Everything's Bigger in Texas, Including Confederatardation

[Berkut]

Yes, I suppose there could have been hundreds of men inside one house. Sure. Maybe thousands.

If the US, during WW2, was involved in attacking a group of German soldiers in a house at night, and they had a 10-1 advantage in men, then I would shed no tears if they just killed them all, sure. But if there were accounts that many of them were killed after surrendering while the GIs were shouting "Take no prisoners" then I would not turn around and claim that this was the only possible way it could go down, since in fact there are plenty of examples where forces simply surrender when outnumbered 10-1 and surrounded, and nobody kills them all, or most of them after they surrender.

I see instances (like in SPR) where you see US soldiers doing things that are clearly beyond the acceptable, yet are perfectly understandable under the cirucmstances, are we all know they will not result in anything legally actionable. There are war crimes, and then there are war crimes. Not accepting a surrender is bad when you could, but it is not the same as machine gunning a hundred POWs in a field.

I am not arguing that this was some terrible war crime in the Malmedy sense - I am sure far worse happened on both sides. I am simply arguing that YOUR insistence that the most benevolent possible interpretation is just as much a function of your own propaganda as the claim that this was some terrible atrocity. The reality is very likely somewhere boringly in between a strictly military engagement and a massacre. It wasn't Malmedy, but could very well have been "What is that? You surrender? That's nice. <STABSTABSTAB>"

The Loyalist killed a bunch of people they probably did not really have to kill because they were pissed off - because fighting these kinds of civil wars are nasty, ugly affairs driven as much by propaganda, emotions, and perception as by any military calculus. This was not some American soldiers fighting some German soldiers in France. This was American rebels and traitors  fighting British loyalists, or American militia patriots fighting Crown mercenaries and traitors, depending on whose side you were on. It is an ugly conflict - and that is my only point. It was probably not a simple military operation, and they probably did some things that they should not have, and that was certainly then exaggerated.

I say this is the likely truth, but in reality it is pretty much impossible to really say given the information we have, at least as far as I can tell. it is possible that this was a completely legit military operation conducted following perfect military discipline. It is possible it was a punitive massacre of a bunch of "miltia" and civilians. But what is likely is that it was something in between. Assuming one or the other though is in fact just wishful thinking.

[Malthus]

Yes, I suppose there could have been hundreds of men inside one house. Sure. Maybe thousands.

If the US, during WW2, was involved in attacking a group of German soldiers in a house at night, and they had a 10-1 advantage in men, then I would shed no tears if they just killed them all, sure. But if there were accounts that many of them were killed after surrendering while the GIs were shouting "Take no prisoners" then I would not turn around and claim that this was the only possible way it could go down, since in fact there are plenty of examples where forces simply surrender when outnumbered 10-1 and surrounded, and nobody kills them all, or most of them after they surrender.

I see instances (like in SPR) where you see US soldiers doing things that are clearly beyond the acceptable, yet are perfectly understandable under the cirucmstances, are we all know they will not result in anything legally actionable. There are war crimes, and then there are war crimes. Not accepting a surrender is bad when you could, but it is not the same as machine gunning a hundred POWs in a field.

I am not arguing that this was some terrible war crime in the Malmedy sense - I am sure far worse happened on both sides. I am simply arguing that YOUR insistence that the most benevolent possible interpretation is just as much a function of your own propaganda as the claim that this was some terrible atrocity. The reality is very likely somewhere boringly in between a strictly military engagement and a massacre. It wasn't Malmedy, but could very well have been "What is that? You surrender? That's nice. <STABSTABSTAB>"

The Loyalist killed a bunch of people they probably did not really have to kill because they were pissed off - because fighting these kinds of civil wars are nasty, ugly affairs driven as much by propaganda, emotions, and perception as by any military calculus. This was not some American soldiers fighting some German soldiers in France. This was American rebels and traitors  fighting British loyalists, or American militia patriots fighting Crown mercenaries and traitors, depending on whose side you were on. It is an ugly conflict - and that is my only point. It was probably not a simple military operation, and they probably did some things that they should not have, and that was certainly then exaggerated.

I say this is the likely truth, but in reality it is pretty much impossible to really say given the information we have, at least as far as I can tell. it is possible that this was a completely legit military operation conducted following perfect military discipline. It is possible it was a punitive massacre of a bunch of "miltia" and civilians. But what is likely is that it was something in between. Assuming one or the other though is in fact just wishful thinking.

Hey, *I'm* not the one insisting that "all of them could have trivially been taken prisoner". 

The notion that it was "terrorism" (and not an unfortunate confusion arising from the sheer terror and uncertainty of a dangerous attack in pitch darkness) simply defies the actual facts. 

If it was a punitive massacre of prisoners for terrorist effect - why then was one of the victims, notably, the loyalist Judge who owned the house? Allegedly, he was being held by the rebels. You would think that the Brits would have saved him, not bayonetted him - killing him is far more likely in the "fog of war in a night attack" scenario.

Why did the British troops nearly attack *each other*, after making elaborate preparations to attack from two different directions? Hardly necessary to collar 20-30 rebs. More likely, if they were attempting to make a sneak attack on a much larger force - as they allege.

The actual war diary is available, and while no doubt it is partial, there is no reason to suppose it was invented for a 21st century audience - and it makes pretty clear how things went down. Gets some details wrong though (the war diary states that everyone inside was killed, when we know that wasn't true).

https://books.google.ca/books?id=9CwJAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Hancock+House+simcoe&source=bl&ots=8oepablRbo&sig=h0MSecDpSKqw5hqK1nxV37z-LS4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZr-f0w8POAhVCkh4KHc9IARsQ6AEITzAJ#v=onepage&q=Hancock%20House%20simcoe&f=false

Some highlights:

... as it was very dark, these companies nearly attacked each other. The surprise was complete, and would have been so, had the whole of the enemy's force been present, but fortunately for them, they had quitted it the evening before, leaving a detachment of twenty to thirty men, all of whom were killed.

The diary then goes on to explain how Judge Hancock was killed, although he was "then a prisoner of the rebels", and summing it up as "events like these are the real miseries of war".

Now, of course this contemporary report by the actual participants could be fake, and you expect them to be partial to themselves. But what they describe isn't a gloating account of successful terrorism, or even an attempt to cover up the bayonetting of twenty to thirty men as a "crime" - the author passes over that as matter-of-fact.

What it is, is an account of failure - failure to ambush the expected force, failure in that one of those killed was one of their own. The author is far more concerned with the killing of Judge Hancock, than with the killing of the rebels: the author devotes nearly half a page to the circumstances around the killing of Hancock, and a mere clause in one sentence to bayonetting the rebs. 

All of which is far more consistent with "night attack gone wrong" (an 18th century night attack gone wrong? That's unpossible!  ), than with your notion of a deliberate act of terrorism.

Naturally, after the attack, that's what propaganda blew it up to be: another chapter of British evil. There is no reason for rational and objective viewers to buy into that narrative at this late date, though. 

[Berkut]

I don't think reports like that are "fake", but they are self serving.

There is zero chance that if they did in fact kill any of those men after they had surrendered, it would be in that account. Of course they don't mention it, why would they?

The account as written is precisely what one would expect if it was an example of a nasty little fight were the one side decided that they weren't going to be taking prisoners this evening, and killed those who tried to surrender.

What one would expect if they were not so inclined is that there would be some normal number of dead/wounded/captured that we see in military engagements. Instead we see 100% killed, no prisoners, no wounded when one side had a 10-1 advantage in men over the other.

Is it possible that they went in, and tried to take prisoners when appropriate but the sleeping militia men were just too ferocious to allow such a thing?

Sure. It is possible. But naturally, after the attack, the British propaganda minimized it as another chapter in the noble Brits trying to pacify the traitors, and they had no choice but to kill them all to a man. There is no reason for rational and objective viewer to but into that narrative at this late date though.

[Malthus]

I don't think reports like that are "fake", but they are self serving.

Admittedly, they are going to be partial. The issue is: what concerns does the author express? What, in short, does the author wish to excuse or explain to the audience? That can tell you a lot.

Here, the author wants to excuse or explain two things:

(1) why the operation did not succeed in ambushing the whole enemy they were after; and

(2) why they killed Judge Hancock, who was a reb prisoner and on their side.

The need to excuse these two things makes no sense whatsoever, if the operation was intended to be a terrorist action, or one that resulted in killing obviously surrendered prisoners.

It makes no sense to attempt to excuse a failure to ambush the whole of the enemy, unless they intended a military operation to attack a much larger enemy than was actually present. It makes no sense that they would have killed a prominent Tory, a prisoner of the rebs, if they had time to know that the rebs "had surrendered", and *then* killed them.

In short, killing a Tory judge simply makes more sense in the context of a raging night attack, than it does in the context of a deliberate, cold-blooded murder of surrendered prisoners.

There is zero chance that if they did in fact kill any of those men after they had surrendered, it would be in that account. Of course they don't mention it, why would they?

Of course they wouldn't say they had committed what, even then, would have been questionable. But they don't even attempt to address it. It simply isn't one of the things they felt they had to excuse or explain.

If they had felt they had committed improper acts, you would reasonably expect the author to offer up some sort of excuse - as he does for two other failures, as noted above

The account as written is precisely what one would expect if it was an example of a nasty little fight were the one side decided that they weren't going to be taking prisoners this evening, and killed those who tried to surrender.

Actually, it isn't. If that was the case, you'd expect some sort of self-serving statements about the killing, or even some sort of remorse (as offered over the killing of Hancock).

What one would expect if they were not so inclined is that there would be some normal number of dead/wounded/captured that we see in military engagements. Instead we see 100% killed, no prisoners, no wounded when one side had a 10-1 advantage in men over the other.

But there was. The author is wrong on this detail: the author claims 100% were killed, when in fact that wasn't true: we know from other sources only 8-10 were killed, the rest wounded or taken prisoner.

It is odd that, if the author was concocting a self-serving account to excuse his own culpability for a cold blooded killing in the war diary, he set out to make things look *worse* for himself.

Is it possible that they went in, and tried to take prisoners when appropriate but the sleeping militia men were just too ferocious to allow such a thing?

Sure. It is possible. But naturally, after the attack, the British propaganda minimized it as another chapter in the noble Brits trying to pacify the traitors, and they had no choice but to kill them all to a man. There is no reason for rational and objective viewer to but into that narrative at this late date though.

What "British propaganda"?  The War Diary wasn't published until the 19th century! A trifle too late, one imagines, to affect the outcome of the Revolutionary War, no?

But nice try in attempting a false equivalence.

To my mind, it is pretty clear what happened: the troops were keyed up for a dangerous night attack; they had been told that they faced a large number of enemies, presumably scattered throughout the hamlet, as described in the war diary; so the attack had to go in fast and hard, to overawe the enemy before any resistance could be organized. That's why they killed the sentries - silently with the bayonet - and that's why they were ordered to use the bayonet only: presumably, no firing until the signal was given; no prisoners taken, until the attack was seen to succeed (you may as well ask - why didn't they take the two sentries prisoner? The answer ought to be obvious: taking the sentries prisoner would make noise and waste time; it may have been noticed, leading to a failure of the surprise necessary for the attack). 

The Brits did not know that the mass of enemy troops had pulled out the day before, leaving only a small detachment. Unfortunate for the Brits (whose attack was thus a waste); doubly unfortunate for the Rebs in that detachment (many of whom were killed before the Brits realized they were only facing a small detachment, and not part of a much larger force); also unfortunately for Judge Hancock (who was bayonetted in the initial assault - something that simply would not have happened if the prisoners had been killed after they had surrendered).

Seems to me that account (1) fits with the known facts, and (2) is perfectly reasonable.

In contrast, the notion that the Brits deliberately and willfully executed surrendered prisoners requires ignoring the known facts, so it is not to be preferred (I would have thought).

[Berkut]

Your "known facts" are all the facts that this account says are the facts, except when it doesn't conveniently fit with your story.

IE, it is a "fact" that they didn't kill surrendered prisoners, because they don't say the did so, but it is NOT a fact that they killed all the prisoners, because some other account says that they did not. You are just cherry picking the propaganda that fits into the narrative you want to be true.

If we accept that their account is false (which you do when you say that they were wrong in how many they killed) why should we accept that it is true when they don't mention something very indicting to them, like they refused to take prisoners?

the notion that the Brits deliberately and willfully executed surrendered prisoners

I see we are into the strawman phase, so I suppose this doesn't have much more legs to it as a discussion.

[Malthus]

Your "known facts" are all the facts that this account says are the facts, except when it doesn't conveniently fit with your story.

IE, it is a "fact" that they didn't kill surrendered prisoners, because they don't say the did so, but it is NOT a fact that they killed all the prisoners, because some other account says that they did not. You are just cherry picking the propaganda that fits into the narrative you want to be true.

If we accept that their account is false (which you do when you say that they were wrong in how many they killed) why should we accept that it is true when they don't mention something very indicting to them, like they refused to take prisoners?

Huh? Admitting that an eyewitness wasn't 100% accurate (as I have done) and admitting that they are likely to be partial (as I have also done) isn't the same thing as throwing up one's hands and inventing facts that are simply not in evidence.

You claim I am "cherry picking the propaganda". Let's stop right there and ask a couple of questions.

First, I posted the link to Simcoe's War Diary, right to the page in question. How is that "cherry picking"? You are free to read it. You are free to find other sources. Strikes me that linking to original sources is sorta the opposite of "cherry picking".

Second, you claim this is "propaganda". Now, to my mind the whole point of "propaganda" is to influence the public to one's own POV. How can a diary, only published decades later, be "propaganda"? How was Simcoe attempting to influence the public?

the notion that the Brits deliberately and willfully executed surrendered prisoners

I see we are into the strawman phase, so I suppose this doesn't have much more legs to it as a discussion.

Oh, please. Do you forget so quickly what you wrote?

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.

[Emphasis]

Getting unreasonably touchy over how your argument is put isn't a great "out" from a debate where the facts are against you.

[jimmy olsen]

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.

John Quincy Adams in the House of Representatives as a congressman post presidency, denouncing the gag rule and the Slave Power said.

We know the redemption must come. The time and the manner of its coming we know not: It may come in peace, or it may come in blood; but whether in peace or in blood, LET IT COME.

Alabama Representative Dellet later quoted the speech in the House of Representatives and added "

though it cost the blood of thousands of white men?"

Adams stunned the House into silence by replying

Though it cost the blood of millions of white men, let it come. Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

This was 1843 IIRC. Was JQA a psychopath?

[The Minsky Moment]

Quincy wasn't in the habit of hacking people to pieces with a broadsword.  A subtle distinction perhaps.

[The Minsky Moment]

As for Simcoe, as a servant of the wicked KG III, he carried out with enthusiasm the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

We must excuse Malthus, who due to our unfortunate failures to liberate our neighbors to the North from royalist oppression, meekly swallow the feeble excuses advanced by British propagandists in favor of their false heroes, along with other unspeakable indignities (such as the "sport" of curling).  Although seemingly reasonable under normal circumstances, when it comes to varlets like Butcher Simcoe, he is as incapable of seeing the brutal ugly truth as Mono is when he takes the side of the ChiCom tyrants against the tribunes of liberty in the streets of Hong Kong. 

[Sheilbh]

There is zero chance that if they did in fact kill any of those men after they had surrendered, it would be in that account. Of course they don't mention it, why would they?

The account as written is precisely what one would expect if it was an example of a nasty little fight were the one side decided that they weren't going to be taking prisoners this evening, and killed those who tried to surrender.

Why would it not be in a diary? It's going to be partial but would a diary really be precisely that sort of account? Maybe his diaries are full of sort of thing but I can't see why it'd be discounted.

I get the British propaganda point but I'm not sure why it would be that way in a man's diary - beyond his own natural biases and desire to see himself in the best light.

[Berkut]

There is zero chance that if they did in fact kill any of those men after they had surrendered, it would be in that account. Of course they don't mention it, why would they?

The account as written is precisely what one would expect if it was an example of a nasty little fight were the one side decided that they weren't going to be taking prisoners this evening, and killed those who tried to surrender.

Why would it not be in a diary? It's going to be partial but would a diary really be precisely that sort of account? Maybe his diaries are full of sort of thing but I can't see why it'd be discounted.

I get the British propaganda point but I'm not sure why it would be that way in a man's diary - beyond his own natural biases and desire to see himself in the best light.

It is called the "War Diary" but it is not a personal diary, it is Simcoe's account that he published about his units participation.

[Sheilbh]

He privately published it for friends it wasn't widely published until the 1840s. Again I can see the motivation to make himself look as good as he couldn't. But I don't see why it should be treated as immediately untrustworthy - obviously you may be right and his diary could be full of self-exculpation, I don't know. But it seems a reasonable source to treat with care rather than just scepticism.

[grumbler]

Quincy wasn't in the habit of hacking people to pieces with a broadsword.  A subtle distinction perhaps.

I'm not sure that's a distinction our University of Wikipedia historians can make.

[Malthus]

He privately published it for friends it wasn't widely published until the 1840s. Again I can see the motivation to make himself look as good as he couldn't. But I don't see why it should be treated as immediately untrustworthy - obviously you may be right and his diary could be full of self-exculpation, I don't know. But it seems a reasonable source to treat with care rather than just scepticism.

Certainly.

My approach, acknowledging that the man is likely to be partial to himself and to his cause, is to ask: what in the diary did Simcoe take care to explain or excuse?

That, it seems to me, is the telling point: he takes great care to attempt to explain or excuse why his attack didn't net the large force he thought it would, and the (to him unfortunate) death of the Judge.

He simply wasn't concerned to explain or excuse the killing of the Rebel soldiers. The inference: that he did not think that required explaining or excusing.

[The Brain]

Quincy wasn't in the habit of hacking people to pieces with a broadsword.  A subtle distinction perhaps.

If he was, would he put it in his diary?