at least you aren't writing bullshit like this:
In contrast to Freehling’s traditionalist view of the revolt, in a May 1964 article, “The Vesey Plot: A Reconsideration,” published in The Journal of Southern History, Richard C. Wade argued that there was no plot, and Vesey and the other thirty-four executed men were victims of white paranoia. In reality, “the “plot” was probably never more than loose talk by aggrieved and embittered men.” Wade supports this radical assertion in two different ways. First, Wade argues that the source most historians base their understanding of the plot on, the 1822 report titled An Official Report of the Trials of Sundry Negroes, written by Lionel H. Kennedy and Thomas Parker, is unreliable, and, when closely read, reveals how much difficulty the tribunal established to try those believed to have been involved in fermenting revolution had in actually uncovering any evidence. Although the report claims to accurately convey all testimony heard before the tribunal, the printed transcript “is at odds in both wording and substance with manuscript records of the witnesses.” For example, in the case of two slaves, Bacchus Hammett and John Enslow, whose original confession documents survive, several passages have been omitted from the Official Report. For Wade, this omission calls into question the reliability of the entire document, thereby casting doubt on the traditional narrative of Vesey’s supposed plan.