Everything's Bigger in Texas, Including Confederatardation

[Valmy]

Damn Canadian hijack of a ACW thread. Impressive.

[viper37]

Impressive.

We are Canadians, did you expect any less from us?

[Malthus]

Lacks, somewhat, the rhetorical flourish of a John Brown.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Against_Slavery

So now you're on board with John Brown?

That's not what you said in the seminal John Brown thread.

I said it lacked his rhetorical flourish.

JB:

I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood. I had as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed, it might be done.

Stirring stuff.

Here in Upper Canada, slavery was abolished by a boring piece of legislation; to read it is to have one's eyes glaze over. No "blood purging" was called for.

Of course, the benefit is that no blood purging occurred. Sometimes it is good to be boring. 

[Malthus]

It is rather perverse that a psychopath would take the lead in freeing slaves

He had a strange habit of being on the site were massacres were commited.

The only "massacre" he was accused of was a nighttime bayonet attack on a house full of Revolutionary soldiers. 

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/turn/235099/amcs-turn-the-real-story-of-capt-simcoe

I don't think anyone ever claimed he deliberately killed people on his own side, or being a sociopath, which he is shown doing in Turn. 

As the article suggests, his portrayal in the series is a deliberate exaggeration, to make things more interesting. By all (non fictional) accounts, he comes across as much more sympathetic, particularly to modern sensibilities:

In May 1792, before taking his post as governor, Simcoe warned: "From the moment that I assume the Government of Upper Canada, under no modification will I ever assent to a law that discriminates by dishonest policy between the natives of Africa, America, or Europe."

Simcoe asked the legislature of Upper Canada to end slavery in the province. At least six out of those sixteen lawmakers already owned slaves, and they resisted change. Simcoe insisted. Finally in early 1793 the two sides reached a compromise that barred people from bringing slaves into the province and provided for the gradual emancipation of people already enslaved there. This was the first law to end slavery in any part of the British Empire (Vermont and a small number of American states had ended slavery in their territories by then, but other states were importing more slaves than ever).

[viper37]

It is rather perverse that a psychopath would take the lead in freeing slaves

He had a strange habit of being on the site were massacres were commited.

The only "massacre" he was accused of was a nighttime bayonet attack on a house full of Revolutionary soldiers. 

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/turn/235099/amcs-turn-the-real-story-of-capt-simcoe

I don't think anyone ever claimed he deliberately killed people on his own side, or being a sociopath, which he is shown doing in Turn. 

On his own side, no.
But IIRC, he was present at another place where surrendering US soldiers were butchered.

he comes across as much more sympathetic, particularly to modern sensibilities:

John Brown was an abolitionist.  Being an abolotionist does not absolve you of being a psychopath   I dare say someone calling to wash the sins of a land in blood is, if not psycho, borderline psycho.

[Valmy]

John Brown was an abolitionist.  Being an abolotionist does not absolve you of being a psychopath   I dare say someone calling to wash the sins of a land in blood is, if not psycho, borderline psycho.

He was making a prophecy not a demand. An accurate one as it turned out.

But IIRC, he was present at another place where surrendering US soldiers were butchered.

Soldiers? Or militia/guerillas? Lots of irregulars during that part of the war.

[Malthus]

On his own side, no.
But IIRC, he was present at another place where surrendering US soldiers were butchered.

The one he's known for is the "Hancock House Massacre". In that operation, Simcoe was under orders to strike at a militia outpost defending a bridge. His men attacked at night, crossing the bridge (by replacing the planks the militia had removed), invading the house where the militia had holed up in, catching them by surprise and bayonetting them. Allegedly, 10 of the 30 militia in the place were killed, including the owner of the house (who was not in the militia but who was attacked anyway), the rest taken prisoner.

Only in the hothouse atmosphere of the Revolution could that be termed some sort of sociopathic war crime (for example it is sometimes asserted that everyone inside was killed and that the orders were to take no prisoners - which sorta ignores the fact that everyone inside wasn't killed and prisoners were, in fact, taken). To a dispassionate observer, it looks like a simple operation of war. You would expect a night attack at the time to be chaotic and violent - it isn't like they could bring flashlights with them.

John Brown was an abolitionist.  Being an abolotionist does not absolve you of being a psychopath   I dare say someone calling to wash the sins of a land in blood is, if not psycho, borderline psycho.

I said Simcoe comes across as relatively sympathetic: he was against slavery and more, he was for equality before the law of everyone, regardless of race.

He may have been a "psychopath" but so far there is precious little evidence for it.

[Berkut]

On his own side, no.
But IIRC, he was present at another place where surrendering US soldiers were butchered.

The one he's known for is the "Hancock House Massacre". In that operation, Simcoe was under orders to strike at a militia outpost defending a bridge. His men attacked at night, crossing the bridge (by replacing the planks the militia had removed), invading the house where the militia had holed up in, catching them by surprise and bayonetting them. Allegedly, 10 of the 30 militia in the place were killed, including the owner of the house (who was not in the militia but who was attacked anyway), the rest taken prisoner.

That is one way to tell the story.

Another way to tell the story is that the Loyalists threatened to burn the town, civilians included, if the militia did not surrender outright. When they refused, and in fact commandeered a loyalists house, Simcoe attacked, and his men shouted "Spare none! Take no quarter!" as they bayoneted 10-20 militia members, many after they had already surrendered, and certainly all of them after they were under British control.

Whether or not a "take no prisoners" order was given is not in any way repudiated by the fact that prisoners were in fact taken, since that order is commonly not strictly intended to be taken literally. It isn't like it is ok to kill a bunch of prisoners, as long as you actually do take some few.

However, most reports state that there were over 300 British troops who had surrounded the house. Since there were no more than 30 militia in the house, it seems pretty clear that it was not necessary to go in and butcher them at all, and all of them could have trivially been taken prisoner being surrounded at night with no hope of escape.

Only in the hothouse atmosphere of the Revolution could that be termed some sort of sociopathic war crime (for example it is sometimes asserted that everyone inside was killed and that the orders were to take no prisoners - which sorta ignores the fact that everyone inside wasn't killed and prisoners were, in fact, taken). To a dispassionate observer, it looks like a simple operation of war. You would expect a night attack at the time to be chaotic and violent - it isn't like they could bring flashlights with them.

Yes, clearly there was no way with a 10-1 advantage in men and the house surrounded the Brits could have avoided killing a bunch of militia and some number of civilians.

War crime? Not really. But the term "massacre" certainly applies, as they set out to kill a bunch of people they didn't actually need to kill, except to fulfill the need to terrorize the population and combatants...which was of course happening on both sides, since there was something of a mini civil war going on in the countryside.

Your telling of the story is about as biased as the telling of the story as if it were a Revolutionary War May Lai though.

[CountDeMoney]

John Brown was an abolitionist.  Being an abolotionist does not absolve you of being a psychopath   I dare say someone calling to wash the sins of a land in blood is, if not psycho, borderline psycho.

He was making a prophecy not a demand. An accurate one as it turned out.

If there was one thing John Brown was not, it was a psychopath.

[viper37]

John Brown was an abolitionist.  Being an abolotionist does not absolve you of being a psychopath   I dare say someone calling to wash the sins of a land in blood is, if not psycho, borderline psycho.

He was making a prophecy not a demand. An accurate one as it turned out.

If there was one thing John Brown was not, it was a psychopath.

reading Texas's declaration of independance, he seems to have left his mark.  You'd swear he went on a rampage all accross the South, Sherman style

[CountDeMoney]

reading Texas's declaration of independance, he seems to have left his mark.  You'd swear he went on a rampage all accross the South, Sherman style

He certainly scared the living shit out of all the them down there, that's for sure.

Once Harper's Ferry went down, the South's greatest nightmare--not Federal government interference, but slave revolts--was a possibility.  States began to seize and empty Federal arsenals, disperse their weapons throughout the south, and arm their own militias before Lincoln was even nominated.

[Oexmelin]

Once Harper's Ferry went down, the South's greatest nightmare--not Federal government interference, but slave revolts--was a possibility.  States began to seize and empty Federal arsenals, disperse their weapons throughout the south, and arm their own militias before Lincoln was even nominated.

You mean, once there was a possibility of a black man in power, people rushed to buy more guns? 

[CountDeMoney]

I KNOW WACKY RIGHT?

[Malthus]

On his own side, no.
But IIRC, he was present at another place where surrendering US soldiers were butchered.

The one he's known for is the "Hancock House Massacre". In that operation, Simcoe was under orders to strike at a militia outpost defending a bridge. His men attacked at night, crossing the bridge (by replacing the planks the militia had removed), invading the house where the militia had holed up in, catching them by surprise and bayonetting them. Allegedly, 10 of the 30 militia in the place were killed, including the owner of the house (who was not in the militia but who was attacked anyway), the rest taken prisoner.

That is one way to tell the story.

Another way to tell the story is that the Loyalists threatened to burn the town, civilians included, if the militia did not surrender outright. When they refused, and in fact commandeered a loyalists house, Simcoe attacked, and his men shouted "Spare none! Take no quarter!" as they bayoneted 10-20 militia members, many after they had already surrendered, and certainly all of them after they were under British control.

Whether or not a "take no prisoners" order was given is not in any way repudiated by the fact that prisoners were in fact taken, since that order is commonly not strictly intended to be taken literally. It isn't like it is ok to kill a bunch of prisoners, as long as you actually do take some few.

However, most reports state that there were over 300 British troops who had surrounded the house. Since there were no more than 30 militia in the house, it seems pretty clear that it was not necessary to go in and butcher them at all, and all of them could have trivially been taken prisoner being surrounded at night with no hope of escape.

Only in the hothouse atmosphere of the Revolution could that be termed some sort of sociopathic war crime (for example it is sometimes asserted that everyone inside was killed and that the orders were to take no prisoners - which sorta ignores the fact that everyone inside wasn't killed and prisoners were, in fact, taken). To a dispassionate observer, it looks like a simple operation of war. You would expect a night attack at the time to be chaotic and violent - it isn't like they could bring flashlights with them.

Yes, clearly there was no way with a 10-1 advantage in men and the house surrounded the Brits could have avoided killing a bunch of militia and some number of civilians.

War crime? Not really. But the term "massacre" certainly applies, as they set out to kill a bunch of people they didn't actually need to kill, except to fulfill the need to terrorize the population and combatants...which was of course happening on both sides, since there was something of a mini civil war going on in the countryside.

Your telling of the story is about as biased as the telling of the story as if it were a Revolutionary War May Lai though.

Attacking an outpost at night? You say " all of them could have trivially been taken prisoner" without violence. That's armchair generalship of the first order. How do you know they were only 30, and that there weren't any more in the place?  Allegedly, there had been a couple of hundred there, but they had moved out prior to the attack, leaving only a small piquet behind - amazingly enough, they hadn't bothered to tell the enemy that. So the soldiers (who, you may recall, were making a night attack) were expecting roughly equal numbers, as they had been told, and knew that speed and ferocity were the best ways of avoiding a battle in which they were likely to be horribly killed themselves.

Yet you evidently expect them to knock on the door and politely ask for a surrender, and think that's reasonable. What if, having lost the element of surprise (the thing that making a night attack was supposed to guarantee), they were met with a blast of musketry instead from the force they were expecting to be there? "oops". 

I suppose you could say that 'well, once inside, they could easily see there were only a small number of men'. But that once again is to ignore the chaotic nature of a night attack in an era before modern illumination. In point of fact, the Brits involved in the attack very nearly attacked *each other* in the dark, according to Simcoe's own account. 

Fact is that, like many incidents on both sides, this reasonably trivial military operation was inflated into a major incident by contemporary propaganda. If Americans attacked a German outpost in WW2 at night thought to contain a couple of hundred soldiers, bayonetted the ones they found, and only then discovered that there were far fewer than expected, a reasonable person would assume that was down to the fog of war - and the fact that said soldiers shouted nasty things as they went about the attack would be nether here nor there. Your position demonstrates the enduring power of Revolutionary War propaganda.

[Ed Anger]

Canada sucks.