Talk:Colfax massacre

Salient

Reading this article one salient piece of information is omitted.

Were the perpetrators convicted? (It says that the 14th ammendment didn't provide a grounds for conviction but this does not necessarily mean acquital).

Thanks--info added.Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Three perpetrators were convicted, but appeals went to the Supreme Court, which overturned their convictions in US v. Cruikshank (1876). --Parkwells (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

At the second trial, the three who were convicted had the charges thrown out by an associate Supreme Court judge who was there and said the Enforcement Act was unconstitutional. It was the Federal government that then appealed. At the Supreme Court review, they ruled that the law did not apply to individual actions, so essentially held up the vacating of the charges.--Parkwells (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You also need to understand that the White gov was elected and the duplicate black gov in Baton Rouge and Colfax was appointed by Lincoln. The court runing made it clear that only the elected gov was legal. This is why history called it a Riot and not a massacre.

--Sattmaster (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the 1872 election was very close between Democrats and Republicans and contested at both the state and local levels. Both slates were elected by citizens, however. Since Lincoln had been dead for years, there were unlikely to be his appointees in office in 1873. Will look it up again. Perpetrators were probably not convicted. Why don't others do some substantive reading and writing to add to the article?--Parkwells (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sattmaster, Although the governor's (and local) elections were contested, the Republican candidate William Kellogg was declared the winner of the state. Both slates of candidates were elected by citizens. The later Supreme Court ruling related to Colfax had to do with the US government's prosecution under the Enforcement Act, which the Court said could apply only to state actions, and not to conspiracies by individuals, as with the white militias at Colfax.--Parkwells (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a much better version than the orginal. Sattmaster (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Disputed

This retelling of the story Black side does not match the story as told from the White side by people from Winn parish.

Also the proper local historic name for the event was the Colfax Riot. Which is what it says on historic sign marking the graves at the court house.Colfax Riot Sign

Since stories from the white side conflict with the stories of the black side what do you do? I would also like to know where the evidence of the KKK being involved came from. And the White League was not created until 1874. According to the Wiki. Without a cite both should be removed.

More links

• Colfax Riot Historic Marker .jpg
• The Riot Tree (Another version of the story
• Colfax Riot (Another version)

• Battle of Colfax, James K. Hogue, UNC

Note: This paper has not been published, but some of the material is included in Hogue's book Uncivil War: Five New Orleans Street Battle and the Rise and Fall of Radical Reconstruction, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2006.--Parkwells (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• [1]

--Sattmaster (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The article can certainly be improved by scholarly sources. It's my understanding that African Americans referred to it as a massacre, especially since 50 black men who surrendered were then murdered. Certainly there should be acknowledgement of the local name for the events as well. It was not my original article, but when I have time, I will check other sources. Contentions above are incorrect about which was the legal government - this was related to contested battles at the state and local level which had not yet been settled from the 1872 election. It's very likely there is not one version of this story which will satisfy everyone. --Parkwells (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The KKK was not operating by this time and that reference was removed.--Parkwells (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If I read the sign correctly, it was erected in 1950. "Carpetbag misrule" suggests the POV when this was put up. Sometimes perspective changes over time. Certainly 21st century appraisal of Reconstruction and its aftermath may differ from that of 1950. If nothing else, we can present some objective account here of what happened.--Parkwells (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sattmaster, how about donating your photo of the historic marker to wikipedia for use with this article?--Parkwells (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not take that photo. I found on the net years ago. I don't go to colfax often but I will try to take a new one or get someone else to do so it can be used. --Sattmaster (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Riot Tree" is certainly a story, but does not qualify as scholarly history. It is the local anecdotal story of what happened. While it refers to articles in the LA Quarterly, it does not reference them. Also, the articles are from 1930 and 1935, and may have reflected biases of the time. I have found another current history (Nicholas Lemann's Redemption - 2006) that is more based in Documented records, and will try to fix this article.

"Colfax Riot", from the local newspaper, is not an historical account, either. There was no documentation of rape or robbery. The widespread recounting of blacks planning to "take white women" tells you it's a rumor-bound version. Such "threats" were usually projected fears from whites. --Parkwells (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting "The Battle of Colfax" - do you know if this has been published? I know he states he gave it as a paper at a conference. Wanted to use it as a source to make changes in the article.--Parkwells (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasons that historians and others use the term "massacre" is probably because so many African Americans were killed compared to whites, and also because so many were killed after they had surrendered.--Parkwells (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

James K. Hogue's "The Battle of Colfax" (link to his article is the fourth on the Talk page) probably gives the most detail about the political background and dispute behind the conflict. Also, two new books based on documented sources have been published in the last year on the battle at Colfax - they are listed under references in the article - by LeeAnna Keith and Charles Lane. Lane especially writes about the implications of Cruikshank v. US, the Supreme Court case that aroes out of prosecution of some of the militia.--Parkwells (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the article could be vastly improved by supplying alternative views of the incident as long as adequate sources are referenced. I find the use of absolutes such as Republicans, whites, blacks, etc. are a sure sign that groups that most probably heterogeneous in composition have been generalized rather than make the effort to research sources for facts. This type of generalizing of diverse groups is common in prejudicial statements. Lately this has begun to appear daily on Twitter from the highest political offices in the U.S. and set a disturbing set of totally inaccurate and biased precedent that influence the less-analytical persons to accept hearsay without question. I have seen the same sloppy summaries in the Ulysses S. Grant and even worse in the Robert E. Lee articles relating to places any events within the scope of the Civil War and Reconstruction periods. Many terms are used such as ‘polliwogs’ and ‘carpetbaggers’ as if these labels sufficiently explain by themselves exactly who constitutes the groups. Jhodge3rd (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Other

could someone clean up the quotes and references in the second paragraph? I'm not sure of the formatti ng. Geethree 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Geethree

Seriously. Something needs to be done about the second paragraph.Sixer Fixer (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nash sent men after these fleeing blacks, and most were killed on the spot." I'm not native to this language, but is referring to people as simply 'blacks' socially acceptable? 83.117.88.186 17:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've lost track, too, but think you don't change names in quotations. In other articles, people have used black for historic times and African American for more current, or sometimes just African American.--Parkwells (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV I know it's a horrible event but using words like "butchered" gives it a Point of View, someone neutralize the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.201.25 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Made some small changes to the death estimates in the introduction section. Added a lower death total from two U.S. Marshals who buried dead at the scene, clarified details about the Godfrey report (only 81 blacks who had been killed during the massacre were actually named in the report), and added Charles Lane's estimates of the minimum and maximum dead, which takes account of all the available estimates. Provided specific citations for all this material. Forward Thinkers (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Will be adding sources

Please don't delete anything - I'm checking sources and will be adding more citations. Anyone know how to get the inline citations to show up below? Must be something from the first formatting (not mine). Thanks if you can help.--Parkwells (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed that for ya, I think, following WP:NOTES and WP:CITE#HOW. You have to put a {{Reflist}} tag in a section at the end to get your <ref>footnotes</ref> to show up. There was also a footnote without a closing tag that was hiding everything after it.

Do you know the correct source for "The bloodiest single instance..."? If so, could you name it in the text? (See WP:MOSQUOTE.) There are two footnote cites of different sources right after the quote, which doesn't make sense; it can't be both, right?

--216.145.54.15 (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC) [edited to remove unintentionally ironic fmting errors]

Thanks for your help - I couldn't seem to locate the reference stuff. Yes, the quote came from Foner (I came across it again and will fix the ref. Have been working with someone else's material, so wasn't sure at first.)--Parkwells (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note USGENWEB (I am the archivest for Grant parish) has changed servers and all documents links have changed. The first part of the link needs to be changed like this.

[2] I also found another version of the story from 1930s

http://files.usgwarchives.org/la/winn/history/phwngr27.txt] John I. McCain's firsthand account, written near the end of his life

--Sattmaster (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If I can be of any assistance in finding sources for specific points in the article, please let me know. I'd be happy to help. Forward Thinkers (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Shot in the back?

"More credible reports, however, suggested that Hadnot was shot from behind by an overexcited member of his own force. Historians have pointed out that outnumbered men who were surrendering were unlikely to attack."

I think this is nonsense and should probably be removed, unless there's forensic evidence that he was shot in the back. Given that both groups of armed men were presumably ill-disciplined, it's quite possible that he was shot in the back by friendly fire. It's equally possible that a stubborn defender carried on firing while most of his fellows were trying to surrender. Without definite evidence, we have no basis for speculating about which was the case. Torve (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it more clear the story of how Hadnot was shot was in dispute.--Parkwells (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles Lane indicates that "A bullet hit [Hadnot] from a side angle, striking just below his navel and exiting over his hip" on p. 102 of his book. Lanes states that Hadnot was hit after rushing forward and telling his party to stop firing, as he saw the danger of crossfire. Nash is quoted as yelling at this point, "You are shooting our own men!" On pps. 284-85 of the book in the Notes for this chapter, Lane cites a wide variety of sources for these details about the massacre, but says that he primarily focused on witness testimony from the two federal trials in the first half of 1874. Forward Thinkers (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Concern about terms

I am concerned when I see revised terminology like terrorist and white-supremacists written in place of the KKK and the local thugs of the time, etc. Call them what they were and then in parenthesis what they would be considered in today's English usage. Using today's terminology in discussing an historic event leads to misleading memes blurring, confusing and distorting history. It is as bogus as a Julius Caesar coin dated 44 BC. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Terms are being used as written in Reliable Sources (RS), per Wiki standards. Historians now generally consider the types of insurgency during Reconstruction as a continuation of the Civil War, and struggle for political and social control of southern states. If you have RS that offer other terms, they can be used. Historians may appraise political and social events in terms of larger classifications, as part of interpreting events. The effort by whites to regain power and restore their dominant position was termed white supremacy and, as noted in the quote in the article, people of the time also used the term. Historians have defined the KKK as terrorists because they conducted extrajudicial physical attacks and killings for the purpose of political intimidation and influencing elections. Agree that generally, KKK chapters were not active by 1873. Other groups, such as the White League in Louisiana and Red Shirts in Mississippi and the Carolinas, arose from 1874 on, and were highly organized, paramilitary organizations of white veterans, who acted publicly as an arm of the Democratic Party, as one historian put it.Parkwells (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

To describe the Ku Klux Klan as a white supremacist organization does not blur or distort history, right? Even if we agree that "white supremacist" was not a term used to describe the Klan, whether it is a misleading or inaccurate term is a different issue. The Klan was, is, a white supremacist organization. They engaged in acts of terrorism. This is not blurring or confusing the Klan during Reconstruction. Referring to the Ku Klux Klan as white supremacist is not the same as a counterfeit coin from antiquity. Dsa605 (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Restoring "private milita" for "rifle club"

The 10 April 2008 edit by IP 216.145.54.15 marked a change from "private militia" (in the 8 April 2008 version) to "rifle club" which is not backed by sources like Leonard Levy, "Encyclopedia of the the American Constitution", 1987. The federal government did not prosecute "rifle clubs" in the 1870s: it selectively prosecuted "private militias". It did not prosecute black Republican militias (seen as acting in self-defense): the federal government prosecuted white Democrat militias (seen as acting aggressively). "Rifle clubs" were not prosecuted by the federal government: private militias were prosecuted.

The era of the Colfax Massacre is described by Michael Les Benedict in his article "Constitutional History 1865-1877" by Michael Les Benedict, excerpted from Macmillan Reference USA's Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Benedict is the author of A Compromise of Principle: Congressional Republicans and Reconstruction, 1863-1869, New York: W. W. Norton). He shows the concern was not "rifle clubs" but private militias.

Because it was primarily whites who owned enough property to pay taxes, the

Republican policies redistributed wealth, something not acceptable to nineteenth-century Americans. Bitterly, white Southerners charged that "ignorant," "brutal" voters were being duped by venal politicians with promises of "class legislation." Southern whites denied that such governments were really democratic. Unable to defeat Republicans at the polls in most states, they turned to violence and fraud. From 1868 through 1872, midnight riders, known by such names as the Ku Klux Klan, terrorized local Republican leaders. After 1872 the violence became more organized and more closely linked to anti-Republican political organizations.

A few southern Republican governors were at first able to suppress the violence. But by 1870 they were appealing to the national government for help, thus causing serious problems for national Republican leaders. Republicans had hoped that enfranchising the freedmen would protect them without a massive expansion of national power. Moreover, everyone believed that legislation must be based on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, ignoring the earlier view that the Thirteenth Amendment gave power to protect citizens' basic rights. But the language of the two later amendments only protected rights against STATE ACTION, and Republicans had a difficult time justifying laws protecting blacks and white Republicans from attacks by private individuals. Nonetheless, in 1871 Republicans passed such laws and also authorized President Grant to take drastic action to crush violence, including suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. They insisted that the Fourteenth Amendment required states to protect their residents; failure to do so would amount to state denial of EQUAL PROTECTION.

At first this response seemed successful, and violence abated. However, it soon flared anew. In many southern states Republicans claimed that Democratic violence and intimidation should nullify apparent Democratic majorities in elections, and they refused to count Democratic votes from areas where violence was most intense. In return Democrats organized armed militia to press their claims. In state after state Republicans had to appeal for national troops to protect them against such opponents. Where it was difficult to afford protection, the Democratic militias--often called "White Leagues"--drove Republican officials from office.

It became ever more difficult for national Republicans to respond. More and more Northerners feared that continued national intervention in the South was undermining the federal system. At the same time the Supreme Court manifested its concern to preserve a balance between state and national authority. In Texas v. White (1869) the Justices emphasized the importance of states in the Union, and in Collector v. Day (1871) they seemed to endorse the doctrine of DUAL FEDERALISM, by denying the national government's power to tax the incomes of officers of the "sovereign" states. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) the Court, in an implicitly dual federalist opinion, ruled that national and state citizenships were distinct. The Fourteenth Amendment protected only a limited number of rights inherent in national citizenship; those rights usually identified as basic remained the sole province of the states. This decision severely curtailed national power to protect black Southerners and southern Republicans from violence. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876) the Court held invalid indictments against white conspirators who had massacred blacks, in part on the grounds that the Fourteenth Amendment was aimed only at state action and could not justify prosecution of private individuals.

As the federal government gave up on reconstructing the Old South, white Democrat legislatures were free to pass restrictive gun laws which, like the "literacy test" voter laws, were aimed at blacks whether or not they were members of rifle clubs or private militias. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The meme of referring to the Red Shirts or White League as "rifle clubs" appears to have started with a cite to 1898 Wilmington Race Riot: Debunking the Myths, Red Shirts: A History. Compared the version of history there with Wilmington Insurrection of 1898. Red Shirts were a private militia, not a "rifle club". Naaman Brown (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree that contemporary historians classify the White League and Red Shirts as paramilitary groups, integral to attempts by white Democrats to regain power in Louisiana, Mississippi, and the Carolinas. Parkwells (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of citations

Much information has been added from the new books of 2007 and 2008, Charles Lane's book especially, but assertions and statements have to be supported by cites that include page numbers, not just a reference to the whole book. Readers need to be able to go to the source for more info.Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Too much background?

So much historical material has been added that the circumstances of the massacre are getting lost. Perhaps some of this should be reduced.Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Democrats and Republicans

In the article the black victims are described as "Republicans" while the white murderers are called "Democrats." Yes, Yes, I understand these were the party alignments but the labels are misleading to modern Americans. I think there's a good chance these labels were added as propaganda by some constipated right-winger who thinks he's very clever.

Fix this please. I'll revisit the page in a few days and erase the nonsensical party tags if nobody else does.Jamesdowallen (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concern that some Americans do not have a historical understanding of the Democrats and Republicans. However, it is not nonsensical to say most white southerners, during and long after Reconstruction, voted for the Democratic Party. And I doubt these party labels have been used by anyone with a conservative political agenda. The same party labels are used by left-leaning historians (including Eric Foner) when discussing Reconstruction. If anyone reading this page is unaware of the history of the two major political parties, they should click on the links to the Wiki pages for each party and get some context. Dsa605 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Direct quote in lede

The lede contains the following text: The bloodiest single instance of racial carnage in the Reconstruction era, the Colfax massacre was an example of the lengths to which some opponents of Reconstruction would go to regain their accustomed authority. Among blacks, the incident was long remembered as proof that in any large confrontation, they stood at a fatal disadvantage.

Later in the article is the following quote: "The bloodiest single instance of racial carnage in the Reconstruction era, the Colfax massacre taught many lessons, including the lengths to which some opponents of Reconstruction would go to regain their accustomed authority. Among blacks in Louisiana, the incident was long remembered as proof that in any large confrontation, they stood at a fatal disadvantage."

The lede text is way too similar to the quote. To be legitimately used, it must either be a perfect quote in quotation marks, or it must be rephrased/paraphrased in the editors' own words. Agricolae (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Former Confederate General Longstreet

His attempt to stop the massacre I think deserves mention, although his personal involvement was with the later Battle of Liberty Place. TaliaDPerkins (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @TaliaDPerkins, do you have any sources about Longstreet's involvement? Alyo (chat·edits) 19:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

CiteNeeded Spam

On 01 June 2019, user 2601:246:c700:2db2:ada3:7730:f248:8bf1 went on something of a rampage with the {{CN}} tags. Whilst I agree that the article is in need of citations, making it unreadable in pursuit of those cites doesn't seem like a good plan. I have replaced those tags with the section version and removed the inlines. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Status as a "terrorist attack"

Hello! There is currently a debate over whether this event should be listed as one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in American history on the Terrorism in the United States talk page. That debate has relevance to this page, because there has also been some back and forth here on whether Template:Terrorist attacks in the United States by deaths (which is based on the aforementioned list) should be included on this page.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)