Transsexual: Chingy Finds The Fruit On The Tree

Transsexual: Chingy Finds The Fruit On The Tree

According to transsexual Foxx Jazell, he/she had a sexual relationship with rapper Chingy. I do not know if I believe this. But this is not the first time Chingy name was mentioned in the same breath as transsexual. A few years back pictures surfaced online with with a tranny groping and dancing with him. He stated he did not know it was a tranny.

Fellahs, if the adam apple is bigger than your thumb and her hands is the size of a baseball glove ….. It’s a man. Does this he/she not sound like a man and look like a man?

What strikes me as interesting is the dude who is interviewing Fox Jazell admits Chingy appears to have soft lips and he would not mind trying them himself. WTF?

Re posted courtesy of RaSha

Does God Exist? A Practical Man'sProof of God

A Practical Man'sProof of God

The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical,practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective. To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere.

A Help inUnderstanding What God Is

To help the reader comprehend the nature of God, I would like to borrow an analogy from the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott.* Abbott was a mathematician and the model is geometric in nature. It was originally written in the 19th century for the purposes we are using it for here. Flatland is the story of a man who lives in a two dimensional world--like a sheet of paper. In the surface of the paper there is only length and width-there is no such thing as thickness. You and I are three-dimensional beings-we have length and width and frequently considerable thickness. You cannot get me, a three-dimensional being, into a two-dimensional sheet of paper. You can draw a front view of me (a portrait), but that is not the whole me. You can draw a top view of me which because I am bald, ends up being three concentric circles, but that is not the whole me. If you and I were to look at the man in Flatland,we would see him as a.... [more]

Who Created God?

One question which inevitably comes up in a discussion of this nature is what is the origin of God? If God created matter/energy, and designed the systems that have propelled matter in to its present arrangement, who or what accomplished that for God? Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always "been" than it is to say that matter has always "been"? As Carl Sagan has said, "If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?" (Cosmos, p. 257).

What Was the Cause of the Beginning?

It is assumed that the reader has read the first two booklets in this series, one titled A Practical Man's Proof of God and the other A Help in Understanding What God Is. In these two booklets,we have established that all scientific evidence supports the fact that there was a beginning, and that the beginning was caused. We have also shown that the creator of time, space, and energy has to be something that is outside of time, space, and energy. The nature of the cause cannot be in the three-dimensional physical world in which we live and must be outside of time to have created time.

Why I Left Atheism

Of all the lessons that I present concerning the existence of God and of all the material that I try to make available to people to learn about God's existence, the present lesson, "Why I Left Atheism," is the lesson in the series that I frankly do not like to present. I guess none of us like to look back in our lives to a time when we made poor judgments and foolish mistakes--when we took rather really idiotic positions--and admit this, especially to people we are not well acquainted with. I present this lesson, however, because it is my fervent hope and prayer that perhaps by exposing my mistakes and by pointing out the things that were a part of my early life, some who might be following the same paths (to a greater or lesser extent) might not make those same mistakes.

God's Revelation in His Rocks and in His Word

This paper is a part of the Does God Exist? program white was begun in 1968 by John Clayton as an attempt to show that intelligent, scientifically literate, thinking people can and should believe in God and in the Bible as His Word. Your author, JohnClayton,is a science teacher who began his teaching career in the public schools of South Bend Indiana, in 1959 and has taught physics,chemistry, geology astronomy, and physical science since that time. Since I was an atheist for many years and came to believe in God through my studies in science, it frustrated me to see students and parents who viewed faith and science as enemies....

The Problem of Human Suffering

Almost every time that I am involved in a lectureship on a college campus or a similar place I have people--young people usually--who will come to me and say, "Well all right, you've shown us that there is some evidence for God's existence, but if there is a God and if he is a loving and merciful God, how do you explain the problems of suffering and death and all the tragedies that happen to people?" Why is it that these things occur? I believe any question that man can ask has a reasonable answer-at least an answer that is as consistent with God's existence as it is in opposition to God's existence. And so, in the problem of human suffering and the problem of death and tragedies--things that happen toall of us--there are answers.

The Whiner's Guide to Chemotherapy

This is the epilogue for those of you who flip to the end of the book. I did make it! I'm 62!!! The exclamation points are because I didn't think I would see 50. God is so awesome! God would be awesome even if I had not seen 50, but it is amazing how He has made my cancers turn out for good--both mine and His. It feels great to feel great! Thank You, God!

The Real Jesus of History
Was the real Jesus of history one and the same as the Christ of faith whom we read about in the New Testament and worship in the church? Was Jesus really raised from the dead? Is he really the divine Lord of lords? Or is it possible that the portrait of the divine Son of God is an exaggeration, at best, or a complete fabrication, at worst, of the original Jesus? Could the one whom Christians worship be merely a mythological creation or is he real? These questions have exercised many great minds and have been the dominant issue in New Testament studies during this century. Between1910 and 1950 approximately 350 lives of Jesus were published in the English language alone. Since then the numbers have increased significantly.Not only are Christians writing about Jesus, but Communists, Jews, atheists and agnostics are taking up their pens to paint a portrait of Jesus.
All Bible quotations are from the Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version, Copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

The Real Jesus of History
by Joel Stephen Williams

All Rights Reserved
Illustrated by Carline

All Bible quotations are from the Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version, Copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Published by
Does God Exist?
Donmoyer Avenue Church of Christ
718 East Donmoyer Avenue
South Bend, IN 46614-1999

Does God Exist? is a non-profit effort to provide evidence that God is real and that the Bible is his inspired word. For more information on other resources which defend the rational, historical and scientific authenticity of the Christian faith, contact John Clayton at the address above or visit the Does God Exist? web site.http://www.doesgodexist.org/

The Real Jesus of History
by Joel Stephen Williams

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed (Lk. 1: 14; NRSV).

Was the real Jesus of history one and the same as the Christ of faith whom we read about in the New Testament and worship in the church? Was Jesus really raised from the dead? Is he really the divine Lord of lords? Or is it possible that the portrait of the divine Son of God is an exaggeration, at best, or a complete fabrication, at worst, of the original Jesus? Could the one whom Christians worship be merely a mythological creation or is he real? These questions have exercised many great minds and have been the dominant issue in New Testament studies during this century. Between 1910 and 1950 approximately 350 lives of Jesus were published in the English language alone. Since then the numbers have increased significantly. ¹ Not only are Christians writing about Jesus, but also Communists, Jews, atheists and agnostics are taking up their pens to paint a portrait of Jesus. Not only is this being done by the professional scholars, but also by playwrights, journalists and many others not academically qualified to pursue such a study within the canons and controls of proper historical inquiry. This has led Luke Timothy Johnson of Emory University to refer to some studies of Jesus as "Amateur Night."² With a literature this immense it is obvious that we can only note a few high points in the lesson today, but a bibliography at the end of the booklet provides sufficient resources for a more thorough investigation by those who are interested.
In the past decade these questions have escaped the confines of scholarly journals and scholarly discussions and exploded on the scene as a question of newsworthy interest equal to wars, politics and sports. We are used to seeing world leaders on the cover of national news magazines, but Jesus has been making the cover of Time, Newsweek, and U. S. News & World Report with increasing regularity. Jesus has become the central character of musical and theatrical productions. We are used to seeing television documentaries on Hitler, Roosevelt or Einstein, but Jesus is the subject of numerous similar productions in the past decade.
Why the upsurge of interest? Why is a 2,000 year old story suddenly newsworthy? Unfortunately the media has been used, even manipulated, by a group of liberal, skeptical scholars to attempt a major act of historical revision. Too many of these media studies of Jesus imply that New Testament scholarship as a whole has come to certain conclusions about Jesus. These conclusions are that Jesus was not divine, that he performed no miracles, that he was not raised from the dead, and that the Christ of faith is a mythological creation of the early church. We are told that Jesus never did most of what the New Testament says he did and that he never said most of what the New Testament says he said. We are told that the Jesus who is worshiped in the churches is a figment of the naive, albeit pious, imagination of unsophisticated people. As Robert Funk, the founder of the Jesus Seminar, claims: "The only Jesus most people want is the mythic one. They don't want the real Jesus. They want the one they can worship."³
Religious news is not usually very good for selling papers. It is boring unless there is a scandal to report. The members of the Jesus Seminar have been quite newsworthy, though. Where else will you get one who is supposed to be a university scholar of the Christian religion saying something like this: "[Jesus was very likely] a party animal, somewhat shiftless, and disrespectful of the fifth commandment: Honor your father and mother." ⁴ The impression has been given that university scholars are exposing the gullibility of churches and ministers. The Jesus Seminar members have portrayed themselves as martyrs for truth against an evil empire�the church. That makes good press. But the tragic part of it all is that many casual observers are fooled by the rhetoric, and they reject Jesus as a result.
A balanced view of what can be known and what can be believed about Jesus is not being heard in much of the media. Because of "the sometimes grandiose claims made" by and for the skeptical, radical historical re constructionists "as representing critical New Testament scholarship," other New Testament scholars have gone on the attack and responded that the Jesus Seminar, and others like them, do not represent New Testament scholarship as a whole. That remark was made by a professor from Emory.⁵ Another recognized New Testament scholar called them "an academic disgrace."⁶ A professor from Duke University said the case argued by the Jesus Seminar would not stand up in any court. He said that "many of its novel claims are at best dubious."⁷ Many similar sentiments could be produced.
The public on the whole is confused. Believers tend to dismiss these historical revisions of Jesus but without much real understanding of what is being said or how these scholars reach such skeptical conclusions.Unbelievers often accept these denials of the divinity of our Lord, assuming that they are valid, reasoned, sound historical conclusions of scholars and that anyone who believes in Jesus is simply naive. Because of this situation in our society at present, it is hoped that this pamphlet will bring some clarity to the issues and encourage faith in Christ for the reader.

The Two Extremes

One extreme in this debate is a radical skepticism. Ever since the publication of the writings of H. S. Reimarus in 1778, the belief of the church that Jesus was and is the Christ, the divine Son of God, born of a virgin, pre-existent deity incarnate in human flesh, worker of miracles, crucified for our sins, and resurrected to glory, has been under constant attack. The story of Jesus is undergoing a constant, radical reconstruction at the hands of skeptical critics. This revision of the portrait of Jesus claims to get behind the later embellishments of the original story to present the real Jesus of history. It is claimed that the Christ of faith, the Christ preached and worshiped in the churches, bears little resemblance to the real Jesus of history. The simple story of a Galilean peasant was supposedly enlarged and transformed into the story of a divine being.
The skeptical critics believe we can know almost nothing about the real Jesus of history. Dr. W. R. Inge, the former Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral, was supposedly asked by a publisher to write a life of Jesus. He responded: "As there are no materials for a life of Christ, I regret that I cannot comply with your request."⁸ Similarly, Rudolf Bultmann, the leading scholar of this century in demythologizing the story of Jesus, declared: "I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus."⁹
What needs to be understood very clearly is that this radical, skeptical way of thinking about Jesus did not come about due to some archeological discovery. It did not result from some historical document, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, which called into question the picture of Jesus in the four Gospels. It did not come into existence because something was discovered in the biblical text which disproved what the church had always thought about Jesus. The skeptical view of Jesus is a historical reconstruction which is theory, and a tenuous one at that, which is based on certain presuppositions. The skeptics begin by affirming that there are no miracles, nothing supernatural in this world. Therefore, the story of Jesus cannot be true. They approach the text under the guise of doing dispassionate, unbiased historical research, when from the beginning the game has been fixed.
Critical study forms theories and then tests those theories against the evidence to see which theory best explains the evidence. The theory that Jesus actually was the divine Son of God is never given a chance to explain the evidence, because a presupposition eliminates it from consideration before the test even begins. Thus the skeptical critics offer a variety of alternative explanations, most of which can be summarized under one, single concept, their belief that the early church embellished the story of the real Jesus of history with later additions. They believe it is the critic's job to peal away those later additions and expose the small kernel of truth that remains.
Since an anti-supernatural presupposition has skewed the skeptic's research from the beginning, it is not surprising that different scholars find a different Jesus at the conclusion of their study. They are like people who look into a pool of water and observe a reflection of their own image. The Jesus they rediscover is different from the Jesus of the four Gospels. He is also different from the reconstruction of other critics, but he is very much like the Jesus each of the critics wants to find. Claude Montefiore, a liberal Jew, discovers that the real Jesus was a liberal Jew. Another writer finds a Jesus who advocates "living at ease" and "floating in the womb of the universe," the perfect Jesus for a new age world.¹⁰ Others find a politically correct Jesus who crusades for woman's rights and the poor in a counter cultural egalitarianism. And, of course, we must admit that many Christians begin with traditional presuppositions. Not surprisingly they find the traditional Christ after a simple study which has not really confronted the problems and issues at hand.
The Jesus Seminar has warned others against finding a comfortable Jesus. That is good advice which the members of the Jesus Seminar should have heeded themselves. When E. V. Rieu began a translation of the Gospels, his son is reported to have said: "It will be very interesting to see what Father makes of the Gospel," ¹¹ It is very interesting to see what many have made of the Gospels. Most find the Jesus that they want to find. Their reconstructions often tell us more about the historian than they do about Jesus. One of the most damaging criticisms of these liberal reconstructions of the real Jesus of history is from the pen of William Temple,Archbishop of Canterbury, who said: "Why anyone should have troubled to crucify the Christ of Liberal Protestantism has always been a mystery."' ¹² Similarly, one of the greatest Jesus scholars of our generation, the Roman Catholic John Meier, said that "a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field�such a Jesus would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no one." ¹³
The other extreme which we need to avoid is a naive, untested, unexamined faith. When confronted with difficulties in the biblical text or with the limitations of historical knowledge, this type of faith responds: "Well the Bible says it and I believe it and that settles it!" This type of faith is often a faith inherited from one's parents. It is sufficient for some people for a whole lifetime, but for others it will not last. Some Christians with such a naive faith are unable to handle a setting such as what many of you face on a daily basis on a state university campus. You and I both have seen too many people with a naive faith simply walk away from the church at some point in their adult life. The cause for a sudden change to disbelief is often nothing more than a brief encounter with an aggressive, skeptical person who throws one or two challenges their way which they cannot handle.
Maybe many of these are what Ravi Zacharias calls the "silent doubters in our midst." Zacharias says we need to answer their questions first before we attempt to evangelize the world. And we will not answer the ones among us who are questioning if we simply say: "Just believe." If historical arguments are being used to deny Christianity, historical arguments must be used to defend the faith. Naively protesting "that historical study is irrelevant" will not do.¹⁴ As the great scholar, J. B. Lightfoot, declared: "The abnegation of reason is not the evidence of faith, but the confession of despair. "¹⁵
One minister's discussion of the origin of the four Gospels is an example of a tendency in this direction. He explains that most New Testament scholars postulate that Mark was written first and that it was used as a source for Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke are much longer than Mark, however, so they must have obtained other information from other sources. The extra material which they have in common is called "Q" ("Q" being the first letter of the German word for "source"). This material is primarily sayings of Jesus. Whether the source for these sayings was a written documentary oral tradition is very much a matter of debate among scholars. The other material in Matthew is identified as "M" for Matthew's private source,and "L" likewise for Luke.
This minister then ridicules this whole scenario: "Some who claim to believe that the Bible is inspired of God have accepted these ideas to explain how God (?) got His word to man." How does he respond to these theories? Does he note that Luke tells us in his prologue that others had written before him? Does this preacher note that Luke tells us that he researched these earlier sources and investigated the information in order to write the Gospel of Luke (Lk. 1 :1-4)? No. He quotes a passage from Jeremiah and another from the New Testament which are irrelevant. He simply says that the Bible is inspired. His message seems to be: "Just believe the Bible because the Bible tells you it is God's word."
This approach to faith is similar to the proverbial preacher who was told that Moses and the children of Israel did not cross through the Red Sea, but the "sea of reeds."¹⁶ Upon hearing this the preacher supposedly proclaimed: "Praise God! It is an even greater miracle. God drowned the Egyptian army in two inches of water." It is a sad fact that radical, skeptical historical revisionists like the Jesus Seminar gain credibility because they contrast themselves with this sort of naive faith in fundamentalism. As Luke Timothy Johnson says in regard to many in fundamentalism: "The Bible is less a text to be read than a talisman to be invoked. The fundamentalists' claim to take the literal meaning of the New Testament seriously is controverted by their neglect of any careful or sustained reading."¹⁷
So a more acceptable approach, which avoids both the extremes of radical skepticism and a naive faith, is to approach the New Testament documents with an open mind, ready and willing to ask any question in our search for truth. We must be willing to ask if there are legitimate reasons for believing what the Bible has to say about Jesus. Is blind faith the only option? Are the skeptics right in saying that the only person who can believe is either a naive person or one who is closed minded and unwilling to examine the facts? I submit to you that reasonable faith is a viable option for the truth seeker today.

What Can Be Known About Jesus From History?

We cannot prove everything in the Bible. The New Testament is almost 2,000 years old. The real Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. There are limitations to what one can know through historical inquiry. People are still in sharp disagreement over events which happened within the lifetime of many of us such as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. How much more so is it going to be difficult to speak conclusively concerning a person who lived 2,000 years ago. But while the limitations of history do not allow us to speak absolutely, they do not prevent our speaking of possibilities and probabilities.
The remarkable thing about this whole controversy is that the skeptical revisionists reject almost in totality what the four Gospels say about Jesus, but they then write a new history of Jesus which is based upon surmise, speculation and theory. Their Jesus is supposedly based on the very same Gospels they have rejected. They are "insisting on discovering history where it cannot be found."¹⁸ If, for example, I cannot prove the virgin birth of Jesus through historical analysis, is it not also true that someone else cannot disprove the virgin birth of Jesus by the same method? Both of us can only speak of possibilities and probabilities. What is even more ridiculous about the Jesus Seminar and several other radical revisionists is that they accept the Gospel of Thomas as an equal or better source for information about Jesus than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Gospel of Thomas is from the mid-second century or later and is possibly Gnostic.It is non canonical, probably heretical in origin and dated fifty to one hundred years later than the four Gospels. How in the name of common sense can anyone equate it as a historical source to the four Gospels?
Much of the gospel story lies beyond the reach of historical inquiry. For example, it can be established quite firmly as a historical fact that a man named Jesus was crucified in the early first century. What cannot be established as historical fact, because it lies outside the bounds of such analysis, is that Jesus died for our sins and thereby made atonement for mankind to God. While it is important that the Christ of Christian faith be the same as and consistent with the real Jesus of history, the Christ of faith is the living Lord of whom we must say much more than we can say in a strict, limited historical sense about Jesus.
But what arguments from history can be made about Jesus? Only the barest of sketches can be allowed here. I do not have sufficient time to go into the details of literary criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and historical methodology. Neither is there time to survey the literature on crucial questions such as the dating of New Testament documents, the authorship of the four Gospels, the canon of the New Testament, the evidence for Jesus outside the New Testament,¹⁹ and other equally important and related issues. But here hopefully one can be pointed in the right direction for further study.
The four Gospels are a combination of history and commentary. They are history written from the post-resurrection perspective of faith which adds interpretation to the events in light of a fuller understanding of them from a later period of time. The Gospels are religious propaganda designed to convert the reader. Let us be honest and admit that the Gospels are biased in favor of Jesus. But the Gospels are not useless in searching for the real Jesus of history just because they are written by insiders. Their favorable attitude toward Jesus and Christianity does require that they be studied carefully in light of what they are and cross-examined for their integrity, but they need not be rejected without a hearing. A good historian knows how to cross examine evidence, separating what is reliable from what is unreliable.
One key point in cross-examining the story of the four Gospels is their date. Skeptics tend to date the Gospels as late as possible, because this allows more time for their theory that most of the story of Jesus was invented by the early church. Conservatives tend to date the Gospels as early as possible, because this places them within the lifetime of eyewitnesses who would be on hand to verify their contents. Actually we are not able to date any of the four Gospels precisely. It is possible that one of them was written as early as the late 50s and that one of them was written as late as the 90s. Within that range no one can speak with any certainty, even though many scholars pontificate and pretend to be certain. In my opinion it is likely that the first Gospel, Mark, was written in the 60s. Matthew and Luke were probably written sometime within the next twenty years. John was likely last. Even though honesty does not permit us to assign a specific date, the news is good for those who want to believe in the traditional Christ of faith. All of the Gospels are from the first century, as is the rest of the New Testament. All of it is very close in time to the events which they narrate and interpret. And even though the skeptics attempt to dismiss the presence of any eyewitnesses among the writers of the New Testament,that is not so easily done.²⁰
There is more good news, though, which shrinks this time frame considerably. The Gospels are based, in part, on earlier information, either oral or written. Luke tells us at the beginning of his Gospel that others had "undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (Lk.1:1-2). So while the skeptical critics carry on long and loud about sources they think they have detected within the Gospels or other New Testament documents, that is not bad news for the historical Jesus. Most source criticism is theory. It is speculation built on top of speculation. Much of it might be right, or almost all of it might be wrong. But if we are concerned about the accuracy of the information regarding Jesus in the Gospels, the presence of sources behind the Gospels is good news. If Mark wrote his Gospel in the 60s and Matthew and Luke sometime in the next decade or two after that, they are removed by a mere thirty-five or so years from the death and resurrection of Jesus.If they used sources of information which go back another ten, twenty or more years, that is even closer to the time of the event. There is less time available for any potential corruption and distortion of the message to occur, and certainly not enough time for a complete myth to evolve.
It is almost unanimously believed among New Testament scholars today that Mark's Gospel was written first and that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source. There is a significant portion of material which Matthew and Luke share in common which is not found in Mark.This material is labeled "Q" from the German word for "source." No one knows whether this information was written down or whether is was merely passed along by word of mouth in oral tradition. The similar wording suggests to some that it was in written form, or possibly in several written forms. Lets for the sake of argument date Matthew and Luke in the 70s. They both may have been written a decade before or after, but let us put them in the 70swhich is not an extreme date in either direction. When did the so-called "Q" traditions originate? In the 60s? In the 50s? In the 40s? Or possibly as early as the 30s? Once again this puts us extremely close to the time of the actual events. It is also a matter of scholarly discussion as to whether or not Matthew and Luke had other sources. Most conclude that they did.Once again this pushes the origin of these traditions back closer to the time of their occurrence.
The writings of Paul, which are almost all dated in the 50s and 60s, show evidence of earlier sources. While Paul's apostleship and his encounter with the living Christ were the result of a direct revelation from God, Paul conferred with eyewitnesses and received information about Jesus from them. In about 55 A.D. in I Corinthians Paul writes about the last supper, quoting the very words of Jesus (1 Cor. 11:23-26). This was done possibly ten years or more before any of the Gospels were written and a mere twenty-five years after the event. Furthermore, Paul reminded the Corinthian church: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received" (1 Cor. 15:3). This takes us back to the 30s to the time of Paul's conversion, only a few years after the resurrection of Jesus. Paul was in contact with eyewitnesses and first generation Christians everywhere he went. Thus it is apparent, except to the person who begins with a skeptical attitude, that the stories and traditions about Jesus were known and recorded a very short time after they occurred.Let us draw an analogy. The distance of time from today in the year 2,000 to World War II is as great or greater than the distance in time from the ministry of Jesus to the writing of most of the books of the New Testament. And we have already noted, many of them are much earlier and they are built on information which predates them, sometimes by decades. But working with a fifty-five to sixty year time span, how many of you were involved in the war effort, either as a soldier or a civilian? How many of you were old enough to listen to the radio during the war or read the newspaper? How many of you have a parent who fits into one of these first two categories? How many of you have a grandparent who fits into one of the first two categories? Imagine how difficult it would be to fictionalize a whole life story, a series of events and a body of teaching, as if it all happened in the heart of Europe in the 1940s. If I attempted to do that and pass it off as fact,people all around could expose my deceit.
How much more so would that be true if I tried to do something similar for events-from the Vietnam war era. That takes us back thirty years. Thirty years after Jesus died, a significant portion of the New Testament was already written and sources for later use were already developed, either in writing or in oral tradition. Let us push it back even further. The initial telling and retelling of the story of Jesus and the development of the oral tradition about him began immediately after his resurrection. The gospel story had already taken definite form by the time of Paul's conversion in the 33 A.D. So imagine me trying to create some grand fiction about the Gulf War and passing it off as history today. When the apostle Paul noted that there were over five hundred witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, headed: "most of whom are still alive" (I Cor. 15:6). His point was obvious. If the story of the resurrection were not true, there were close to five hundred people who could have exposed it as a fraud.
Thus a very strong hypothetical case can be built for the accuracy with which the early Christians handed down the story of Jesus, but this is hypothetical. Bias on the part of the person investigating the historicity of Jesus is very evident if we keep the discussion at this level. Liberal skeptics tend to distrust the accuracy of the transmission of the story of Jesus. The believer assumes that the story has been accurately transmitted. Is there any way that we can get beyond pure speculation about how well the story was transmitted between 30 A.D. and the writing of the Gospels? Yes, there is. Again, it is almost certain that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke used Mark to produce their Gospels. If we compare parallel passages between the three synoptic Gospels, we can see whether or not the message was preserved accurately. For example, examine the following narrative which is found in all four Gospels.

Mark1:9-11	Luke3:21-22	Matthew 3:13-17	John1:29-34
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."	Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."	Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased."	The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.' I myself did not know him;but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel." And John testified, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God."

While there are variations in the telling of the story, the differences are not significant. We know that in the telling and retelling of the gospel story, changes were made. Different speakers and writers used different words and ways to tell about Jesus. But we have no evidence that the story of Jesus was changed significantly during the time period from the life of Jesus until the writing of the New Testament documents. If the story of Jesus was going to be transformed from that of a peasant rabbi into that of the miracle working Lord, we would expect to see significant development. Instead, what we find from the latest to the absolute earliest tradition about Jesus is the same: Jesus was believed to be the divine Son of God who was resurrected on the third day. We do not find him not working miracles in the earlier layers of the tradition and working miracles in the later traditions. We do not find his body decaying in the tomb in the earlier layers of the tradition and resurrected only in the later layers of the tradition. The story of Jesus is the same in substance throughout.
This argument may be extended in some very powerful ways. For example, not only is there evidence pointing toward the accuracy and continuity in the transmission of the Jesus tradition, but also there is no evidence for the free creation of words and deeds attributed to Jesus. One of the simplest ways in which one can demonstrate this is to study the major controversies which gripped the church throughout the later half of the first century. As Blomberg explains:

Numerous Christian controversies that surfaced after Jesus' ascension and threatened to tear the New Testament church apart could have been conveniently solved if the first Christians had simply read back into the Gospels solutions to those debates. But this is precisely what never happens. Not once does Jesus address many of the major topics that for the rest of the first century loomed large in the minds of Christians�whether believers needed to be circumcised, how to regulate speaking in tongues, how to keep Jew and Gentile united in one body, whether believers could divorce non-Christian spouses, what roles were open to women in ministry, and so on. ²¹

As Ben Witherington put it: "The evidence for Christian prophets speaking words that were later reprojected into narratives about the historical Jesus is nonexistent."²²
If the writers of the Gospels were this careful, there is no logical reason to think that anyone who went before them was not equally careful. Not only did they want to be accurate in their transmission of the story of Jesus, since it was sacred to them, but they also had the ability to transmit it accurately. In the ancient Jewish world, and to a slightly lesser extent in the Greco-Roman world, memorization was a highly developed talent. Huge bodies of literature or tradition were passed along in this way. If the early Christians acted in the ways which were traditional for the first century, they would have passed down the story of Jesus with great accuracv.²³ As the New Testament scholar I. H. Marshall reminds us, the tradition of Jesus' deeds and words was transmitted in a Jewish environment "where considerable importance was attached to the accurate memorization and transmission" of traditions.²⁴
There are other ways in which we can cross-examine the Gospel witnesses as to their reliability. One is the test of multiple attestation or converging lines of evidence. Just because only one person reports an event does not mean that event did not take place. But in testing the probability of whether or not something happened, multiple attestation is better. In the story of Jesus we have a multitude of witnesses. We have the four Gospels.We have numerous other historical references in the rest of the New Testament.We even have a small amount of evidence from non-biblical sources, although it is quite minimal. Multiple attestation points to the credibility of the Jesus story.²⁵
Next, we have the test of embarrassment. If a story is told about Jesus which made the early Christians uncomfortable, that story is most probably true. Why would the early church make up some story of Jesus which puzzled them or bothered them? We can know with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Baptism was a penitent act for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus did not need to repent, nor did he have any sins of which he needed to be forgiven. Furthermore, submitting to baptism by John might give some people the wrong impression that John was superior to Jesus. Because of these difficulties, it is as certain as it is possible to be, within the limitations of historical knowledge, that Jesus was baptized by John and that the early church did not invent this story.
The same thing is true of the crucifixion of Jesus. Crucifixion in the ancient world was for slaves and the worst of criminals. Christianity had a major public relations problem in preaching the gospel due to the crucifixion of Jesus. It was "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (I Cor. 1:23).²⁶ One further example would be the statement of Jesus: "No one is good�except God alone" (Mk. 10:18; Mt.19:17: Lk. 18:19). Many Christians are uncomfortable with that statement. It almost sounds as if Jesus is denying that he is good in any absolute sense. Many Christians have misinterpreted this passage to mean that Jesus was trying to draw a confession out of this man by pretending not to claim goodness. The embarrassment this passage has caused the church is a strong indicator that the saying is genuine.

Another way to test the genuineness of the New Testament message is to ask if it is the best explanation of the facts. How do we explain the beginning of the church? How do we explain the existence of the New Testament documents, including the four Gospels? How do we explain the traditions about Jesus which predate the New Testament documents? The skeptical approach to Jesus claims that the original, simple story of a Jewish peasant was transformed, layer by layer, into the story of the divine Son of God. But the evolution of this story exists only in the minds of the radical revisionists.The belief that Jesus was the divine Son of God did not appear in 60 A.D.in Asia Minor, or in 50 A.D. in the writings of Paul, or in 40 A.D. in Antioch. The belief in the Messiah ship of Jesus can be traced back to within a few months of when the resurrection is supposed to have occurred.

The innovators who proclaimed this story of a divine being born in Bethlehem, crucified at Calvary and resurrected are not the second and third generations of Christians. The innovator was not even the apostle Paul. "The innovators can be traced back to the earliest days of the Christian church."²⁷ The innovation of this gospel story occurred in the early 30s of the first century. Later embellishment and fictionalizing by the second and third generation of Christians simply cannot explain the origin of the story of Jesus, the emergence of the church or the writing ofthe New Testament documents. Some other cause must be found to explain where all these traditions about Jesus came from.

Let us compare it to the big bang theory of the universe. The universe exists. How did it come into existence in its present form? One theory is the big bang theory. That theory does not explain where matter came from, but it is one hypothesis which does explain some of the features of the universe which we observe today. Similarly, the church came into existence in the early 30s of the first century. Traditions about Jesus originated at the same time. In the next seventy years the whole of the New Testament was written. How do we account for all of these? The skeptical view that all of these can be accounted for by pious embellishment and fictionalizing of the gospel story by the early church is not an adequate explanation. I submit to you that the best explanation, the most adequate cause, is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.²⁸

There was a real person, Jesus, who was the founder of this new religious movement, and there was a significant founding experience,a big bang, which set it in motion, namely, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We cannot prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ through historical analysis, but we can present it as the best explanation of the data and thus the most probable scenario of what really happened.²⁹ As Johnson illustrated with an analogy to the Holocaust:

Anyone becoming aware of the drastically reduced number of Jews in Europe in 1945 compared with 1932 could logically posit a cause sufficient to account for the effect. Such reasoning would not necessarily lead to the specific description of the Holocaust. But it would necessarily lead to some force sufficiently great to accomplish so awesome an effect. Theories of increased tourism would not do.³⁰

What can be known historically about Jesus can be placed on a continuum from what certainly happened to what certainly did not happen.We know things in ancient history to varying degrees of probability. For ancient history very few things can be placed in the extreme categories.Most things are placed somewhere in between, and we use terms such as probably,likely, maybe or could have. Recognizing that the boundary line between various categories is arbitrarily chosen and that scholars will disagree on what belongs in each category, let me outline five categories in which we can place the material about Jesus from the four Gospels and from the rest of the
New Testament

1. What beyond a reasonable doubt did happen

• actually lived as a Jew in Palestine
• proclaimed the kingdom of God
• died by crucifixion
• taught in parables
• prayed using "Abba" etc.

2. What probably happened

• the resurrection of Christ
• called and trained disciples
• told parable of the prodigal son
• cleansed the temple
• the last supper etc.

3. What could have happened

• changed water into wine
• worshiped by wise men
• born of a virgin etc.

4. What probably did not happen

• nothing from the Gospels in this category

5. What Beyond a reasonable doubt did not happen

• nothing from the Gospels in this category

Through cautious historical analysis the careful student can reconstruct the real Jesus of history. First, one can compile those things that can be known about Jesus with some certainty by means of historical study. At this point the picture will be incomplete. It will only be very minimal, because that is the limited nature of historical knowledge for ancient history. It might be very much like the picture to the left.

Then one can add to these facts other things making it look like the picture on the right.

Shady Business + Imposter = Exposed zakee boyd

Shady Business + Imposter = Exposed

J’Adore Magazine reached out to a few folks in the industry, myself included to relay a sincere word of caution regarding a malicious individual who has been repeatedly misrepresenting the J’Adore Magazine brand and reputation.

This fraud is a young man by the name of Zakee Boyd (see more images below), also known in many circles as “Jesus”– especially among the women he comes in contact with during his weekly escapades at popular nightspots including Dreamz, Pure, Esso’s, Magic City and other popular venues.

After repeated warnings directly from J’Adore’s upper management, Mr. Boyd continues to insist on using our publication for personal gain. Because of his sustained deceit, there is now the urgency to alert the public of this imposter who is benefiting from the hard years of work we have put in to make J’Adore what it is.In the span of the last few months, J’Adore Magazine’s staff has received numerous complaints and reports about his misconduct and misrepresentation. Boyd’s tactics include false representation that he is the CEO, Vice President and/or photographer for J’Adore Magazine and promises businesses and individuals concessions and coverage in the publication in order to gain VIP access, special treatment, perks and other sources of personal gain. Boyd also approaches aspiring models in these venues with false promises of J’Adore exposure, leading to personal visits and impromptu photo shoots. This, of course, is the most dangerous of all of the scenarios and should be taken very seriously.

To be clear, Zakee Boyd was briefly involved with J’Adore Magazine as a source of promotions for J’Adore. His role with J’Adore was quickly canceled after we received several repeated reports of the aforementioned unscrupulous activities.

Ultimately, Zakee Boyd, under absolutely any circumstances, should not be taken seriously as a member of J’Adore Magazine or party of any other reputable business related to the publication. If the J’Adore staff learns that he continues to gain perks under false pretenses immediate legal action will be the results.

Jay Glover
President/Agent
HD, THE AGENCY
Direct: 678-428-0675
Email: jayg@hatkaentertainment.com
http://www.myspace.com/hatkahd

As Blagojevich Pleads Not Guilty, Some Prosecution Moves Are Questioned

By Eric Ferkenhoff / Chicago Tuesday, Apr. 14, 2009

Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich arrives at federal court for his arraignment on federal racketeering and fraud charges in Chicago

Charles Rex Arbogast / AP

Ever since Rod Blagojevich was roused out of bed one cold December morning, federal prosecutors have done their best to portray their colorful corruption case against the now former Illinois governor in the starkest possible terms. Normally tight-lipped U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald declared that Blagojevich, who was caught on tape allegedly trying to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat, had embarked on a "political corruption crime spree [that would] make Lincoln roll over in his grave." When the actual indictment came down April 2, the government was much more low-key, with no accompanying press conference or statement.

But the charges themselves are, if anything, more damning. The indictment against Blagojevich, his older brother Robert and four associates, which includes charges of racketeering conspiracy, extortion conspiracy, attempted extortion, making false statements and wire fraud, effectively paints the impeached ex-governor as the head of a vast criminal enterprise. "With RICO, these defendants are seen as no better than a street gang, common thugs," says Ronald Smith, a former prosecutor and current law professor at John Marshall Law School who has taught federal criminal law for 15 years.

But as Blagojevich and his brother pleaded not guilty at the arraignment in Chicago on Tuesday, it had already become clear that this high-profile case was anything but a simple matter. For starters, the charge that has drawn the most attention, his alleged attempt to auction off Obama's Senate seat, may not be one of the strongest charges. A jury may be more susceptible to the allegation that the "Blagojevich Enterprise" tried to shake down officials at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood for campaign contributions. More precisely, an executive at the hospital was urged to hand over $50,000 in campaign money in exchange for $8 million in state Medicaid reimbursements. (Read "The $5M Senate Seat.")

"I actually think that the children's hospital charge would worry me even more," says Andrea Lyon, a law professor at DePaul University and former head of the Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "Holding up sick children and the doctors caring for them seems like an emotional matter that's not going to play well for him before a jury," Lyon says. If that's not heart-wrenching enough for prospective jurors, Blagojevich et al. are also accused of trying to shake down a teachers' retirement fund, withholding state work from firms that would not do business with his wife and trying to extort money from a Congressman looking for funds for a school. That Congressman has reportedly been identified as Rahm Emanuel, Obama's current chief of staff.

Blagojevich's defense has a daunting task, especially given that some co-defendants as well as a host of other politically connected officials are reportedly lining up to cooperate with the government. Still, Blagojevich maintained to reporters after Tuesday's hearing, "I did not let the people of Illinois down. That is the beginning of me trying to prove my innocence and clear my name and be vindicated of what are inaccurate allegations." If found guilty of the 16 criminal counts against him, Blagojevich could face up to 20 years in prison and fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Yet some of the prosecution's choices have left certain legal observers wondering just how strong the case is. The prosecution, for instance, decided not to seek charges against Blagojevich's wife Patti — a fact that surprised many, since she too is named throughout the charges. "It could be seen as the government going too far even if they do have the goods on her," notes Smith, who adds that indicting Patti Blagojevich could leave their children with two jailed parents. "You have to draw the line somewhere, and perhaps dragging in the wife would bring up the sympathy factor that could taint the whole case."

The courtroom where Blagojevich was arraigned on Tuesday has also raised questions. U.S. District Judge James Zagel, who is presiding over the case, is a Reagan appointee generally seen as prosecutor-friendly, a no-nonsense jurist who has little patience for allowing his courtroom to be turned into a circus. Some observers wonder if Fitzgerald's team shopped around for the right judge and made sure the case landed with Zagel by marrying Blagojevich's case with that of William Cellini, 74, a downstate businessman and power broker who raised money for Blagojevich and is currently under indictment — and whose case is already before Zagel.

Cellini, of Springfield, is accused of trying to shake down the Teachers' Retirement System and other firms for campaign funds for Blagojevich, and also of trying to extort one of the producers of the Clint Eastwood film Million Dollar Baby. He has been under indictment since October, the 13th person charged in the ongoing Illinois pay-to-play scandal that prosecutors said traces back to even before Blagojevich became governor. Cellini has denied any wrongdoing. (Read "The Fall of the House of Blagojevich.")

"I find myself disturbed by what seems to be forum-shopping here," says Lyon. "Cellini seems pretty tangential, but it appears that there is a pattern of the prosecution going for a judge that might go their way. If you're Cellini, do you really want to be tried with Blagojevich?" Indeed, Dan Webb, a former U.S. Attorney and Cellini's lawyer, has stated that his client will seek a separation of the cases.

But prosecutors got another benefit from tying the case with Cellini's. One of Blagojevich's attorneys, Terence Gillespie, also happens to be representing Cellini. Because of the conflict of interest, Gillespie had to step down from the former governor's defense team. That made him the second high-profile defense lawyer to drop Blagojevich since the saga began. Gillespie's partner, renowned Chicago criminal defender Ed Genson, left the case in late January after becoming frustrated that Blagojevich wouldn't heed his advice to stop giving interviews. Before he gave up the case, Genson complained that the surreal atmosphere at Blagojevich's impeachment trial had become like Alice in Wonderland. Federal prosecutors just have to hope it doesn't get any stranger.

Right Extremist: What Are Some of the Factor Involved?

Right Extremist

Here in the United States recruitment and membership of extemist groups is on the rise. The rise in sales of weapons and ammunition is an indication and some evidence. Further, is the Dept. of Homeland Security releasing data concerning the rise in membership of "Far Right Extremist Groups".
Today, I would like to examine some of the elements and factors involved in extremism of any kind. Because the focus is on so called "Right Extremist" does not mean that others do not exist or are not as extreme in whatever their views and ideology may be.
Instead of re-posting another article (i.e. copy & paste), I did some extra research. What I came across was not only data about the "Extremist" on the rise in the U.S.A. but also in Europe.
According to one article I found ( http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119069321/abstract ) "...parties on the extreme right of the political spectrum have drawn a surprisingly large number of votes in elections throughout Western Europe, and surprisingly often. What these parties have in common is their aversion(strong dislike) to 'foreigners', by which they mean anyone who hails from another country." This was based on an analysis of data on two elections held in Amsterdam in 1994. The analysis reveals that the presence of Moroccans and Turks, two population groups that are associated with Islam, in the immediate surroundings of the home actually does increase the support for parties on the extreme right. In contrast, the presence of people from Surinam or the Antilles did not have that effect, while the presence of foreigners from other countries does not have that effect at all.
Here in the U.S. you have some whites who have an aversion to not only Islam, but to African Americans, gays, and anyone who does not believe in what they believe and/or imagine what life in the U.S. should be. Many these want to live with no clear rules and laws. They feel they can do as they please to whomever the claim is the "enemy" of the U.S.A. without regard for the U.S. constitution. At the same time they use certain rights afforded them in the same constitution (i.e. the right to bear arms) as a platform for their agenda.
The common elements and factors for many of these "Right Extremist" seems to be the Bible, guns, dissatisfaction with their living conditions, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News Network, racism, and extreme ignorance. They ignorance is seen in the fact that much of what they assert to believe is based on propaganda, lies, and/or misleading information being given to them from the defacto leader of the badly beaten Republican party Rush Limbaugh and a few others.
A good example of this is the recent rise in the sale of guns and ammo since they saw that Obama would more than likely win the presidential election. They claim that Obama and the Democrates are going to pass all kinds of laws restricting their ability to purchase weapons. Yet, there are no such plans. In fact, the current dems are doing less to pass anti-gun laws than ever. Yet, because of their one sided views they have been motivated to a cause that is filled with ignorance, hatred, and racism.
Ignorance leaves a void or a vacuum if you will for the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly types to insert and fill minds with what they are getting paid to say.
Because of the current economical situation and the current president being a Black Democrate these poor uninformed are primed and ready to swallow all of the propaganda of these ranting lunatics.

Who is Alex Jones?

Sometimes I am amazed at how easy it is to fool people into believing just about anything. For some strange reason people will trust information coming from just about any source without checking out its validity. This can lead to poor judgment. The uninformed and the misinformed can always be led like cattle or sheep it seems.
There is a man by the name of Alex Jones, a radio show host who is a Republican (failed in his attempt to become a politician in Texas) and who many call a "conspiracy theorist". This man seems to have the attention of many. My problem is not with him. He has a right to think and say what he wants. What is disturbing is that there are people out there who take what he says and hold it up like a Bible, preaching and spreading the words of Alex Jones.
Instead of praising or attacking Alex Jones, trying to convince you that he is a good or bad guy I will give you some links to his websites. You judge for yourself. Do keep an open mind and remember that these are his claims. What he states as facts does not mean that they are facts.
President Obama has just started his four year term and already people are rushing to judge him. With many who are attacking Obama (like those at Fox News) it seems that they are being paid well to run on and on with all kinds of extreme conspiracy theories. I doubt that their motives are pure because what they are saying is so far off the mark you would be a fool to believe it is the truth.

Alex Jones
Born	Alexander Emerick Jones February 11, 1974 (1974-02-11) (age 35) Dallas, Texas, U.S.
Occupation	Radio host, television host, film producer
Known for	Advocacy of conspiracy theories, anti-globalism, National sovereignty
Website InfoWars.com PrisonPlanet.com InfoWars.net PrisonPlanet.tv The Jones Report TruthNews.us ObamaDeception.net

Books

9/11: The Big Lie · Debunking 9/11 Myths · The CIA and September 11 · The New Pearl Harbor · The Terror Timeline

The Obamas Do Their Thing in Europe!

As I watched President Obama today on CNN give a live Town Hall Meeting in France I could not help but notice how well received he was. Not only have the French embraced him, it seems that Europe has. Just as it was during the election campaign he still has a large global following or fan base if will.
Prior to the Obamas flying off to Europe the talk on most of the networks was that he might not be received well and that the the G 20 meeting would produce nothing of substance. It seemed as if once again certain people were crouched, waiting to find fault and expose weakness in Obama's economic plans by citing the French Prez statement that he would walk out of the G 20 meeting in protest cocerning Obama's stimulus plans.
Nothing of the sort happened. President Obama was given well beyond the respect he deserves as a head of state. The First Lady knocked them dead and now President Obama is off to the NATO Summit.

The African-American: A Journey from Slavery to Freedom

INTRODUCTION The African-American: A Journey from Slavery to Freedom is an exhibit which shows America in crisis and how that point in time was resolved. Slavery as an issue in America was in constant conflict with the founding Democratic principles of this nation. Slavery therefore became the ultimate test of disunity within the union of states which were already at odds in a democracy espousing freedom for its people. At the center of this conflict were the Africans who were bought, sold, and used as workers on American soil. The use of slave labor was a well known practice for years in the world community. Documented accounts of slavery as a world-wide practice are covered in hundreds of books and articles on the subject reaching as far back to the ancient region of Mesopotamia around 3500 BC. For the Africans on American soil, that horrible journey started with the developing territorial colonies at a time when workers were needed to keep the economy of this new country solvent. Therefore, by 1619, the use of indentured servants brought the first Africans to America at Jamestown, Virginia. Poor whites also worked during this period as indentured servants. A "contract" said that this service would last from four to seven years - thereby the said would then become free. During this early period, some of the first enslaved Africans worked their way out of this system and became free tradesmen and property owners on American soil. The quest for more land and an economy based upon profit were two of the major points that escalated the demand for more slaves in America. Therefore, Black slave workers became highly prized commodities in a system dependent upon lots of manual labor. The entire southern American economy and the states in that warm region needed laborers to work on the plantations dealing with rice, indigo, tobacco, sugar cane, and cotton. Other slaves labored as dock workers, craft workers, and servants. Slaves in the northern American region labored on small farms and as skilled and unskilled workers in factories and along the coast as shipbuilders, fishermen, craftsmen, and helpers of tradesmen. Slavery on American soil grew at such a fast rate that, by 1750, over 200,000 African slaves were here. Fifty years later, that number grew to 700,000. In South Carolina alone, African slaves outnumbered the white population, and they made up more than one half of the populations in the states of Maryland and Virginia. The free Black American population did expand to about 40,000 throughout the colonies by 1770. The system of slavery was so entrenched in the daily routines on American soil that it had to be dealt with as a National issue. Lengthy debates, political compromises, moral dilemmas, slave rebellions, and a Nation divided against itself suddenly had to face the issue of enslaved Africans existing on American soil. America condoned the "peculiar institution" of slavery from 1619 up until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which abolished "slavery and involuntary servitude" on December 18, 1865. This period in American history left behind some of the most unbearable scars on the African-Americans as a people, but the free thinking decent people and countless allies envisioned a broader, more humane society - for they showed some of us the best of what America should be. This exhibit: The African-American: a Journey from Slavery to Freedom is about that struggle and the historical events which lead up to the Jubilee. Professor Melvin Sylvester Black History Month, February 1998 B. Davis Schwartz Memorial Library C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University

THE BEGINNING OF SLAVERY The first Africans in America arrived as Indentured Servants via Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. From 1619 to about 1640, Africans could earn their freedom working as laborers and artisans for the European settlers. Africans could become free people and enjoy some of the liberties like other new settlers. By 1640, Maryland became the first colony to institutionalize slavery. In 1641, Massachusetts, in its written legislative Body of Liberties, stated that "bondage was legal" servitude, at that moment changing the conditions of the African workers - they became chattel slaves who could be bought and solely owned by their masters.

SLAVE TRADE The Portuguese were the first to embark upon the slave trade starting around 1562. The practice of slavery grew to exponential proportions from 1646 up until 1790. A prime area for slaves was on the west coast of Africa called the Sudan. This area was ruled by three major empires Ghana (790-1240), Mali (1240-1600), and Songhai (670-1591). Other smaller nations were also canvassed by slavers along the west coast; they included among them: Benin, Dahomey, and Ashanti. The peoples inhabiting those African nations were known for their skills in agriculture, farming, and mining. The Africans of Ghana were well known for smelting iron ore, and the Benins were famous for their cast bronze art works. African tribal wars produced captives which became a bartering resource in the European slave market. Other slaves were kidnapped by white and black hunters. The main sources of barter used by the Europeans to secure African slaves were glass beads, whiskey, ivory, and guns. The rising demand for sugar, coffee, cotton, and tobacco created a greater demand for slaves by other slave trading countries. Spain, France, the Dutch, and English were in competition for the cheap labor needed to work their colonial plantation system producing those lucrative goods. The slave trade was so profitable that, by 1672, the Royal African Company chartered by Charles II of England superseded the other traders and became the richest shipper of human slaves to the mainland of the Americas. The slaves were so valuable to the open market - they were eventually called "Black Gold." For further reading

THE MIDDLE PASSAGE The Middle Passage has been defined in several ways. Some authors refer to these routes as the "triangle trade" or "circuit trade," "three cornered," "round about," and "transatlantic trade" routes. The typical voyage for slaves taken by the British went south down the coast of Africa into the area adjacent to the Gulf of Guinea. These English slavers brought cargoes of rum, brandy, glass, cloths, beads, guns, and other appealing goods from Europe. They bargained with African traders for their tribal captives. Some slavers entered the shores and kidnapped the unsuspecting natives and took them aboard their slave ships or kept them in waiting areas near the shore called "barracoons" or slave barracks. When the desired number of African slaves was met for shipping, the voyage of middle passage continued from Africa on the slave ships going across the Atlantic Ocean with a destination in one of several ports in the West Indies and Caribbean (including: Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Santo Domingo, and the islands of St. Thomas, St. John, St. Croix, and Barbados). In the West Indies and Caribbean, some slaves were off-loaded and sold to work at the sugar plantations, also called the "Sugar Islands." The raw molasses was taken aboard the ships; then they sailed up the coast northbound for Newport or Bristol, Rhode Island's distilleries, to make rum from the molasses. Other stops along the Atlantic coast where slaves were exchanged for goods or cash were Charleston, South Carolina and Boston, Massachusetts. The goods produced by cheap slave labor were loaded aboard the now empty slave ships along with sugar, tobacco, or cotton for the trip back to England. The rum from the rum distillers went directly back to Africa for more slaves, bartering on this, the Triangular Trade Routes. By 1768, the English slave trade had a figure of 53,000 slaves a year being shipped to the North American continent. Other slave traders included the French at 23,000, the Dutch at 11,000, and the Portuguese at 8,700 slaves being transported yearly from Africa. Estimates of up to 10 million slaves took the Middle Passage Voyage to reach the Americas. For further reading

SLAVERY AND RACE Many Europeans came to America to exercise their God fearing beliefs and to practice religious freedom. Slavery, on the other hand, was a form of persecution which, in the eyes of colonial America, had to be justified. Therefore, the black slave became an easily identifiable group targeted as being inferior, subhuman, and destined for servitude. The early Christian churches did not take up the cause of eliminating slavery until much later in the century. The famous Boston theologian, Cotton Mather, in 1693 included in his Rules for the Society of the Negroes the explanation that "Negroes were enslaved because they had sinned against God." He later included a heavenly plan that "God would prepare a mansion in Heaven," but little or no way for the end of forced slavery on earth was undertaken by most religious groups.

SLAVE CODES AND RESISTANCE The slave codes robbed the Africans of their freedom and will power. Slaves did resist this treatment, therefore strict and cruel punishment was on hand for disobeying their masters. Slaves were forbidden from carrying guns, taking food, striking their masters, and running away. All slaves could be flogged or killed for resisting or breaking the slave codes. Some slave states required both slaves and free blacks to wear metal badges. Those badges were embossed with an ID number and occupation. Freedom was always on the minds of the enslaved Africans. How to gain that freedom was the big question. American historical records have identified some of those attempts and some of the people involved in the African's quest for freedom on American soil. Refusing to obey their masters' demands created a duel crisis on the part of the resisting slaves and their demanding owners. The most common form of resistance used by the slaves was to run away. To live as a runaway required perfect escape routes and exact timing. Where to hide, finding food, leaving the family and children behind became primary issues for the escaping slaves. Later, the severe punishment had to be faced whenever a hunted slave was caught and returned to bondage. Many slaves ran off and lived in the woods or vast wilderness in the undeveloped American countryside. This group of slaves were called "maroons," for they found remote areas in the thick forest and mainly lived off wild fruits and animals as food. Some of these maroons ran off, lived, and even married into segments of the Native American populations. They were later called Black Indians. For further reading

A NATION IN CRISIS: THE SLAVERY TIMELINE The issue of slavery evolved into a complex problem on American soil from 1800 up until the beginning of 1865. The conditions of servitude and the status of Africans were at stake. Defining the legal grounds of these people of African descent put America in a quandary. Would free Africans be welcomed into this developing Democracy? The next sixty-five years produced a host of mixed events in their quest for freedom. Racial differences and previous conditions of servitude became an issue before the Republic. 1800. Gabriel Prosser attempts a slave rebellion in Virginia. By 1807, the British Parliament had put a stop to shipping and trading African slaves. By 1808, the Congress of the United States made it illegal to bring more slaves into the country. Still, the smuggling of Africans as slaves into the United States continued well into the mid 1800's. Remember, the Amistad slave incident happened in 1839. Slave trading within the states continued up until the day of Emancipation in 1863. By 1812, the British, as a payback to the American colonists, offered the Africans a chance to own land and be free - if they fought on their side during the War of 1812. By 1819, the Canadian government refused to cooperate with the American government by not allowing them free access to pursue escaped slaves living in Canada. By 1820, the Missouri Compromise was adopted, allowing Missouri to enter the Union as a slaveholding state and Maine as a freebearing state. The Missouri Compromise kept the number of free states and slave states balanced. 1822. Denmark Vesey arrested for planning a slave rebellion in South Carolina. 1831. Nat Turner leads a slave rebellion in Southampton, Virginia. By 1833, the American Anti-Slavery Society was established in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The British Parliament abolished slavery in the entire British Empire during this year. 1839. The Amistad Insurrection By 1850, the Compromise of 1850 again brought up the issue of slavery. California entered the union as a free state, but the territories of New Mexico, Utah, and Texas were allowed to decide, as individual states, the choice of being a slave state or a free state. 1850 also saw the passage of another much stricter Fugitive Slave Law being put into effect. By 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe published her novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, which became the best selling book and a major influence for the Anti-Slavery Movement. 1854. The Dred Scott Case. The year of 1857 saw slavery and freedom hanging in the balance. 1859. John Brown broke into the Federal Armory at Harper's Ferry, Virginia. 1860. Abraham Lincoln elected president. South Carolina secedes. 1861. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia secede. Formation of the Confederate States of America. Attack on Fort Sumter. 1861-1865. The Civil War. 1865. Freedom on the Horizon. February 1, 1865, Abraham Lincoln ratified the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawing slavery throughout the whole United States. Lincoln was assassinated two months later by John Wilkes Booth on April 15, 1865.

OLAUDAH EQUIANO (1745-1801) ALSO KNOWN AS GUSTAVUS VASSA Olaudah Equiano's life as a slave would have never been known to the world, but he survived and learned the English language which helped him to record his horrific experiences under forced servitude. Those words in his biographical memoirs were later published after Equiano secured extra earnings and bought his way out of bondage in the year of 1766. His writings became one of the first of only a few written accounts of slavery written by a slave. That work was entitled, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano or Gustavus Vassa, the African, published in 1789. Olaudah Equiano's account of slavery brought to the eyes of the world community the use of children taken and used as slaves in a practice which was heretofore thought of as only the world of adults living as captives. Equiano, at age eleven along with his sister, was kidnapped by slave catchers from their Igbo village compound while their parents were working at a distant farm near their home in Essaka, Benin. Equiano told of his attempt to yell out, his being bound, mouth gagged and separated from his sister on his way to the slave trading post. He told of his contact and fear of white Europeans and his anger at them as he was chained together with other Africans on the long voyage to America. He told of the packing of his people in the filth of the ship's hold, the deaths from diseases, the forced feedings, and cruel treatment. Equiano traced his journey to the slave market and his being sold in Barbados to a plantation owner in Virginia. Equiano talked about his luck at being eventually sold again to a British naval officer, who took him to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and to Falmouth, England in 1757. He told of his master naming him Gustavus Vassa (after a Swedish king). Equiano was eventually bought by a slave holding Quaker named Robert King. King taught Equiano certain skills including a way to the world of free people which he entered by 1766. Olaudah Equiano's dignity was captured in an exceptional portrait of him done in the British School around the late 18th century. It is housed in the Royal Albert Memorial Museum in Exeter, England.

SLAVE REVOLTS AND REBELLIONS Slave revolts and rebellions were numerous, but most accounts were kept quiet. Historians were able to document several of these violent outbreaks. Among them were: GABRIEL PROSSER Gabriel Prosser, in August of 1800, set out to free himself along with about 1,000 other slaves. His plot was to kill most of the white residents and take the town of Richmond, Virginia. It is said that a sudden bad thunderstorm caused the slave revolters to disband. Three other slaves also revealed the plot, and Gabriel Prosser and thirty-six of the slaves were identified, tried, and executed. DENMARK VESEY Denmark Vesey had obtained his freedom by the year of 1800. He was so disturbed by the whole system of slavery that he wanted to destroy all vestiges of its doing. He wanted a full-fledged war using armed slaves to kill white slave owners in the city of Charleston, South Carolina. By 1822, and after several years of planning, Vesey's idea to attack and "liberate" the city was revealed. One participant's forced confession led to Vesey's and several of his co-conspirators' arrest. All of them were tried and hung. South Carolina then passed laws to bar free Blacks from entering the state due to Denmark Vesey's alleged plot. For further reading NAT TURNER Nat Turner had a religious zeal and a belief that he was the "chosen one" to free himself and his slave brethren. This 31 year old preacher to the slaves devised a plan of "terror and devastation." His organized revolt became America's most famous and violent act involving slave resistance. On August 21, 1831, Nat Turner and six other slaves killed Turner's plantation master and his family in Southampton County, Virginia. Turner increased his supporting band of slaves as they went about killing a total of 60 white slave owners, including their wives and children. Federal and Virginia state troopers encountered the roving band of slaves and killed most of those in rebellion. Other slaves not connected to the rebellion were also killed. An estimate of over 100 slaves were killed, but Nat Turner escaped. He was hunted down as he hid out in the swamps for almost three months. He was finally captured and executed on October 30, 1831. For further reading

THE ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENT Other slaves had often heard about the freedom in the north and Canada. Many of the northern states were developing strong coalitions of free Black and White groups in an organization called the American Anti-Slavery Society, established by 1833. Prominent black leaders began to join this organization. Among them: Frederick Douglass, Highland Garnet, David Walker, James Forten, Sarah Parker Remond, Charles Lenox Remond, Sojourner Truth, William Whipper, Harriet Tubman, David Ruggles, William C. Nell, Robert Purvis, and Martin R. Delany. Among those whites who joined in the cause of the abolitionist movement were: Theodore D. Weld, Lewis Tappan and Arthur Tappan, William Lloyd Garrison, Levi Coffin, Charles G. Finney, Wendell Phillips, Lucretia Mott, James Birney, and James Miller McKim. The stated goal of the American Anti-Slavery Society was to see the complete abolition of slavery everywhere in the United States. They used every conceivable method, including politics and moral persuasion to achieve their goal. For further reading

THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD Many of the abolitionists endorsed a clandestine movement to help the African slave achieve freedom. Some significant clues of the Underground Railroad included well defined hidden routes and following the bright north star during the night, as well as certain "stations" - where a light in the window would be an indicator of a safe home used as a slave hideaway. Some slaves were hidden in barns or behind secret wall passages in these homes. The leader who knew the way was called the "conductor." The "station masters" were in most cases free people of color or wealthy white benefactors who provided food, shelter, or money along the way for the escaping runaways. The most profoundly skilled and successful "conductor" of the Underground Railroad was Harriet Tubman. She was credited with leading over 300 runaways to freedom with a total of 19 trips through the south. It was later stated that she never lost a "passenger" on these risky escape routes. The Underground Railroad, from 1800 up until the end of 1865, assisted more than 40,000 slaves to freedom up north and into Canada. Raymond Bial's book, The Underground Railroad, published in 1995, depicted the essence both in text and with superb pictures of those mystical hidden passageways which made up the Underground Railroad. For further reading

THE AMISTAD INSURRECTION This true to life mutiny took place in the year of 1839. The La Amistad, a slave bearing Spanish vessel, was carrying 53 captives (49 men, 1 young girl, and 3 children), all previously taken from the African country of Sierra Leone when the insurrection occurred. They belonged to the Mende village in West Africa. The insurrection started when the ship, La Amistad, was taking the slave captives from Cuba to a slave market in South America. La Amistad was sailing in the Caribbean when Singbe, a 25 year old African, later given the Spanish name Joseph Cinque, was able to free himself and the other captives from their chains. During the dark night, they went on deck and killed the captain and his cook. Two other crew members were saved and directed by Cinque to turn the ship back toward their homeland of Africa. Instead of going toward Africa, the ship was steered to the shores off Montauk, Long Island. Here the ship docked for food and water, but it was noticed by the American navel ship, U.S.S. Washington. The captain, named Richard Meade, ordered the ship to dock over at New London, Connecticut on August 27, 1839. New York was bypassed as a docking area due to slavery being illegal in the state. Connecticut still had not abolished slavery at that time period. The importance of the Amistad Insurrection brought the focus of slavery to the attention of many more free Americans. The abolitionists were looking for evidence of cruelty and the evil profiteering involved in slavery. The abolitionists wanted slavery abolished in America. An 18 month legal battle ensued, and the black Africans did not seem to have a chance of gaining their release from prison as the ones accused of murder and mutiny aboard the ship, La Amistad. They were going to be tried by a court of Law and sent back to slavery in Havana, Cuba. The Cubans and the Spanish government were diplomatically trying to force President Martin Van Buren to side step any conflicts between America and Spain, and send the "murderous Africans" back to the slave port in Cuba. The technicality was that Spanish law "had by 1817 prohibited the importation of slaves into any of its territory, including the colony of Cuba." This true to life drama escalated into one of America's most fascinating court cases. Attorney Roger Sherman Baldwin of New Haven, Connecticut was able to secure a translator of the Mende language to help with the actual documentation of Cinque's journey and the others being kidnapped in Africa where they were put into the hold of the Portuguese Slave ship, the Tecora, and sent via the middle passage to Cuba. The highest point of the Amistad incident came when the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, and the former U.S. President John Quincy Adams, at 73 and nearly blind, was cajoled into fighting the case. His 8 1/2 hours of astute testimony won the acquittal verdict! "They were illegally enslaved, their papers were forged and they were never Spanish speaking Cuban slaves." The verdict favored Cinque and the 35 surviving Mende Africans. Before leaving Connecticut, Cinque, with an interpreter, spoke at several abolitionists' town meetings. Money was raised, and the town's Congregational Church at Farmington Connecticut helped the Africans on their voyage back to Sierra Leone in the month of November 1841. The portrait shown here of Joseph Cinque was done by the New Haven Painter, Nathaniel Jocelyn, before the trial ended. The portrait is part of the New Haven Connecticut Historical Society. For further reading

HARRIET BEECHER STOWE Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) did wonders for the Anti-Slavery Movement. Her serialized publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin first appeared in the National Era weekly newspaper, starting June 2, 1851. It became so popular in 1851, she decided to do a completed version as a published book by March, 1852. The entire printing of 5,000 copies was sold out the first week it appeared in Boston, Massachusetts. The demand suddenly took hold, and, before the summer of 1852 ended, Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel had earned her over $10,000 in royalties. The demand for her book required a production of over 300,000 copies within one year. Several translations were done, and suddenly the world community knew about the cruel and inhuman treatment of enslaved blacks in America. Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin was based upon the life in narrative of Josiah Henson, a runaway slave. For further reading

THE DRED SCOTT CASE By 1854, the Dred Scott Case brought a setback to the Abolitionist Movement. Dred Scott, a slave, was taken by his master into the free states of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Scott stayed out of Missouri, his slave state, for four years. His claim was that he was an established person on "free soil." The lower courts ruled against Scott. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court of the United States. Again the ruling was unfavorable. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a resident of Maryland, and the other justices ruled that "Dred Scott could not bring suit in federal court because he was a Negro, not just a slave. No Negro whether slave or free, could ever be considered a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution." Thus, Scott's real problem was not his servitude but his race. This outspoken blow was a positive message for the south in that slavery in America was not going away but was a legal part involved with the American way of life.

RAID ON HARPER'S FERRY By 1859, an unsettling event happened - John Brown, the dogmatic white abolitionist from Kansas attacked slavery as an issue which he felt could only be resolved using acts of violence. He sought out justice to the slavery issue using biblical scriptures in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible. "Without blood there is no remission of sins." The Federal Armory at Harper's Ferry, Virginia was the chosen place. The plot was to take the ammunition and weapons and kill all, and free the slaves. October 17, 1859 twenty-two men on foot cut the telegraph wires and broke into the armory. Colonel Robert E. Lee (who later became Confederate General Lee) was summoned to the armory with his troops. The raiders held out for a day and a half. Lee's troops stormed the armory, and ten raiders were immediately killed. Two of John Brown's sons died in this action along with four out of the five black volunteers who took part in the raid (Shields Green, Lewis Leary, John Copeland, Dangerfield Newby). By some fluke, the last black volunteer, Osborne Anderson, escaped and later joined the Union Army during the Civil War (1861-1865). Four other raiders also escaped. John Brown and six others were captured and hung on December 2, 1859. The John Brown Hanging elevated him as a martyr for the Abolitionist's cause. During the time of the raid he had grown a long beard; thus he was called the "Moses" of the Abolitionist Movement.

THE ELECTION OF 1860 1860 was a crucial year in the history of this Republic. Slavery had weakened America's position as a country established on principles of freedom. This was an election year. Abraham Lincoln (b. Feb. 12, 1809 - d. April 15, 1865) won the nomination for the presidency of the United States representing the Republican Party. The Democratic Party split up into a Northern Wing with Stephen A. Douglas as its candidate and a Southern Wing with John C. Breckinridge as the other candidate for the presidency of the United States. The Whig Party was so weak with deserting members that it split up into a conservative Whig Wing, and they aligned with the Know-Nothing Party to form a new party called the Constitutional Union Party with John Bell as their candidate for the presidency of the United States. Abraham Lincoln won the election easily on November 6, 1860 due to the unity on party issues within the Republican Party. Lincoln became the 16th President of the United States mainly from the votes coming from the north. Lincoln had built a reputation as an opponent of slavery. The south made it known that this was going to split the United States if Lincoln were elected. Therefore, on December 20, 1860, secession took place with South Carolina taking the lead, followed in January 1861, by the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. They formed a separate Union within the United States called the Confederate States of America. Before the end of February, five other states joined the Confederacy. They were Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. When Abraham Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861 - the United States was a divided country with slavery as the major issue before the Republic. The South moved fast and decided to seize U.S. Federal forts within their jurisdiction. Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor was considered a Union stronghold. Lincoln provided stronger protection for Fort Sumter, therefore it had to be taken by force by the Confederates. The firing on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 was the start of the American Civil War. Abraham Lincoln had been in office only one month. For further reading

THE CIVIL WAR (1861-1865) It was therefore inevitable that something had to be done in America in order to preserve the Union. The disunity of the states escalated into one of America's most dreadful and bloody wars. President Abraham Lincoln stated, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Earlier, in 1858, Lincoln had stated that, "I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free." At the outset of the Civil War, both northern Whites and free Blacks came forth to join the Union Army. From the beginning, both black slaves and freeman saw this opportunity to serve in the military as a method for relinquishing their chains and proving their inclusive worthiness to this nation. Some black slaves, for some unknown reasons, remained with their masters and assisted them on the side of the Confederacy during the entire period of the Civil War. On the whole, there was widespread resistance by whites on both the Union blue and Confederate gray sides in accepting Blacks as part of the military. Lincoln rejected the participation of Blacks at first in the Union Army. He did not want to alienate those border states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri who still owned slaves but were loyal to the Union. West Virginia became a state in 1863 and stayed in the Union. There were also many anti-abolitionist groups in the North who felt this war should not involve Blacks. The Union Secretary of War issued a statement: "This Department has no intention at the present to call into service of the government any colored soldiers." As the bloody war progressed, many slaves "flocked to the Union lines seeking freedom." These slaves, by the hundreds, were crossing into Union territory, and they were placed in "contraband camps." The need for able-bodied fighting men soon led individual states to swear into the military separate regiments of all black troops. Other Blacks found acceptance as volunteers in semi-military or military support positions. Not until August of 1862 did Blacks receive the endorsement of Congress to serve in the Civil War. "Congress revoked the militia laws banning Blacks" from serving in the Union Army. Confusion was all around, but it was not until Abraham Lincoln issued on January 1, 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation, "freeing all slaves in areas still in rebellion" that ex-slaves were given the formal right to be received in the U.S. Union Armed Forces. The casualties on both sides of the war were climbing, therefore more soldiers were needed. Lincoln needed a victory, therefore the Emancipation was aimed at getting more recruits. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed those slaves in the states under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation opened the door full-fledged for Blacks to participate in the Civil War. Among the newly freed slaves out of the Confederate states came thousands of volunteers. On May 1, 1863, the War Department created the Bureau of Colored Troops in order to handle the recruitment and organization of all black regiments. These units were known as the United States Colored Troops, and doubts about their competency, loyalty, and bravery were under close scrutiny. White officers were their commanders, and acceptance of ex-slaves by these commanders was not always willing. It was with the valor displayed by the 54th All Black Infantry Regiment out of Boston, Massachusetts who charged Fort Wagner did some notable recognition come to these troops. The widespread knowledge about these all black units of the Civil War came about with the popularity of the movie, Glory, starring Denzel Washington. Based upon the triumphs and defeats of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, a historical moment was captured in the lives of some unknown American freedom fighters. The first African-American medal of Honor was awarded to William Carney of this 54th Infantry Regiment. More than 300 African-Americans died at the Fort Wagner assault. By the end of the Civil War, over 186,000 men of African decent had served in the U. S. Armed Forces, and over 38,000 died in an effort to be part of America's inclusive freedom. Twenty-four black soldiers were awarded the meritorious Congressional Medals of Honor. All together, on the Union side about 360,000 troops died in the war. On the Confederate side about 260,000 troops died. The Civil War ended April 9, 1865. For further reading

THE RECONSTRUCTION (1865-1877) America, including the South, had to be rebuilt, and, despite the South's hostile resistance, African-Americans were slowly becoming part of this nation's inclusion. By 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution confirmed the long awaited citizenship for Blacks in America. By 1870, the 15th Amendment was added to the Constitution which made it illegal to deny the right the vote based on race. The Reconstruction, although short-lived, showed the first real attempts of inclusive freedom for African-Americans. Gains were taking place: Citizenship, Voting, Education, and Politics. Later that freedom was restricted by Jim Crow Laws, discrimination, and the denial of equal protection by law. The Journey from Slavery to Freedom only opened the door halfway. 1877 was the beginning of a long journey. That journey was one hundred and twenty-one years ago, and it still goes on.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Creative talents have always helped in the final hours of a finished product. Thanks to Lee-Wen Cheng, an academic assistant in the IMC, for highlighting the top of this exhibit with an engaging banner. My special appreciation again goes out to Robert Delaney who kept my work current with his handling of the print design for the written words of this exhibit. Thanks, Melvin Sylvester

HTML by Robert Delaney robert.delaney@liu.edu