Everything's Bigger in Texas, Including Confederatardation

[Berkut]

It isn't hard when you are provided evidence, you dismiss it immediately, and then piously announce how you would totally change your mind if only you had some evidence...

Dude. I provided the evidence. 

No, I did, and then you dismissed it based on the source being some newspaper account.

You did provide some valuable evidence, which you then promptly demanded that we assumed was lying because it didn't fit your story, while at the same time asking us to believe it for the parts that DID fit your story.

Your "evaluation" of the evidence in this matter is 100% driven by whether it supports the conclusion you want or not.

If Simcoe's account supports your conclusion, it is credible. It if does not, we should ignore that part as being mistaken.

If other accounts support the no quarter claim, we should dismiss them because they were reported in a "anti-British" newspaper, or "don't sound right".

Whatever.

[Malthus]

No, I did, and then you dismissed it based on the source being some newspaper account.

No, you provided an unsourced statement. I looked up what the source was.

If I was as partial and emotional as you claim, why would I go thorough the bother?

You did provide some valuable evidence, which you then promptly demanded that we assumed was lying because it didn't fit your story, while at the same time asking us to believe it for the parts that DID fit your story.

I simply think that a patriot newspaper isn't a good source for British military orders. Not sure why that is even controversial. Aren't we supposed to look at sources skeptically?

Your "evaluation" of the evidence in this matter is 100% driven by whether it supports the conclusion you want or not.

I think my actual statements demonstrate the opposite.

If Simcoe's account supports your conclusion, it is credible. It if does not, we should ignore that part as being mistaken.

So pointing out that a source is in error is now, in your topsy-turvy world, evidence of partiality? Or do you think Simcoe was correct and that all of the people in the house were killed?

If other accounts support the no quarter claim, we should dismiss them because they were reported in a "anti-British" newspaper, or "don't sound right".

Whatever.

No, because the "claim" being doubted is not that no quarter was given, but that this was *ordered* "from headquarters". I just don't believe that a patriot newspaper is a good source for that information.

[Malthus]

But this isn't correct. The patriot account itself claims quarter *was* given: prisoners *were* taken.

I don't know why you keep saying this.

So what?

So I was correcting a factual error in your account.

The fact that prisoners were taken is evidence that an order was NOT given to NOT take prisoners?

It is some evidence, yes. Not particularly strong evidence, of course.

In your vast military experience, is it the case that you find that every order given is 100% followed, such that failure to execute the order perfectly is reasonable evidence that the order was never given to begin with?

Unless you are rather older than you appear, your experience of 18th century military norms is exactly as "vast" as mine.

You are just grasping at straws here - there is no possible evidence that one can reasonably expect to exist that will change your mind.

So you keep saying. 

We have contemporaneous newspaper accounts that you simply dismiss out of hand.

I don't believe they are a good source for one point - the orders given by the British "headquarters". I do not, contrary to your repeated assertion, dismiss them "out of hand".

There isn't any CNN here to provide some kind of clearly objective story. It doesn't exist. Absent that, you can cling to your faith in the perfect holiness of the British and Loyalist troopers if that is that valuable to you.

I don't know who you are trying to influence with this hyperbole. Why do you do it? It makes any sort of debate less enjoyable.

[Berkut]

But this isn't correct. The patriot account itself claims quarter *was* given: prisoners *were* taken.

I don't know why you keep saying this.

So what?

So I was correcting a factual error in your account.

So now this is MY account, like I was there?

There is no factual error - the fact that some prisoners were taken does not contradict the claim that an order was given that prisoners not be taken.

The fact that prisoners were taken is evidence that an order was NOT given to NOT take prisoners?

It is some evidence, yes. Not particularly strong evidence, of course.

Not evidence at all, in fact. Unless one's filter of "evidence" is almost entirely driven by the need to support a conclusion.

In your vast military experience, is it the case that you find that every order given is 100% followed, such that failure to execute the order perfectly is reasonable evidence that the order was never given to begin with?

Unless you are rather older than you appear, your experience of 18th century military norms is exactly as "vast" as mine.

Non-responsive.
[/quote]

You are just grasping at straws here - there is no possible evidence that one can reasonably expect to exist that will change your mind.

So you keep saying. 

We have contemporaneous newspaper accounts that you simply dismiss out of hand.

I don't believe they are a good source for one point - the orders given by the British "headquarters". I do not, contrary to your repeated assertion, dismiss them "out of hand".
[/quote]

Of course you do - they are from a "anti-British" newspaper, so should be dismissed. How is that not out of hand? Is there a non-anti-British newspaper you would accept as a source in New Jersey during the Revolutionary War?

There isn't any CNN here to provide some kind of clearly objective story. It doesn't exist. Absent that, you can cling to your faith in the perfect holiness of the British and Loyalist troopers if that is that valuable to you.

I don't know who you are trying to influence with this hyperbole. Why do you do it? It makes any sort of debate less enjoyable.

The hyperbole is because it is clear that there is no actual debate happening anymore. It is you defending your "client", not actually trying to understand what likely happened.

[Berkut]

No, I did, and then you dismissed it based on the source being some newspaper account.

No, you provided an unsourced statement. I looked up what the source was.

That is some fine and careful cut and paste there.

I provided the evidence, and you provided the source. I have to commend you on how careful you were here.

You said you provided the EVIDENCE, I said what I said, then you cut out your original claim in the response (that you provided the evidence) and then substituted the new claim that you provided the SOURCE to dispute my refutation that you provided the evidence.

Nicely done.

Dude.I provided the evidence.

[Malthus]

No, I did, and then you dismissed it based on the source being some newspaper account.

No, you provided an unsourced statement. I looked up what the source was.

That is some fine and careful cut and paste there.

I provided the evidence, and you provided the source. I have to commend you on how careful you were here.

You said you provided the EVIDENCE, I said what I said, then you cut out your original claim in the response (that you provided the evidence) and then substituted the new claim that you provided the SOURCE to dispute my refutation that you provided the evidence.

Nicely done.

Dude. [/size]I provided the evidence[/size].  [/size]

I have no idea what you are on about. An unsourced statement isn't "evidence".  It only becomes "evidence" if you can show where it comes from. That's why citing a Wikipedia statement isn't "evidence".

I asked if you could do that, then looked it up myself. Transforming what you apparently lifted from a NJ pamphlet into actual "evidence".

Now maybe you had that all lined up, and were just busy or offline.

[Berkut]

OK, counselor.

[Malthus]

So now this is MY account, like I was there?

Your "recitation" of what happened. You claimed no quarter was given. I pointed out that it was.

Of course you do - they are from a "anti-British" newspaper, so should be dismissed. How is that not out of hand? Is there a non-anti-British newspaper you would accept as a source in New Jersey during the Revolutionary War?

I don't think a newspaper account is strong evidence for a specific order being given. I think it is even weaker when the newspaper in question is on the side opposite to that of the military who allegedly gave the order.

The hyperbole is because it is clear that there is no actual debate happening anymore. It is you defending your "client", not actually trying to understand what likely happened.

That's funny, coming from you.

[Eddie Teach]

This Simcoe fellow must've killed an awful lot of Frenchmen to make Malthus love him so much.

[viper37]

Then they could understand him the way Malthus understands him - a profoundly sensitive, kind man, deeply troubled by his need to kill men while sleeping on the orders of his commander...so much so that he didn't even bother mentioning it because it was too painful to recount. He was a simple, peaceful man, thrown into turmoil and angst over his competing loyalty to his king, and his commitment to peace and justice for all Loyalists his men accidently stab to death.

Don't know why you're engaging with a bunch of known monarchist Canuck tories and Quebekistanis.  Nothing good can come from that, you know that.

I am a monarchist now? 

[Malthus]

Then they could understand him the way Malthus understands him - a profoundly sensitive, kind man, deeply troubled by his need to kill men while sleeping on the orders of his commander...so much so that he didn't even bother mentioning it because it was too painful to recount. He was a simple, peaceful man, thrown into turmoil and angst over his competing loyalty to his king, and his commitment to peace and justice for all Loyalists his men accidently stab to death.

Don't know why you're engaging with a bunch of known monarchist Canuck tories and Quebekistanis.  Nothing good can come from that, you know that.

I am a monarchist now? 

Listen, we all know you keep a small shrine in your bedroom to the Royals, for furtive worship. You can admit it, you are among friends.

[grumbler]

The more I read Malthus's arguments, the more convinced I become that he is wrong! 

There is no solid evidence one way or the other on whether the British had "take no prisoners" orders that day.  The only pieces of evidence on the topic that we actually have are
(1) a contemporary newspaper account, poorly written (getting even Mawhood's rank wrong)
(2) The pamphlet "The Story of the Hancock House" from the NJ State Park Service, which is essentially identical to the above
(3) Simcoe's own recollection that all inside the house were killed
(4) a history of the Queen's Rangers published in 1909, which states (p. 141)

Capt. Dunlop's and Stephenson's companies attacked those in the house with such fury that every man in it was killed. This was a
lamentable occurrence and has enabled American writers to assert that these men were massacred, but it must be remembered that it was a night
attack and that Simcoe's Rangers, instead of this insignificant detachment, expected to meet a force of at least 700 or 800 men, and, of course,
a desperate resistance was expected.

https://archive.org/stream/historyofqueensr00hannuoft/historyofqueensr00hannuoft_djvu.txt

This really boils down to two pieces of evidence, IMO:  I believe that (2) above is just a copy of (1), and that (4) is a copy of (3).

Both of these pieces of evidence, it seems to me, point to the conclusion that a "take no prisoners" order was, in fact, given by someone.  The newspaper account is clearly embellished and so unreliable on the details, but is likewise clearly referencing actual events.  By itself it would mean little.  Simcoe's own account, though, implies that the newspaper account might be correct; why would Simcoe believe (contrary to the actual facts as we know them) that his men killed everyone in the house? Clearly, there was a reason for him to believe, in this one case*, that everyone had been killed.  The first reason that comes to mind is that, in  this case, he had or gave orders that no quarter was to be granted.  He'd certainly remember that detail of this one battle!

*I don't have access to Simcoe's book, but I have access to analysis of it, and none of that suggests that he thought lots of battles involved the annihilation of the opposing side

Against this, though, we have to weigh Inherent Military Probability.  We know that the British Army was not in the habit of issuing "take no prisoners" orders, so we would have to account for the specifics of the battle to think it probable that our vague evidence is leading us to the right conclusion.  Here, I find, the circumstances argue otherwise.  Insofar as we can tell, Simcoe and Mawhood expected the British to be badly outnumbered (albeit by militia) in the battle.  It is unlikely that a commander who believes he is about to fight a desperate battle against superior numbers would order that the battle be one of "take no prisoners."

I believe that the IMP evidence against such an order outweighs the available direct evidence in support of it. In spite of Malthus's and Berkut's arguments, I conclude that it is unlikely that a "take no prisoners" order was given.

[Berkut]

I don't disagree with that assessment - if i had to bet money, I would not bet on such an order having actually been given.

On the other hand, I would bet money that the troops went into that house intending to kill everyone inside of it, with the understanding that prisoners were not much to be desired.

And I don't find it implausible that such an order might have been given - I would not be willing to bet money against it either.

Overall, my assessment of the story is that it is likely some embellishment and exaggeration around a kernel of truth.

[Malthus]

The more I read Malthus's arguments, the more convinced I become that he is wrong! 

There is no solid evidence one way or the other on whether the British had "take no prisoners" orders that day.  The only pieces of evidence on the topic that we actually have are
(1) a contemporary newspaper account, poorly written (getting even Mawhood's rank wrong)
(2) The pamphlet "The Story of the Hancock House" from the NJ State Park Service, which is essentially identical to the above
(3) Simcoe's own recollection that all inside the house were killed
(4) a history of the Queen's Rangers published in 1909, which states (p. 141)

Capt. Dunlop's and Stephenson's companies attacked those in the house with such fury that every man in it was killed. This was a
lamentable occurrence and has enabled American writers to assert that these men were massacred, but it must be remembered that it was a night
attack and that Simcoe's Rangers, instead of this insignificant detachment, expected to meet a force of at least 700 or 800 men, and, of course,
a desperate resistance was expected.

https://archive.org/stream/historyofqueensr00hannuoft/historyofqueensr00hannuoft_djvu.txt

This really boils down to two pieces of evidence, IMO:  I believe that (2) above is just a copy of (1), and that (4) is a copy of (3).

Both of these pieces of evidence, it seems to me, point to the conclusion that a "take no prisoners" order was, in fact, given by someone.  The newspaper account is clearly embellished and so unreliable on the details, but is likewise clearly referencing actual events.  By itself it would mean little.  Simcoe's own account, though, implies that the newspaper account might be correct; why would Simcoe believe (contrary to the actual facts as we know them) that his men killed everyone in the house? Clearly, there was a reason for him to believe, in this one case*, that everyone had been killed.  The first reason that comes to mind is that, in  this case, he had or gave orders that no quarter was to be granted.  He'd certainly remember that detail of this one battle!

*I don't have access to Simcoe's book, but I have access to analysis of it, and none of that suggests that he thought lots of battles involved the annihilation of the opposing side

Against this, though, we have to weigh Inherent Military Probability.  We know that the British Army was not in the habit of issuing "take no prisoners" orders, so we would have to account for the specifics of the battle to think it probable that our vague evidence is leading us to the right conclusion.  Here, I find, the circumstances argue otherwise.  Insofar as we can tell, Simcoe and Mawhood expected the British to be badly outnumbered (albeit by militia) in the battle.  It is unlikely that a commander who believes he is about to fight a desperate battle against superior numbers would order that the battle be one of "take no prisoners."

I believe that the IMP evidence against such an order outweighs the available direct evidence in support of it. In spite of Malthus's and Berkut's arguments, I conclude that it is unlikely that a "take no prisoners" order was given.

I don't understand your post. You essentially reiterate my conclusions, with some different analysis of the evidence granted, yet you state that you are convinced I am wrong. 

I disagree that Simcoe thinking everyone had been killed makes it more likely that a take no prisoners order was issued. Simcoe was writing his account some time after the events. It would seem likely that he only remembered vaguely what casualties had been taken. It is clear from reading his account that what really weighed on his mind was the death of the Judge; he devotes a lot more space to explaining that, than the other deaths in the place.

As you noted earlier, memoirs written after the fact are more likely to be useful in recording motives, than exact details.

[11B4V]

The more I read Malthus's arguments, the more convinced I become that he is wrong! 

There is no solid evidence one way or the other on whether the British had "take no prisoners" orders that day.  The only pieces of evidence on the topic that we actually have are
(1) a contemporary newspaper account, poorly written (getting even Mawhood's rank wrong)
(2) The pamphlet "The Story of the Hancock House" from the NJ State Park Service, which is essentially identical to the above
(3) Simcoe's own recollection that all inside the house were killed
(4) a history of the Queen's Rangers published in 1909, which states (p. 141)

Capt. Dunlop's and Stephenson's companies attacked those in the house with such fury that every man in it was killed. This was a
lamentable occurrence and has enabled American writers to assert that these men were massacred, but it must be remembered that it was a night
attack and that Simcoe's Rangers, instead of this insignificant detachment, expected to meet a force of at least 700 or 800 men, and, of course,
a desperate resistance was expected.

https://archive.org/stream/historyofqueensr00hannuoft/historyofqueensr00hannuoft_djvu.txt

This really boils down to two pieces of evidence, IMO:  I believe that (2) above is just a copy of (1), and that (4) is a copy of (3).

Both of these pieces of evidence, it seems to me, point to the conclusion that a "take no prisoners" order was, in fact, given by someone.  The newspaper account is clearly embellished and so unreliable on the details, but is likewise clearly referencing actual events.  By itself it would mean little.  Simcoe's own account, though, implies that the newspaper account might be correct; why would Simcoe believe (contrary to the actual facts as we know them) that his men killed everyone in the house? Clearly, there was a reason for him to believe, in this one case*, that everyone had been killed.  The first reason that comes to mind is that, in  this case, he had or gave orders that no quarter was to be granted.  He'd certainly remember that detail of this one battle!

*I don't have access to Simcoe's book, but I have access to analysis of it, and none of that suggests that he thought lots of battles involved the annihilation of the opposing side

Against this, though, we have to weigh Inherent Military Probability.  We know that the British Army was not in the habit of issuing "take no prisoners" orders, so we would have to account for the specifics of the battle to think it probable that our vague evidence is leading us to the right conclusion.  Here, I find, the circumstances argue otherwise.  Insofar as we can tell, Simcoe and Mawhood expected the British to be badly outnumbered (albeit by militia) in the battle.  It is unlikely that a commander who believes he is about to fight a desperate battle against superior numbers would order that the battle be one of "take no prisoners."

I believe that the IMP evidence against such an order outweighs the available direct evidence in support of it. In spite of Malthus's and Berkut's arguments, I conclude that it is unlikely that a "take no prisoners" order was given.

I read Simcoe's Queen's Rangers: John Simcoe and His Rangers During the Revolutionary War for America and Gara's The Queen's American Rangers several months ago and you are correct.

Both are fairly detailed. Rose's book has very little on Simcoe actually