but my personal belief? What a loon you are.
The fact that the Land of the Whip and Lash existed does not IN ANY WAY exculpate the racism in the North or the role of some Yankees DECADES BEFORE the war. Nor have I ever claimed that it does. NYC was filled with traitors in 1860 and throughout the war so there were huge numbers of racists there for sure. During the Draft Riots they happily burned, hung, mutilated and killed every Black they could get their hands on, even little kids. Troops which had just defeated Lee at Gettysburg had to be brought in to resist the rioters. Plenty of Northern traitors needed killing.
The Slavers were not even as smart as the Nazis.
Why don’t you show me where the federal army was bigger than what I have established as FACT?
Why don’t you show me all the anti-Slavery presidents prior to Lincoln?
Why don’t you show me the anti-Southern laws passed by the federal government?
Or show me that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was NOT pro-slavery for 59 out of the 73 years of the US’s existence.
Of course, the reason is YOU CAN’T. Every fact I have stated is accurate and unimpeachable.
Your argument is nothing but delusions and lies. And your authorities nobody but humbugs, frauds and crackpots. But that is to be expected.
And where would that be, skippy? Wouldn't that include the entire US prior to 1860?
NYC was filled with traitors in 1860 and throughout the war so there were huge numbers of racists there for sure.
Some things never change, do they............
Why don’t you show me where the federal army was bigger than what I have established as FACT?
You simply don't understand the rules of internet debate, do you? Let me help you out some:
When you make a statement of 'fact' it's on YOU to prove it. Period.
Why don’t you show me all the anti-Slavery presidents prior to Lincoln?
Lincoln wasn't all that anti-slavery: "Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."--Lincoln
Lincoln used slavery as a political tool. (See how it's done? I actually use quotes and references.)
Or show me that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was NOT pro-slavery for 59 out of the 73 years of the US’s existence. Of course, the reason is YOU CAN’T.
You do realize that the Constitution as written by the Founders protected slavery, don't you? When you speak of 'the slavers', you have to include the antebellum north and, of course, the Founders. Therefore, you would have to logically conclude that, in order to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States that these sworn officers would necessarily have to be pro-slavery, at least in a Constitutional context. How could they otherwise swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? Do you understand?
In a modern context if we were to replace slavery with abortion would you still make the same absurd arguments, i.e., all presidents and SC justices since Roe-v-Wade have been pro-abortion? Do you see how utterly absurd your statements are now?
Every fact I have stated is accurate and unimpeachable.
You haven't stated any facts. Your entire post consist of hysterical outbursts, hyperbole and challenging questions each of which has been addressed and shown to be quite impeachable.
Your argument is nothing but delusions and lies.
List just one and prove it or STFU.
And your authorities nobody but humbugs, frauds and crackpots.
Once again, prove your claim or STFU.
You've proven yourself to nothing more than a handwringing crybaby. You're debating style smacks of left wing emotionalism employed with schoolyard antics. You are a complete and total bore with the mentality of a prepubescent bully and a self image fully expressed in your telling screen name. I have used you for a hockey puck throughout this little thread of ours. You are the possessor of a lilliputian mentality, the useless stubbornness of a woman, the debating skills of a fourth grader all rolled in a narcissistic persona. In other words, you are FR's 0bama! Bye-bye you arrogantsOb.