Replies

Your posting your opinions as history and then claiming that I lie about it requires chutzpah worthy of a New Yorker.

Not true; I said you might just be ignorant.

All History with a capital "H" is interpretation. What matters is how valid the interpretation is, based on the facts.

I suggest that the Fugitive Slave Act was the most intrusive federal act prior to 1860. Among other things, it allowed magistrates empowered by the act to --involuntarily-- recruit citizens to serve on posses to chase escaped slaves.

If you can find another federal statute that is more intrusive than that, you need to provide that information. After all, there weren't that many federal statutes prior to 1860.

But you are not interested in a fair exposition of the actual historical record, because it conflicts with the neo-reb myth.

Walt

Not true; I said you might just be ignorant.

Interesting. By definition anyone who disagrees with you is either lying or ignorant. Hmmm You state your opinion as a fact I suggest that the Fugitive Slave Act was the most intrusive federal act prior to 1860 and then believe that I'm lying or ignorant when I think you're wrong.

BTW Now I have two points that you haven't answered

Excise taxes and
Affirmative action

I'd say you were beginning to bore me with your shrill repetition that the civil war was primarily about slavery, southerners are ignorant rednecks etc, but you're not beginning to bore me. You've been boring me with your endless repetition of your closed minded opinions for a long time. And now I've broken my internal rule about getting into arguments with idiots, fanatics, drunks, and Jehovah's Witnesses. I really think you'd be happier living in NYC or NJ or maybe Silver Spring MD.