What is sad, is that you post put downs instead of providing absolute proof to back your claims.
How am I discrediting a theory, that so far has been presented as a flight of fancy- there was a man of color named Beale who was an Alderman of Richmond's Jackson Ward, so he must be involved in the Beale Papers?
That is ALL you have brought forth concerning this theory along with links that have NOTHING to do with the Beale Papers.
...and that's the second time you mentioned the hand jive.
What's up with that?
Oh darn, has someone been slipping you some of your own medicine? How dare they! Perhaps you need to go back and do review of your many recent post in multiple threads in just this forum......who are you not engaged in belittling argument with, even at the expense of your own credibility? Just in recent post you have intentionally tried to present inaccurate definitions of a variety of words & phrases & descriptions that you have been called on and corrected time and time and time again. In one thread you argue at all cost the possible connection of a man of color and yet in another thread you tell Jean that a certain person can't be the correct individual because according to you he wasn't a man of color. And the list just keeps going and going......whatever it takes to pick a fight, at all cost, any cost.
Me. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong once that inaccuracy has been clearly established, as that is what debating theories is all about. And I have no problem in restructuring a theory as that is the whole point behind theories in the first place. And I have no problem showing support of extremely strong theories and sharing what I can in regards to those theories, just as I have been doing here.
Fiction, literary license, complexion, authentic statement, these are just a few of the definitions you have attempted to rewrite and present with the most inaccurate representations in recent post, and of course, all in the name of aggressive pursuit of the fight. And what has it gained you? You just keep slamming your own hand-jive in the door jam, so much so lately that it has become rather obvious and ridiculous.
"This is a true story. The names have been changed to protect the innocent".....and so, of course, by your definition of literary license, the entire story must then be deemed, fiction!
"Based on a true story"....and so of course, and yet again, by your definition of literary license, the entire story must be deemed, fiction!
And it just goes on and on......