Posted on 05/15/2003 5:16:03 AM PDT by sheltonmac
But someone who did extensive research into his subject. Instead you turn to the recollections of a man who may or may not have a clear recollection of a conversation made many years prior? The gist of which may, or may not, have been noted at the time? Sorry but there seems to be at least as much evidence against your conspiracy theory as there is for it.
Research or not, his analysis of the same event is less detailed and less extensive. That in itself indicates that Brown's is more accurate.
Instead you turn to the recollections of a man who may or may not have a clear recollection of a conversation made many years prior?
What evidence, if any, do you have that Brown's recollection was not accurate? You're going to have to do better than that, non-seq, if you desire to discredit an eyewitness. Judging eyewitnesses by their conformity to second hand accounts written 100 years after the event is a risky and silly game for you to play.
Why I don't have anything to show it was inaccurate, but I would remind you that you try to cast doubts on Lamon's account in reply 258 since it was made several years after the fact and that could have colored his account. George Brown's account is even farther after the fact and after the war which could have affected anyones recollections.
Wow, Non-Seq! You indulge in the tu quoque even when you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. I did not question Lamon's account on its date. To the contrary, I simply noted the fact that it was written in 1863 which would explain why it contained quotes from the Merryman ruling. Interestingly enough, you have yet to address this fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.