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.
Southern control of the federal government indeed made Northern authorities part of their slave catching apparatus. So the entire US was under the thumb of the slavers in many respects.
I already proved the size of the federal army. There is no more disputing that than the number of states in the Union in 1860. That army was tiny and on the frontiers in no way capable of supporting your imagined “tyranny”.
So you have stumbled over the fact that Lincoln was no threat to the Slaverocracy? Congratulations but I told you that long ago.
Your quotes prove nothing under dispute and certainly do not disprove anything I have maintained. You are welcome to further support any of my points. Thanks.
The Constitution “protected” slavery for twenty years. After 1808 Congress was empowered to abolish it had it wished to. There was no constitutional mandate that slavery be supported after that date. And the Founders were in accord with that most believing that it was an unfortunate anachronism which most be removed. They didn’t count on it getting a new life after Whitney.
I have repeatedly shown the falsity of the claim that there was some tyranny oppressing the Slaverocracy. That LIE is easily refuted and your entire justification of the RAT Rebellion collapses with that refutation. Your ignoring this does not make your arguments valid.
Nice to see that you fully demonstrate New York nastiness and all in support of the worst and most anti-American movement in the history of our nation. Keep up the good work. The applause of the stupid must be very heady.