Den of Inequity reply

http://www.denofiniquity2.com/

You are splitting hairs:

Slavery did not become illegal in the United States until the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment, eight months after Lincoln‘s assassination. He did not free all the slaves.  Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in the ten states who seceded from the Union during the Civil War and of course, they could care less what the Northern President wanted.  Under International Law, which the North and France rejected, but the South and the rest of the Europe agreed with it would not be valid anyway.

The Thirteenth Amendment  was first introduced in  and debated in the Senate (S.J. Res. 16) on March 31, 1864. It can easily be noted that it was at the urging of Lincoln.

On December 6, 1864, Abraham Lincoln’s Fourth Annual Message to Congress was printed in the Congressional Globe: “At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution, abolishing slavery throughout the United States, passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same Congress, and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session.”  IT was apparent that he was still trying to push for passage of the amendment.  Lincoln was killed on April 15 1865

The 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865  formally abolishing slavery in the United States,

In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union.  However, it wasn’t because he did not try.

Lincoln actually issued the Emancipation Proclamation twice. Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22nd, 1862. It stipulated that if the Southern states did not cease their rebellion by January 1st, 1863, then Proclamation would go into effect.

You wrote “Not surprisingly, therefore, when Gen Fremont emancipated the slaves in the area of Missouri under his command, Lincoln chastised Fremont severely and reversed his decision.”  Not exactly how it happened.

On August 30, 1861, Frémont, without notifying President Lincoln, issued a controversial proclamation putting Missouri under martial law.  Frémont made this emancipation proclamation in response to the Confederate tactic of guerrilla warfare and to reduce Confederate sympathies in the stronger slave-holding counties.  The edict stipulated that civilians in arms would be subject to court martial and execution, the property of those who aided secessionists would be confiscated, and the slaves of rebels would be emancipated.  As you can read, it did not free slaves unless they were of those individuals  trying to succeed from the Union.

Frémont’s arrival brought an aristocratic air that raised eyebrows and general disapproval of the people of St. Louis. He rented a lavish mansion for $6,000 a year and surrounded himself with Hungarian and Italian guards in brassy uniforms. Frémont additionally set up a headquarters bodyguard of 300 Kentucky men, chosen for their uniform physical attributes. Frémont ran his headquarters in St. Louis in a manner which has been described as “like a European autocrat.”  It would be fair to consider Fremont somewhat not the perfect general.

 

In 2003, Barr McClellan’s book Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK was published by Hanover House. The book presents the theory that McClellan’s former employer, Edward A. Clark, and President Johnson conspired to have President Kennedy assassinated.  McClellan was  an attorney who had been employed by Clark’s law firm in Austin, and he charged Johnson and Clark were conspirators in the assassination of Kennedy.

I looked up the book on Amazon.com and saw that there were a large number of reviews- many giving the coveted 5 stars ******.  Instantly my  BS meter went off.

I expanded the page (which you can do) and it shows everyone who wrote a review and the entire review and shows their name if they gave it.  You can click on the name and it will show you other items they bought from Amazon.  I looked at 38 individuals; all of them had bought at least one or more other conspiracy books (not particularly about Kennedy).  Twenty-five of the thirty-eight reviews had obviously copied significant amounts of their review from other reviews.  I did not try to search for the original one that most everyone had decided to copy part of it.  None of the reviewers listed any biography that would give me to place any credence in their statements.

So what to do.  I searched for and found some reviews of the book by reliable and credible sources.

According to L. D. Meagher’s review for CNN: “[McClellan] fabricates scenarios he never witnessed and invents conversations he was not party to in order to weave his yarn. Anything resembling evidence is relegated to sometimes-incomprehensible footnotes, and a jumble of photos and documents included as an appendix.  And what evidence there is would be laughed out of any court in the world.”  Meagher added: “Blood, Money & Power is just the kind of book Warren Commission defenders point to when they issue blanket denunciations of all conspiracy theories.”  Publishers Weekly wrote that McClellan’s “evidence is meager and murky, even by the standards of Kennedy conspiracy scholarship”, and that “[t]he book offers many detailed accounts of conspiratorial meetings that turn out to be not fact but… conjecture designed to distract readers from the lack of evidence.”  Their review concluded: “His confusingly structured, evasively argued, often nonsensical theories attest to the crime’s continuing potency as a symbol of America’s mythic heart of darkness.”  Vincent Bugliosi has called McClellan’s account “blasphemous and completely false”

A little disheartening for those who truly want to believe, if they had taken the time to search for it.  They managed to get a story on the History Channel, which seemed to give legitimacy to the book.  However, let’s take a look at the review:

McClellan repeated his allegations in a 2003 episode of Nigel Turner’s ongoing documentary television series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, broadcast on The History Channel. Former U.S. presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter protested, and former LBJ staffers Bill Moyers and Jack Valenti asked The History Channel to investigate the charges. On April 2, 2004, after having three historians examine the charges, The History Channel issued a press release stating that the claim of LBJ’s complicity “is entirely unfounded and does not hold up to scrutiny…. [The show] fell short of the high standards that the network sets for itself. The History Channel apologizes to its viewers and to Mrs. Lady Bird Johnson and her family for airing the show.

 

When you look at the History Channel (which I used to love to watch) the programming on History has covered a wide range of historical periods and topics, while similar themed topics are often organized into themed weeks or daily marathons.  Subjects include warfare, inventions, aviation, mechanical and civil engineering, technology, mythical creatures, monsters, UFO, conspiracy theories, aliens, religious beliefs, disaster scenarios, apocalyptic “after man” scenarios, doomsday, and 2012 superstitions.  Programming also includes mainstream reality television-style shows involving truck drivers, alligator hunters, pawn stores, antique and collectible “pickers”, car restorers, photography, and others. Occasionally some programs compare contemporary culture and technology with that of the past.

So just on the basis of these two concepts, I have to say two strikes and one more to go.

So, then I find out, you have a lot on the Q source:  Only individuals  with conspiracy on their mind would do this-take the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are similar to Mark’s and try to claim that because they are similar (gee, they are talking about some of the exact same things that they witnessed in person) that they must have been copied from another document.   So let us look at what some reliable sources might say.  I have bolded, italicized certain words.

The Q source (also Q document, Q Gospel, Q Sayings Gospel, or Q from German: Quelle, meaning “source”) is a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus’ sayings (logia).   According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church’s Oral Tradition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

Q comes from the German “quelle” meaning “source.”  Some biblical scholars have proposed that there was a document prior to the writing of the gospels which was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke as a source of information. They have called this hypothetical document “Q.”  It is hypothetical because there is no proof that the document existed. Nevertheless, this proposal has gained some acceptance in scholarly circles due to the very close similarities and identical written accounts found in both Matthew and Luke.  It is reasoned that the very similar accounts must be taken from a common source.

https://carm.org/what-gospel-q-and-does-it-prove-gospels-are-false

The German researchers who pioneered in this work called this lost document “Quelle” which means “source“. This is usually abbreviated as “Q” as in the “Gospel of Q.”

The Gospel of Q remains a hypothetical document. No intact copy has ever been found. No reference to the document in early Christian writings has survived. Its existence is inferred from an analysis of the text of Matthew and Luke.

Much of the content of Matthew and Luke were derived from the Gospel of Mark.  But there were also many passages which appear to have come from Q.  (My question, how can they come from a non-existent document)

Many theologians and religious historians believe that Q’s text can be reconstructed by analyzing passages that Matthew and Luke have in common.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

 

Three strikes and you’re out- maybe you’ll have better luck with the Seth Rich conspiracy.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s