QuoteWhere the Confederacy Is Rising Again
In east Texas, a group of true believers is helping build the largest Confederate monument in a century. Is the state itself helping keep the memory alive?
By John Savage
Politico.com
August 10, 2016
In July 2015, with national controversy over displays of the Confederate flag at a ferocious peak, five Texas Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to the state's top elected officials arguing that some of the dozen Confederate memorials at the Texas state Capitol "espouse a whitewashed version of history." The letter came a month after a 19-year-old white supremacist murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, a hate crime that jump-started a national conversation about the meaning of Confederate symbols.
The letter was sent to Governor Greg Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and House Speaker Joe Straus. Only Straus responded. In November, he ordered a House committee to review the "historical intent and significance" of the monuments and make recommendations to the State Preservation Board. When the review finally takes place, likely in the few months right before the November elections, Texas lawmakers will find themselves in a tough spot: They will be forced to either deny historical truths about the Confederacy, or potentially face the wrath of a devoted, active and organized subset of conservative Texans. Monument supporters and protesters alike are anxious they will be on the losing end of the committee's recommendations.
Nowhere has the national re-examination of Confederate emblems been more riven with controversy than the Lone Star State. In cities across Texas, monuments have been vandalized, and sharp-edged arguments have erupted over the renaming of schools dedicated to Confederate icons. Last summer, in the north Texas town of Denton, a 22-year-old man carrying a loaded AR-15 confronted a 69-year-old black man protesting a Confederate monument in the town square. In May 2015, at the University of Texas at Austin, vandals spray-painted "Emancipate UT" on a larger-than-life bronze statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. (After heated debate over what to do with the statue, the University emancipated the Confederate icon from his prominent public location.) And in the past few months, the Houston Independent School District voted to rechristen eight public schools that had been named after Confederate heroes, a move that has sparked a lawsuit.
Throughout this tempest, the Texas chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an aging army of deeply religious, federal government distrusting, neo-Confederate true believers, has emerged as a steadfast defender of Confederate iconography. The Texas SCV only claims about 5,000 members, but their ideology carries significant weight in the state. SCV members sued the University of Texas in an effort to stop the removal of the Jefferson Davis statue. They distributed more than 1,000 Confederate flags in Fort Worth after the Fort Worth Stock Show and Rodeo banned the Confederate battle flag. Wherever someone wants to rename a school or remove a statue that honors the Confederacy, the SCV's members soon follow.
But the Texas SCV is not only fighting against the disappearance of Confederate symbolism, they are behind the construction of what is likely the largest Confederate memorial built in a century—a multi-ton shrine nearing completion in an east Texas town near the Louisiana border. For the SCV, this battle is not just about protecting a Confederate heritage, it's about resurrecting it, restoring that heritage so that they will continue to have something to protect.
With tempers flaring across Texas and with lawmakers set to debate the historical accuracy of the Capitol's Confederate memorials in the waning months of the 2016 election, the men of the SCV say they're misunderstood. And while they acknowledge the recent success of their opponents in other states, they insist that in Texas, the Confederacy will prevail.
***
The first time I called Jim Toungate, the adjutant of the Williamson County chapter of the Texas SCV, he invited me to his home in Georgetown, a central Texas community about 30 miles north of Austin.
When I arrived, it took Toungate, a wide, mustachioed 72-year-old, several minutes to open the door of his limestone-veneered ranch house. He had stubbed his toe, he said after letting me in, and "it was bleeding like a stuck hog—real ugly."
Toungate offered me a cup of coffee, and hobbled to the kitchen to brew it, passing a flat-screen television tuned to Fox News. Above the TV set, a shelf was lined with Minié balls, cannonballs and books with titles such as The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War and Unwavering Duty: Jefferson Davis. Toungate said he was a student of history—had been his whole life—but has really "kicked it up a notch" since he retired seven years ago after four decades working for the railroads.
"People don't realize the true history of the South," Toungate calmly said as he spooned the ground beans into a coffeemaker. "It's really a crying shame."
We sat down at his kitchen table, which was covered with maps of Israel. In January 2016, Toungate took a 12-day trip to the nation and was "re-baptized in the Jordan River," he said. Toungate says that he faithfully listens to sermons on CD from Endtime Ministries, a Plano-based ministry that preaches that Armageddon is nigh.
I told Toungate that as a 41-year-old white man who grew up in North Carolina, I spent my formative years surrounded by gauzy renderings of the Old South. I remember learning about the chivalry of Southern soldiers from my Cub Scout leader and taking plantation tours that all but omitted slavery. But I also learned—I don't remember exactly where—that slavery underpinned the Confederacy. I asked Toungate how he could square his Christianity with this hard truth.
"I had five grandfathers who fought for the Confederacy, and they were religious people who didn't treat black people badly," Toungate said, earnestly, his Southern drawl growing thicker as he spoke. "They were fighting for states' rights, not slavery." According to Toungate, before secession, the federal government mistreated Southern states by issuing unfair tariffs. "Thirty thousand blacks fought for the Confederacy because they loved their masters," Toungate argued, offering the fact as proof that "slavery could not have caused the war."
After pouring the coffee, Toungate took me to his study. Flags covered the walls: a Gadsden flag, a Texas flag, a "Come and Take It" flag, and several large Confederate battle flags. "This is the history of my family. We fought in the War Between the States, the War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War," he said, pointing to the flags.
But the Ku Klux Klan uses the Confederate flag—isn't it a symbol of white supremacy? "The KKK also uses the U.S. flag," Toungate said. "No one's saying we should stop flying that."
Toungate led me into a walk-in closet filled with Confederate uniforms. He opened a shiny black gun safe and handed me a black-powder rifle and six-shooter. "The weapons are replicas of guns made around the time of the War Between the States," he explained.
Toungate collects the flags and guns because they connect him to his ancestors. "It's my family's heritage," he said. "It's important to me."
***
Despite the sincerely held historical views of Toungate and his ilk, almost all professional historians agree on the cause of the Civil War. "The Confederacy's agenda was about expanding slavery," says Kevin Levin, founder of the popular blog Civil War Memory and author of the forthcoming book, Searching for Black Confederate Soldiers: The Civil War's Most Persistent Myth.
As I related the arguments that Toungate had told me—the claim that Southern states seceded to protect their rights from a tariff-imposing federal government, for instance—Levin exhaled a knowing sigh. He often hears this claim from SCV members, he said, and it is simply not true. What about the 30,000 African-Americans fighting for the Confederacy? "Another myth," Levin says.
Levin pointed to the words of Confederates themselves, particularly Texas' Ordinance of Secession. The document, which officially separated Texas from the Union in 1861, declared that African-Americans were "rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race." It says that Texas seceded because non-slave-holding states "demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the Confederacy." The document does not mention tariffs or any state right other than the right to own black people.
Toungate waved off the document when I showed it to him later. "People have a distorted view of the Confederacy because liberal Northern historians wrote the history books," he insisted. But these are primary sources, I noted, the words of the Confederates themselves. Toungate went silent for a beat, and then changed the subject. "I'm sick of the federal government wasting money," he said, and "people living off welfare."
Levin understands why some people cling to a Southern-fried understanding of the Confederacy in the face of contradictory primary evidence. "A lot of these people have ancestors that fought for the Confederacy and that personal connection, of course, colors how they view the event," he said. Slavery, after all, was abhorrent. Who wants to admit that their family members fought to preserve it?
The SCV's rejection of unequivocal historical fact, can, in part, be attributed to what psychologists call "motivated reasoning," says Sander van der Linden, a Princeton University psychologist and director of the school's Social and Environmental Decision-Making Lab. When people are emotionally invested in a belief, says van der Linden, they are inclined to accept information that confirms pre-existing beliefs and to dismiss conflicting evidence. It helps explain climate change denial, Young Earth creationism, the anti-vaccine movement, and the belief that Obama is a closet Muslim (which, incidentally, Toungate also believes).
Neo-Confederate adamancy is as much about reactionary politics and identity as it is about history. It's a declaration of values, a way of seeing the world, and its prevalence divides along political lines. Polls show that Democrats tend to view Confederate symbols, such as the battle flag, as emblems of racism, while Republicans more often see them as representations of Southern heritage.
And in Texas—the epicenter of anti-government angst, the home of the last two Republicans elected president, where Democrats haven't won a statewide election in 22 years—conservatism and Confederate mythology continue to dominate.
***
To understand how neo-Confederate "Lost Cause" mythology continues to pervade modern Texas, I met with a former colleague who now teaches social studies in the same county where Toungate lives. A gray-haired Army veteran, he greeted me in a Starbucks parking lot, carrying a plastic bag full of state-approved history textbooks. One book published by McGraw-Hill Education, features a section titled, "The South Secedes," which states that "the majority of Southerners viewed secession as ... a necessary course of action to uphold people's rights." The section does not list specific rights.
Asked about the oddity of casting individual liberty as the Confederates' primary belief, the teacher, who requested anonymity out of fear for his job, pointed to Texas' state curriculum standards on the Civil War: "Students are expected to identify the causes of the Civil War, including sectionalism, states' rights, and slavery." At the time of their adoption in 2010, a member of the state board of education said that the standards listed slavery third because it was a "side issue to the Civil War." :lol:
The Texas Education Knowledge and Skills guidelines for teaching the Civil War offer a crystal-clear example of how the state curriculum politicizes history, says Mary Helen Berlanga, a Democrat who served on the State Board of Education from 1984 to 2012. The history standards, she told me, "whitewash slavery." In a 2011 report, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank focused on education policy, echoed that opinion, calling the TEKS social studies standards a "politicized distortion of history." "Slavery ... is largely missing," the report reads. "Sectionalism and states' rights are listed before slavery as causes of the Civil War, while the issue of slavery in the territories—the actual trigger for the [Civil War]—is never mentioned at all. During and after Reconstruction, there is no mention of the Black Codes, the Ku Klux Klan, or sharecropping; the term 'Jim Crow' never appears. Incredibly, racial segregation is only mentioned in a passing reference to the 1948 integration of the armed forces."
Don McElroy, the conservative Republican who chaired the State Board of Education in 2010 when the Civil War standards were adopted, vehemently disagrees with the Fordham Institute's view. "We wanted to remove the liberal bias from the standards and restore the biblical foundations of our country," he told me via phone. "I think we did that, I really do."
In his book, Race and Reunion, Yale historian David Blight argues that after the Civil War, Southern whites coped with crushing defeat by justifying why they had seceded. Reluctant to admit the Civil War was fought over slavery—a moral anachronism in much of the world at the time—many Southerners framed the war as a fight for states' rights. Blight argues that Southern whites worked, through memorials and monuments, to etch the false narrative in the nation's collective memory.
Giving Confederate monuments places of pride in town squares and in front of government buildings proved an enduring way of shaping public memory. Across Texas, at least 178 publicly sponsored symbols honoring the Confederacy occupy prominent positions, including monuments, schools and roads dedicated to Confederate icons. Most were erected at the turn of the 20th century, as Confederate veterans were beginning to die of old age, and a second wave of dedications came during the 1950s and 1960s, presumably in response to African-Americans' fight for civil rights.
But in 2016, Texans haven't stopped erecting new memorials to the Confederacy.
In Orange, a small east Texas city on the Louisiana border, the privately funded Confederate Memorial of the Wind is nearing completion. With 13 large Greek columns and 26–32 Confederate flags, it will be the largest Confederate monument built in a century, according to the SCV.
Granvel Block, former Texas SCV Commander and the mind behind the monument, says that surging public sentiment in favor of removing Confederate memorials has galvanized the neo-Confederates into action. Despite the opposition of many of Orange's residents, the SCV is determined to finish the Confederate Memorial of the Wind.
Once completed, their monument will stand at the intersection of Intestate 10 and Martin Luther King Jr Drive.
***
No place more clearly reaffirms Texas' continued support of Confederate mythologizing more than the State Capitol and its grounds in Austin, which feature at least a dozen memorials, statues and other nods to the Confederacy. Perhaps the most prominent, the Confederate Soldiers Monument, dominates the southern entrance to the Capitol grounds. It is impossible to miss: an 8-foot statue of Jefferson Davis atop a 23-foot-tall granite base with four 7-foot bronze Confederate soldiers standing at his feet. The inscription etched into the memorial's base dedicates the sculpture to Confederate soldiers who "Died for state rights guaranteed under the Constitution." "The people of the South animated by the spirit of 1776," it continues, "to preserve their rights, withdrew from the federal compact in 1861. The North resorted to coercion."
Other memorials at the Capitol include an almost 50-foot-tall monument honoring a Texas Confederate brigade; a Confederate seal on the floor of the Capitol; several portraits of Confederate heroes, including a painting of Jefferson Davis in the state Senate chamber; and a plaque erected by the Texas Division of the Children of the Confederacy in 1959. The plaque reads, in part: "the War Between the States was not a rebellion, nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery."
The July 2015 letter in which Democratic lawmakers asked for a review of the Capitol's pro-Confederate monuments calls out that plaque's statement as an "outright falsehood." In an email to me, state Sen. Rodney Ellis, one of the letter's signatories, said that it is undeniable that the memorials are "part of an effort to rewrite history." "The Texas Capitol — the face of our state government," said Ellis, "ought not to celebrate individuals whose notoriety stems from their service in defense of human slavery."
But Toungate and the other Texas SCV members I spoke with vow that removing or altering the memorials would mean surrendering to politically correct, liberal distortion.
During my last visit to Toungate's home, his television was again tuned to Fox News, and two pundits were discussing the rise of Donald Trump. (Most of the neo-Confederates I spoke with said they support Trump.) During a commercial, I told Toungate that I understood the love he had for his ancestors, but it seemed unequivocal that the Confederacy fought for slavery, and by extension, white supremacy.
"You've been listening to Northerners who have moved down here and are raising Cain about Texas being racist," Toungate said. "Confederate men were good Christians, and they don't deserve to be treated like dirt."
Syt's thread was better.
Syt is gone, but feel free to bump his thread if you're feeling too defensive, and I will be more than happy to drag my nutsack all over it as I lip-sync pucker my bunghole to The Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Why would I be care enough to be defensive about what people build essentially under a bridge in Orange? :huh:
Syt's thread had an illustration. Better.
E: That was more than a year ago, actually. I wonder why these morons haven't finished their masterpiece yet.
WELL SYT ISNT HERE AND IM TRYING TO DO THE BEST I CAN
*Breaks dish in sink, puts hand on forehead, slight sob*
:hug:
I got you covered:
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/06/Texas_Confederate_Memorial/4bb3b8f39.jpg)
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13009.0.html
Granvel Block is a helluva name. I really don't think you could be anything but a....former?... fake Lt Commander in some crazy town Confederate organization with that on your driver's license.
God Bless Texas :alberta:
lol, looks like a silhouette of a guitar in the grass, so I guess it can double as a memorial to the Confederacy and Lyle Lovett.
:lol: I was just looking at that shit on google earth. They need to mow.
Oooo, you can receive Texas Division Crest. I assume it whitens as well as cleans.
I almost feel bad for my ancestors. They published a declaration declaring their intention to start a war to preserve slavery and their descendants insist they were liars. But maybe my ancestors were PC Liberals trying to distort the truth about themselves or something.
Anyway here is what my ancestors said about why they seceded: https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html
QuoteThe States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.
Psst: they are talking about fugitive slave clause.
QuoteIn all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
Really this needs to be on those Confederate monuments. I mean you would print the Declaration of Independence on Revolutionary War monuments right?
QuoteFor years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.
Can you believe it? The Feds did not pass a law outlawing abolitionists from electing representatives to Congress!!111 I mean geez talk about a violation of the spirit of 1776!
QuoteBy consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
Really they make the Northerners sound way more heroic and united in their opposition to slavery than they really deserve.
QuoteThey have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
'They' being John Brown and his posse.
QuoteThey have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
Outside agitators.
QuoteThey have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
I swear these last three seem to be almost exclusively about John Brown and a tiny minority of abolitionists.
QuoteThey have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
This is the only line in the whole document to maybe mention tariffs. But far from impoverishing the slave-holding states 1860 was their biggest year ever in the cotton crop. But one would think instead of storming on and on about slavery they might lead with this if it was the primary reason. And again I thought the Democrats had decisively won this debate and the tariffs were only what the Federal Government needed to operate, which is what the Confederate government also intended to do.
QuoteThey have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
Also something they should put on the Confederate monuments,.
Oh and here is the Texas Declaration of Secession's version of the 'We Hold These Truths to be Self Evident':
QuoteWe hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
LOLZ I mean really.
And the only time God or Jesus is to invoked is to declare that Blacks are inferior by divine law. So why being a good Christian is supposed to excuse anything I have no idea.
I swear to God I have no idea how these idiots get around ignoring the fucking Declaration of Secession. It is like they are claiming the people in 1860 were liars or something.
But just to be clear about these people when I was in the Texas Military Museum and when I got to the Civil War this document was right there transcribed and invited people to read. Of course the sort of people who visit that kind of museum STILL voted that secession was right EVEN WITH THIS DOCUMENT EXPLAINING IT WAS ALL ABOUT WHITE SUPREMACY AND SLAVERY. So it is pretty obvious that in fact they agree with it.
I mean I can forgive the people of 1860 for various reasons but I have little patience for Neo-Confederates.
Confederate identity expresses itself too frequently as a sort of Republican Plus regional variant right-wing extremism. Southern identity politics need to tack to the center in a major way. There should be a Southern party that supports reparations, handouts and autonomy for the colored community.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2016, 11:51:03 PM
I almost feel bad for my ancestors. They published a declaration declaring their intention to start a war to preserve slavery and their descendants insist they were liars. But maybe my ancestors were PC Liberals trying to distort the truth about themselves or something.
Anyway here is what my ancestors said about why they seceded: https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html
That declaration is awesome. :lol:
The other states' are pretty good as well. At least Texas mentions something that could be about Tariffs. The others don't.
I like the one for Mississippi: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp short and uses small words.
That they list for reasons for secession:
QuoteThe hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
So the Mississippians were leaving the Union because of a law passed 30 years before they joined the Union.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 10:15:00 AM
The other states' are pretty good as well. At least Texas mentions something that could be about Tariffs. The others don't.
I like the one for Mississippi: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp short and uses small words.
That they list for reasons for secession: QuoteThe hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
So the Mississippians were leaving the Union because of a law passed 30 years before they joined the Union.
I'm a sucker for these sorts of historical documents. :)
I remember once coming across the act of the legislature of Upper Canada outlawing slavery - in 1793. I was researching something quite different at the time.
In typical colonial fashion, the Act itself is the opposite of inspiring - it's a long-worded compromise: slave-owners are to get compensation, existing slaves to be gradually emancipated, no new slaves to be introduced.
The only inspiring bit is in the preamble" "Whereas it is unjust that a people who enjoy Freedom by Law should encourage the introduction of Slaves ... ". Then goes on to spell out the compromise.
Lacks, somewhat, the rhetorical flourish of a John Brown. ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Against_Slavery
I like South Carolina's because it is sophisticated and makes a strong legal case for secession on the basis that the Northern States had annulled the Fugitive Slave Clause and had thus broken the compact. But, you have to admit, it makes it a bit weak to claim they seceded to preserve State's Rights. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
QuoteThe General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 10:26:49 AM
I'm a sucker for these sorts of historical documents. :)
I remember once coming across the act of the legislature of Upper Canada outlawing slavery - in 1793. I was researching something quite different at the time.
In typical colonial fashion, the Act itself is the opposite of inspiring - it's a long-worded compromise: slave-owners are to get compensation, existing slaves to be gradually emancipated, no new slaves to be introduced.
The only inspiring bit is in the preamble" "Whereas it is unjust that a people who enjoy Freedom by Law should encourage the introduction of Slaves ... ". Then goes on to spell out the compromise.
Lacks, somewhat, the rhetorical flourish of a John Brown. ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Against_Slavery
Almost identical acts freed the slaves in the Northern States. Was this their model or did they pass those acts first?
Edit: It's details are identical to Connecticut's gradual emancipation act of 1784 which itself was based on a similar act (but not identical as all children born after the act was passed were born free) passed in Pennsylvania in 1780.
So we did it first USA USA USA
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 10:26:49 AM
I'm a sucker for these sorts of historical documents. :)
I remember once coming across the act of the legislature of Upper Canada outlawing slavery - in 1793. I was researching something quite different at the time.
In typical colonial fashion, the Act itself is the opposite of inspiring - it's a long-worded compromise: slave-owners are to get compensation, existing slaves to be gradually emancipated, no new slaves to be introduced.
The only inspiring bit is in the preamble" "Whereas it is unjust that a people who enjoy Freedom by Law should encourage the introduction of Slaves ... ". Then goes on to spell out the compromise.
Lacks, somewhat, the rhetorical flourish of a John Brown. ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Against_Slavery
Almost identical acts freed the slaves in the Northern States. Was this their model or did they pass those acts first?
I'm not sure. When were those acts passed?
One interesting note: the person behind passing the Act was John Graves Simcoe - the same guy who was portrayed as the perverse, psychopathic bad guy in the TV series "Turn". :lol: Needless to say, in Ontario he has a - slightly different reputation. ;)
In real life of course he'd served in the colonies that became to US, so he may have familiarity with whatever legal currents were prevalent there.
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 10:41:25 AM
One interesting note: the person behind passing the Act was John Graves Simcoe - the same guy who was portrayed as the perverse, psychopathic bad guy in the TV series "Turn". :lol: Needless to say, in Ontario he has a - slightly different reputation. ;)
In real life of course he'd served in the colonies that became to US, so he may have familiarity with whatever legal currents were prevalent there.
I noticed the similarity and thought it was a weird coincidence. But it is the same guy. Heh.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 10:45:30 AM
I noticed the similarity and thought it was a weird coincidence. But it is the same guy. Heh.
Yup. After serving on the Brit side in the Revolution, he became GG for Upper Canada, where he was very active.
Here, remnants of his service are everywhere. My dad's cottage is in Simcoe County, near Lake Simcoe; he's revered for all sorts of colonial era foundations; he passed the legislation that emancipated the slaves.
Contrary to his recent TV portrayal, he hardly
ever horribly murdered or stalked anyone while in office. :D
When I first saw that show, I laughed out loud. It's as if the Brits did a miniseries in which George Washington was portrayed as having a pre-revolution career as a serial killer. ;)
QuoteI had five grandfathers who fought for the Confederacy
That son of a whore!
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 10:41:25 AM
One interesting note: the person behind passing the Act was John Graves Simcoe - the same guy who was portrayed as the perverse, psychopathic bad guy in the TV series "Turn". :lol: Needless to say, in Ontario he has a - slightly different reputation. ;)
Canadian propaganda at its best! ;)
The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know :)
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 12:03:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 10:41:25 AM
One interesting note: the person behind passing the Act was John Graves Simcoe - the same guy who was portrayed as the perverse, psychopathic bad guy in the TV series "Turn". :lol: Needless to say, in Ontario he has a - slightly different reputation. ;)
Canadian propaganda at its best! ;)
The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know :)
It is rather perverse that a psychopath would take the lead in freeing slaves :hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on August 12, 2016, 11:53:22 AM
QuoteI had five grandfathers who fought for the Confederacy
That son of a whore!
His Grandmas really got around.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 12:07:39 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 12:03:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 10:41:25 AM
One interesting note: the person behind passing the Act was John Graves Simcoe - the same guy who was portrayed as the perverse, psychopathic bad guy in the TV series "Turn". :lol: Needless to say, in Ontario he has a - slightly different reputation. ;)
Canadian propaganda at its best! ;)
The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know :)
It is rather perverse that a psychopath would take the lead in freeing slaves :hmm:
Perhaps it is no fun abusing and torturing slaves - it's simply expected. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 12:31:06 PM
Perhaps it is no fun abusing and torturing slaves - it's simply expected. :hmm:
That sick Tory bastard!
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 12:03:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 10:41:25 AM
One interesting note: the person behind passing the Act was John Graves Simcoe - the same guy who was portrayed as the perverse, psychopathic bad guy in the TV series "Turn". :lol: Needless to say, in Ontario he has a - slightly different reputation. ;)
Canadian propaganda at its best! ;)
The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know :)
My guess is that the writers of the series simply expected most people not to know who he was, because in the US he's a relatively obscure figure, so making him the psychopathic villain just made for more entertaining TV.
It just so happens he's not an obscure figure
in Ontario for reasons having nothing to do with the Revolution, but I don't expect the writers of the series knew that (or cared if they did know).
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 10:54:25 AM
When I first saw that show, I laughed out loud. It's as if the Brits did a miniseries in which George Washington was portrayed as having a pre-revolution career as a serial killer. ;)
He did slaughter groves full of innocent cherry trees in his bloody swath.
Oh and there's the little matter of starting the Seven Years War . . .
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 10:26:49 AM
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. :contract:
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 12:07:39 PM
It is rather perverse that a psychopath would take the lead in freeing slaves :hmm:
He had a strange habit of being on the site were massacres were commited.
Damn Canadian hijack of a ACW thread. Impressive.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 01:28:38 PM
Impressive.
We are Canadians, did you expect any less from us? :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2016, 01:12:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 10:26:49 AM
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. :contract:
I said it lacked his rhetorical flourish.
JB:
QuoteI, 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. :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 01:26:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 12:07:39 PM
It is rather perverse that a psychopath would take the lead in freeing slaves :hmm:
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. :lol:
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:
QuoteIn 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).
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 01:56:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 01:26:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 12:07:39 PM
It is rather perverse that a psychopath would take the lead in freeing slaves :hmm:
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. :lol:
On his own side, no.
But IIRC, he was present at another place where surrendering US soldiers were butchered.
Quote
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.
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 02:57:32 PM
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.
QuoteBut 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.
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 02:57:32 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 03:27:44 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 02:57:32 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 03:00:41 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 02:57:32 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2016, 07:46:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 03:00:41 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 02:57:32 PM
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 :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 13, 2016, 01:00:32 AM
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 :P
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2016, 09:54:58 AM
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? :hmm:
I KNOW WACKY RIGHT?
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2016, 04:22:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 03:27:44 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 02:57:32 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Canada sucks.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 09:29:12 AM
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". :lol:
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:
Quote... 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! :D ), 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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 10:25:23 AM
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.
QuoteThere 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
QuoteThe 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).
Quote
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.
QuoteIs 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"? :lol: 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).
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?
Quotethe 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.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 11:34:49 AM
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?
Quote
Quotethe 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?
QuoteAnother 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.
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 02:57:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 01:56:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 01:26:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 12:07:39 PM
It is rather perverse that a psychopath would take the lead in freeing slaves :hmm:
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. :lol:
On his own side, no.
But IIRC, he was present at another place where surrendering US soldiers were butchered.
Quote
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.
QuoteWe 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 "
Quotethough it cost the blood of thousands of white men?"
Adams stunned the House into silence by replying
QuoteThough 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?
Quincy wasn't in the habit of hacking people to pieces with a broadsword. A subtle distinction perhaps.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 10:25:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 02:01:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 10:25:23 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2016, 01:42:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 02:22:20 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2016, 01:42:40 PM
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?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 02:22:20 PM
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.
I don't want to consider it untrustworthy at all!
I am just not willing to read someone personal account of things they were involved in where there has been some question of there being issues with people being killed while trying to surrender, noting that he doesn't say "Then we killed them while they tried to surrender" and conclude that therefore it must not have happened because surely he would have said so...
I think it could have happened, and Simcoe could
A) Not really be aware of what exactly happened, him being the commander and not likely to have been the guy driving his bayonet into sleeping militia members,
B) Perfectly aware that it did happen, and not consider it worthy of note because things like that happened all the time,
C) Perfectly aware that it did happen, consider it an unpleasant reality of war that his readers would not understand, so best left unsaid,
D) Kind of aware that maybe something happened he would not be too proud of, but he took his subordinates word on the matter that nothing really happened and left it at that,
All of these would not even impugn the overall trustworthy-ness of the source. You just have to take it with the understanding of what it is - NOT a objective recounting of the actions in question from an unbiased observer.
I don't think I am treating the source with skepticism at all - I am treating the use of the source to "prove" some facts (no one was killed trying to surrender or after surrendering) while then turning around and saying we should ignore the same source for other facts (everyone was killed) as it is convenient to feed our conclusions with a lot of skepticism.
I honestly have no idea what really happened that night. I don't think anyone does, there simply isn't enough actual information.
My point is simply that absent hard evidence, it is just as presumptions to demand that the "truth" be that nothing happened that was not completely ok is as large a stretch as the demand that we treat Simcoe like he was in the SS at Malmedy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 02:22:20 PM
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.
Except that, (1) as Malthus pointed out, it is full of errors, and (2) it wasn't written as an attempt to inform the public about the events he witnessed, but was, rather, written to give his friends a certain view of himself. I see no reason whatever to consider it particularly trustworthy.
I take no side in the debate over whether Simcoe was a monster, a saint, or something in between.
I would note that it is interesting that Simcoe's military journal isn't available as a google book, which means that Google could only discover one copy of it (they list their source) and that (Russian) source asserts copyright over that one copy, copyrights over the journal as a whole have long since expired, of course. You'd think there was a copy in a library somewhere so that Google could make the whole thing available.
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 02:39:36 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 02:22:20 PM
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.
But it is your inference, not his, that then concludes that his troops killing a bunch of sleeping soldiers without accepting surrender without remark is evidence that it simply must not have happened, despite reports from others that it DID happen.
There are plenty of perfectly reasonable explanations for why he doesn't mention it that don't involve it just not happening.
Sure but that also depends on what those other sources who say it did happen are.
QuoteExcept that, (1) as Malthus pointed out, it is full of errors, and (2) it wasn't written as an attempt to inform the public about the events he witnessed, but was, rather, written to give his friends a certain view of himself. I see no reason whatever to consider it particularly trustworthy.
Of course. You take that into account - as I say you treat with care - but that doesn't mean that it's not a trustworthy source of facts. It's a partial (though not as partial as if it had been for public consumption I think, or if it were a British propaganda piece) contemporary-ish telling of events.
How you balance it with other sources is another issue. Like you I don't have a view on the matter but Malthus' approach seems right to me.
There is no objective truth in history. There are experiences and stories, and they are all equally valid.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 02:50:31 PM
Sure but that also depends on what those other sources who say it did happen are.
QuoteExcept that, (1) as Malthus pointed out, it is full of errors, and (2) it wasn't written as an attempt to inform the public about the events he witnessed, but was, rather, written to give his friends a certain view of himself. I see no reason whatever to consider it particularly trustworthy.
Of course. You take that into account - as I say you treat with care - but that doesn't mean that it's not a trustworthy source of facts. It's a partial (though not as partial as if it had been for public consumption I think, or if it were a British propaganda piece) contemporary-ish telling of events.
How you balance it with other sources is another issue. Like you I don't have a view on the matter but Malthus' approach seems right to me.
I think it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
If you want to "prove" that your guy could not possibly do anything wrong, then it seems like this is the right methodology for that...
If you want to reasonable conclude what is actually likely to have happened given the totality of what we know about warfare, the times, and other contemporary reports, while understanding that no real certainty is possible, then it doesn't seem as useful.
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2016, 02:51:43 PM
There is no objective truth in history. There are experiences and stories, and they are all equally valid.
As in all equally likely to be ruthlessly trashed by your peers when you publish.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 02:57:06 PM
If you want to "prove" that your guy could not possibly do anything wrong, then it seems like this is the right methodology for that...
I say we find someone trying to do that, and then tell them it is wrong. :)
What can be said with reasonable confidence is that it is likely that Americans on the patriot side would have viewed Simcoe as villain, whatever the true facts may be concerning the the details of his military operations. Since the TV show tells its story principally from the POV of that side, it is not surprising that he is portrayed negatively. There are other British characters that are given a more balanced or positive portrayal. But it is after all a TV show.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2016, 03:07:02 PM
What can be said with reasonable confidence is that it is likely that Americans on the patriot side would have viewed Simcoe as villain, whatever the true facts may be concerning the the details of his military operations. Since the TV show tells its story principally from the POV of that side, it is not surprising that he is portrayed negatively. There are other British characters that are given a more balanced or positive portrayal. But it is after all a TV show.
Of course it's just a show.
It is just funny/amusing that of all the Brits they could have chosen as the big bad, they chose
Simcoe for the full psychopath treatment (and to be honest, in some ways he's the most interesting character in the show as a result). If is funny because, in many ways, to modern sensibilities Simcoe is a pretty sympathetic character IRL, whatever he did in the war aside.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 02:50:31 PM
Of course. You take that into account - as I say you treat with care - but that doesn't mean that it's not a trustworthy source of facts. It's a partial (though not as partial as if it had been for public consumption I think, or if it were a British propaganda piece) contemporary-ish telling of events.
How you balance it with other sources is another issue. Like you I don't have a view on the matter but Malthus' approach seems right to me.
The circumstances of the work's publication doesn't mean that it is a trustworthy source of facts. The fact that few people were meant to see it, and that it could contain more... let's say, "freedom of worry about contradiction by others who were there"... makes it less trustworthy, I think, than would be an account that the author knew would appear before others who wee witnesses to the facts.
Sure, it's a source, just like the defendant's testimony about his motives in a trial is a source, but it isn't a very reliable one. More reliable than a Daily Fail news article, but less reliable than, say, a second-hand report by someone doing a story on the Queen's Rangers by interviewing its members, or even a third-hand account written for some museum somewhere.
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2016, 03:17:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 02:50:31 PM
Of course. You take that into account - as I say you treat with care - but that doesn't mean that it's not a trustworthy source of facts. It's a partial (though not as partial as if it had been for public consumption I think, or if it were a British propaganda piece) contemporary-ish telling of events.
How you balance it with other sources is another issue. Like you I don't have a view on the matter but Malthus' approach seems right to me.
The circumstances of the work's publication doesn't mean that it is a trustworthy source of facts. The fact that few people were meant to see it, and that it could contain more... let's say, "freedom of worry about contradiction by others who were there"... makes it less trustworthy, I think, than would be an account that the author knew would appear before others who wee witnesses to the facts.
Sure, it's a source, just like the defendant's testimony about his motives in a trial is a source, but it isn't a very reliable one. More reliable than a Daily Fail news article, but less reliable than, say, a second-hand report by someone doing a story on the Queen's Rangers by interviewing its members, or even a third-hand account written for some museum somewhere.
It was first printed in 1787. There would have been plenty of people still alive then who knew the facts. Indeed, in part his exact reason for printing it, as he says in the preface, was to "correct" what he saw as errors in other people's accounts - meaning he knew whatever he wrote would be attacked and contradicted in turn, as that was part of what
he set out to do to
them. Admittedly, the people whose accounts he was concerned about were - other British officers. See the Author's own introduction, first paragraph on page 13.
It may well be that there are better potential sources: as you say, an impartial interviewing of Rangers. It would be wonderful if such a thing could be produced. As far as I know, no such account exists, so we are stuck with the sources we have - albeit imperfect sources, as acknowledged.
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2016, 03:17:11 PM
The circumstances of the work's publication doesn't mean that it is a trustworthy source of facts. The fact that few people were meant to see it, and that it could contain more... let's say, "freedom of worry about contradiction by others who were there"... makes it less trustworthy, I think, than would be an account that the author knew would appear before others who wee witnesses to the facts.
I disagree. I think a diary prepared for the public is something I'd take more care with than one prepared for private publication and gifting to friends, which in turn is less trustworthy than one written without ever imagining it would be published.
QuoteSure, it's a source, just like the defendant's testimony about his motives in a trial is a source, but it isn't a very reliable one. More reliable than a Daily Fail news article, but less reliable than, say, a second-hand report by someone doing a story on the Queen's Rangers by interviewing its members, or even a third-hand account written for some museum somewhere.
Definitely it's less than a second hand report interviewing other participants because there's more than one voice. I think it's far more not reliable, but relevant, than a third-hand account for a museum (though I'm not clear how that could be written without using sources like this) because it's contemporaneous and from a participant. Yes there's all sorts of health warnings with this sort of document but it's far more useful than just a historian looking back and trying to reconstruct it (as I say it should be a source in that sort of attempt).
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 03:13:25 PM
It is just funny/amusing that of all the Brits they could have chosen as the big bad, they chose Simcoe for the full psychopath treatment (and to be honest, in some ways he's the most interesting character in the show as a result). If is funny because, in many ways, to modern sensibilities Simcoe is a pretty sympathetic character IRL, whatever he did in the war aside.
the show writers include the author of the book that the show is based on, and he had a hard-on for Simcoe (who wasn't a captain at that point, but who cares about history on TV, right?)
If it soothes your Canadian soul at all, just assume that the show writers are acknowledging that they are dealing with fiction by referring to their character as a captain, thus making it clear that the viewer who cares about history shouldn't confuse the fictional captain with the real-world major.
Quote"Go - spare no one - put all to death -
give no quarters."
- General Charles Mawhood to the Queen's
Rangers, March 20, 1778
This was the day before the attack, and Mawhood was Simcoe's direct superior in charge of the Queen's Rangers.
Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 09:29:12 AM
Yes, I suppose there could have been hundreds of men inside one house. Sure. Maybe thousands.
I'm sadly ignorant of the topic under discussion but I have to applaud this line, which lead me to literally burst out laughing at work.
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2016, 03:38:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 03:13:25 PM
It is just funny/amusing that of all the Brits they could have chosen as the big bad, they chose Simcoe for the full psychopath treatment (and to be honest, in some ways he's the most interesting character in the show as a result). If is funny because, in many ways, to modern sensibilities Simcoe is a pretty sympathetic character IRL, whatever he did in the war aside.
the show writers include the author of the book that the show is based on, and he had a hard-on for Simcoe (who wasn't a captain at that point, but who cares about history on TV, right?)
If it soothes your Canadian soul at all, just assume that the show writers are acknowledging that they are dealing with fiction by referring to their character as a captain, thus making it clear that the viewer who cares about history shouldn't confuse the fictional captain with the real-world major.
I didn't know "amusement" required soul soothing. Maybe to a Yank it does. :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 03:35:16 PM
I disagree. I think a diary prepared for the public is something I'd take more care with than one prepared for private publication and gifting to friends, which in turn is less trustworthy than one written without ever imagining it would be published.
Okay. I guess this is just one of those cases where rationality (my explanation of why the facts of publication make it less trustworthy) comes up against romanticism (your bald assertion that you just trust the source more because of its publication history)! :lol:
Since you reject my logic and I cannot understand your emotion, we will just have to leave it as a disagreement.
QuoteDefinitely it's less than a second hand report interviewing other participants because there's more than one voice. I think it's far more not reliable, but relevant, than a third-hand account for a museum (though I'm not clear how that could be written without using sources like this) because it's contemporaneous and from a participant. Yes there's all sorts of health warnings with this sort of document but it's far more useful than just a historian looking back and trying to reconstruct it (as I say it should be a source in that sort of attempt).
it isn't contemporaneous (it was written after the fact) and the fact that the author serves his own self-interest by being frugal with the truth under circumstances that might make him look bad means that his participation in the events makes him less reliable as a source. Also, first-person retrospective accounts are useful to historians in evaluating motives and reasoning, but not in establishing chronologies or details. Human memory simply isn't reliable enough for the latter. Historical reconstructions are mostly absent the personal motive for frugality with truth, so tend to be much more reliable.
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 03:47:29 PM
I didn't know "amusement" required soul soothing. Maybe to a Yank it does. :hmm:
Call your responses what you wish, your soul can be soothed. :hug:
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 03:42:04 PM
Quote"Go - spare no one - put all to death -
give no quarters."
- General Charles Mawhood to the Queen's
Rangers, March 20, 1778
This was the day before the attack, and Mawhood was Simcoe's direct superior in charge of the Queen's Rangers.
What's the source of the quote?
The only cite I can find online is a pamphlet entitled "The Story of The Hancock House", a pamphlet put out by the NJ Parks Service.
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 03:13:25 PM
It is just funny/amusing that of all the Brits they could have chosen as the big bad, they chose Simcoe for the full psychopath treatment (and to be honest, in some ways he's the most interesting character in the show as a result). If is funny because, in many ways, to modern sensibilities Simcoe is a pretty sympathetic character IRL, whatever he did in the war aside.
He was chosen presumably because he did command the Queens Rangers - which did have a certain reputation on the patriot side for aggression - and because he did have a real life confrontation with the family of the main character on the show.
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2016, 03:42:50 PM
Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.
Most of the time I don't have a problem with historical fiction, but I turned off
JFK in disgust. Sometimes Stone's propaganda went over the line.
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2016, 03:52:09 PM
. Also, first-person retrospective accounts are useful to historians in evaluating motives and reasoning, but not in establishing chronologies or details. Human memory simply isn't reliable enough for the latter. Historical reconstructions are mostly absent the personal motive for frugality with truth, so tend to be much more reliable.
Well, that's good, because what is under analysis here is motives and reasoning, not chronologies or details. We already know he got at least some of the details wrong: his men did not kill everyone inside the house, for example.
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2016, 03:52:09 PM
Okay. I guess this is just one of those cases where rationality (my explanation of why the facts of publication make it less trustworthy) comes up against romanticism (your bald assertion that you just trust the source more because of its publication history)! :lol:
I think potential audience is a key factor in assessing its reliability especially when dealing with a document like a diary. In addition publication history can in itself tell you a lot about the material - see the treatment of Sir Roger Casement's diaries.
Quoteit isn't contemporaneous (it was written after the fact) and the fact that the author serves his own self-interest by being frugal with the truth under circumstances that might make him look bad means that his participation in the events makes him less reliable as a source.
Okay. I didn't know that it wasn't contemporaneous I thought it was something that he wrote near the time. Obviously you need to be aware of anyone's desire to make themselves look good, excuse their own faults and that they will have their own biases. That's part of how you use the document - as I say handle with care - that doesn't make it unreliable.
QuoteAlso, first-person retrospective accounts are useful to historians in evaluating motives and reasoning, but not in establishing chronologies or details. Human memory simply isn't reliable enough for the latter. Historical reconstructions are mostly absent the personal motive for frugality with truth, so tend to be much more reliable.
Except in a case like this where from what I can tell you have duelling accounts from around that time in which case you have to balance the different sources. As I say I'd value your second-hand example more than this, I'd value this over a propaganda account from either side. But in an example like this where you're two hundred year's later and you have competing narratives in the documents at the time how do you go about reconstructing events except by balancing, making fallible judgements on the accounts you have and trying to construct a plausible narrative from it - which for what it's worth seems to be what Berk and Malthus were doing just with different sources.
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2016, 03:42:50 PM
Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.
Never bothers me really. Sometimes it seems a bit egregious but I mainly care if it's an enjoyable film/series or not.
You should make an exception for Wolf Hall :contract:
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 03:54:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 03:42:04 PM
Quote"Go - spare no one - put all to death -
give no quarters."
- General Charles Mawhood to the Queen's
Rangers, March 20, 1778
This was the day before the attack, and Mawhood was Simcoe's direct superior in charge of the Queen's Rangers.
What's the source of the quote?
The only cite I can find online is a pamphlet entitled "The Story of The Hancock House", a pamphlet put out by the NJ Parks Service.
I found it!
Quote
In spite of the flippant character of this description of the most
famous of the various raids along the Delaware river, the entire affair
was highly discreditable to the Anglo-Hessian arms. According to military
records the descent upon Salem county was made by Anglo-Hessian troops
from Philadelphia, assisted by detachments from New Jersey's loyalist
regiments and unorganized bands of refugee robbers. A detached regiment
from Philadelphia, under the command of Colonel Charles Mawhood. hav-
ing come down the river and encamping at Sharptowu. marched into Salem
City. Failing to surprise Colonel Anthony Wayne and a small body of
troops', the I'.ritish, recruitiuj? a party of 'J'ory adherfiits. kuown by their
uniform as "(ireens." resolved to "cliastise the insolent rebels," among
whom were three hundred militia at Quinton's Kridge. three miles from
Salem City. The Whig commander at this place was Colonel Henjamin
Holmes. Resolving, with Spartan-like courage, to protect the people of
the southern part of the county. Colonel Holmes made such preparations
for his defense as the situation affoi'ded. I']arly upon the morning of the
18th of March the Hritish advanced undiscovered to within half a mile
of Quinton's liridge. secreting tliemselves in !i swamp and in nearby tim-
ber, whicli lined the bank of Alloway's creek. A small party of light
horsemen then advanced as if to challenge the AVhigs. The ruse was
successful, and from the opposite shore the militia, under the command
of Captain William Smith, rushed without military order across tlie bridge
and into the ambuscade. In spite of Captain Smith's effort to rally his
men, the timely appearance of Colonel Hand with the Cumberland militia,
and the personal heroism of Andrew Bacon, who cut the draw of the bridge
and in the midst of a galling lire held the King's troops in check, the
Whig militia was decimated.
Thus defeated by a body of raw troops, who were in a state of exulta-
tion over their success. Major Simcoe. appealing to Colonel Mawhood. was
reinforced by all the troops that could, with safety, be sent from Salem
City. The night had been devoted to strengthening the position of the
Whig militia, which, under the direction of Colonels Holmes and Hand,
controlled the front and both flanks of the advancing Uritish regulars.
So galling was the fire that the King's troops were thrown into confusion
and retreated to Salem City.
Failing in his purpose of plundering. Colonel Mawhood adopted new
tactics. Addressing a letter to Colonel Hand, he proposed that the militia
at Quinton's Hridge lay down their arms, promising that after paying in
sterling for all cattle, hay and corn, he would i-e-embark for Philadelphia.
Otherwise Colonel M.awhood declared he would burn and destroy the homes
of the Whigs, giving over their wives and children to the tender mercies
of the refugees. To this was annexed a list of those in Salem county
who would be first to "feed the vengeance of the British nation." To the
letter Colonel Hand made a bold and spirited reply, characterizing the
communication as the "cruel order of a barbarous Attila." refusing to
lay down arms and promising retaliation if property was destroyed.
I'nable to cope with the Whigs of Salem county, either by open attack
or by threats. Colonel Mawhood determined upon a midniglit assault against
a bod.v of four hundred militia who had been stationed at Hancock's
Bridge. Conveyed thence by boats, followed by a short, forced march,
with orders issued from headquarters : "(Jo 1 spare no one — put all to
death — give no quarter '." Major Simcoe was detailed to put into execution
a fiendish plot, in which the most notorious of the local Tories participated.
Fortunately, however, the main body of the militia had departed, leaving
only a small guard stationed to guard the bridge, the headquarters being
the Hancock mansion. Foi'cing the house, the owner of the premises,
Judge Hancock, a party of non-combatant Quakers and the guard of about
twenty-five men. were massacred as they slept or bayonetted as they
fought for freedom. A few escaped or were taken prisoners by the enemy.
This ended the expedition, and within a few days the Anglo-Hessian troops
returned to Philadelphia, their vessels laden with plunder. It will be
noticed that no reference whatever is made to the affair at Quinton's
Bridge.
http://www.archive.org/stream/documentsrelat02newj/documentsrelat02newj_djvu.txt
The source is listed as "newspaper extracts, 1778".
You can really find stuff online these days.
In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?
Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.
Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2016, 03:55:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2016, 03:42:50 PM
Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.
Most of the time I don't have a problem with historical fiction, but I turned off JFK in disgust. Sometimes Stone's propaganda went over the line.
Yeah, there's a difference between embellishing historical truths in order to tell a better story and simply presenting what is at best idle speculation and at worse outright lies as the truth.
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2016, 03:42:50 PM
Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.
Some Shakespeare movies are worth checking out.
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?
Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 04:22:06 PM
Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.
Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. ;)
Indeed, both accounts agree that when it came time to actually fight, the Brits had a *known* 10-1 advantage, and a dominating military posture - what with have 300 men surrounding a single house with no more than 2-3 dozen men maximum inside. Asleep.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2016, 06:21:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?
Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).
They should have read his diary!
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.
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2016, 03:42:50 PM
Which is why I never watch TV shows or movies based on history. I mean I know there are a few but if they are going to change major parts of the story or the characters then what is the point for me? To put wrong ideas in my head? I mean I guess it is entertainment but I would prefer something that is entertaining that does not contain a bunch of intentionally misleading things I have to unlearn later.
I don't much care about the true facts being presented. I usually seek out a relevant Wikipedia article about what really happenned and just enjoy the show.
I don't see why I would deprive myself of the pleasure of watching Vikings or Gettysburg, for example :)
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 04:22:06 PM
Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.
Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. ;)
He could have reasonably expected 400 militiamen or so to be in the city.
He could not have reasonably expected 400 militiamen or so to be in the house. It was a judge's house, not Versailles ;)
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 07:13:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2016, 06:21:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?
Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).
They should have read his diary!
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.
yeah. that's basically how most Canadians see soldiers of the historical British Empire. Burning people's homes, killing their livestock, leaving them to starve, bah, it's almost as galant as providing a home and a meal a day to some poor black soul who'd have to hunt for his meal back home.
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2016, 02:42:23 PM
You'd think there was a copy in a library somewhere so that Google could make the whole thing available.
Google has slowed down considerably their digitization process - at least for academic books or old books.
A quick search reveals 663 libraries holding the original 1787 publication, including some of Google's usual academic partners (Dartmouth, Michigan, Harvard). Heck, there are four libraries within walking distance that hold a copy. Simcoe must have had a lot of friends, for that is a huge run for a private project...
EDIT: Scratch that - I double checked. A number of libraries put the date of 1787 for a number of later reprints, and hide the information that it is a reprint. The original print run is indeed held only by a handful of libraries .
I must say I am surprised at your claim that chronologies and details cannot be established from retrospective accounts. Retrospective accounts are used for establishing chronologies all the time. For most historical periods, for most events, retrospective accounts is all we have.
As for the fallibility of human memory, that goes without saying. However, 18th century journal of operations are not memoirs. They were usually written on the spot, as things unfolded, for they could be used for justification after the war, should any contentious matter arise. Sometimes, events got the best of the writer, and he could fill in a few days after the fact. Of course, they could very well misremember things a few days, a few hours after the fact. That is the case for every document. And of course, writers tried to spin things in their favor, but it should also be kept in mind that in the small world of officers, writers also knew that other concurrent narratives would exist, as rumors, first-hand accounts, etc.
(I am also totally indifferent to Simcoe, that TV show, and that particular episode of the American War of Independence).
That print run is interesting as the 19th century edition Malthus posted says in the preface that the diary 'was privately printed in 1787, for distribution among a few of his personal friends.' It does make the audience a bit more questionable and with it, I think, his motivation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 08:06:14 PM
That print run is interesting as the 19th century edition Malthus posted says in the preface that the diary 'was privately printed in 1787, for distribution among a few of his personal friends.' It does make the audience a bit more questionable and with it, I think, his motivation.
See edit above.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 07:13:01 PM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2016, 07:32:10 PM
I don't much care about the true facts being presented. I usually seek out a relevant Wikipedia article about what really happenned and just enjoy the show.
I don't see why I would deprive myself of the pleasure of watching Vikings or Gettysburg, for example :)
I do care about true facts though. Plenty of shows out there that do not peddle bullshit that I have to make an effort to unlearn.
As for this Revolutionary War stuff my ancestor was in a unit that would go into towns, round up all the Tories, and summarily hang them all. I bet they don't have that shit in that stupid TV show. So why watch?
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2016, 09:39:32 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2016, 07:32:10 PM
I don't much care about the true facts being presented. I usually seek out a relevant Wikipedia article about what really happenned and just enjoy the show.
I don't see why I would deprive myself of the pleasure of watching Vikings or Gettysburg, for example :)
I do care about true facts though. Plenty of shows out there that do not peddle bullshit that I have to make an effort to unlearn.
As for this Revolutionary War stuff my ancestor was in a unit that would go into towns, round up all the Tories, and summarily hang them all. I bet they don't have that shit in that stupid TV show. So why watch?
:wub:
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2016, 09:39:32 PM
As for this Revolutionary War stuff my ancestor was in a unit that would go into towns, round up all the Tories, and summarily hang them all.
:huh: Didn't know there were such units.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2016, 08:01:53 PM
I must say I am surprised at your claim that chronologies and details cannot be established from retrospective accounts.
Please address statements like this to someone who actually makes such a claim.
QuoteRetrospective accounts are used for establishing chronologies all the time. For most historical periods, for most events, retrospective accounts is all we have.
Yes, when they are all that we have, they are all that we have. They are not reliable sources, but we take what we can get.
However, we cannot use such reminiscences without great care, and we certainly shouldn't use them (especially what they leave out) as evidence on the details.
Quote from: Caliga on August 16, 2016, 06:47:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2016, 09:39:32 PM
As for this Revolutionary War stuff my ancestor was in a unit that would go into towns, round up all the Tories, and summarily hang them all.
:huh: Didn't know there were such units.
they could have been operating on such a small scale that people simply attributed their crimes to common murderers. Serial killers in that day and age, especially ones that moved from town to town, would be hard to detect.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 07:13:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2016, 06:21:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?
Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).
They should have read his diary!
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.
Any more straw, and you could construct an entire revolutionary-era army out of it. :lol:
I see you are done actually debating the facts, and prefer to retreat behind a cloud of sarcasm, sort of like a squid.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2016, 07:39:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 04:22:06 PM
Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.
Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. ;)
He could have reasonably expected 400 militiamen or so to be in the city.
He could not have reasonably expected 400 militiamen or so to be in the house. It was a judge's house, not Versailles ;)
From reading the account, they expected the house to be only one location in which solders were located, among a hamlet of buildings and store-houses.
But then, I seem to be the only person actually interested in looking at the sources on either side.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 07:09:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 04:22:06 PM
Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.
Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. ;)
Indeed, both accounts agree that when it came time to actually fight, the Brits had a *known* 10-1 advantage, and a dominating military posture - what with have 300 men surrounding a single house with no more than 2-3 dozen men maximum inside. Asleep.
So, no commentary on the historical reliability of the orders you posted, presumably for their truth?
Not a surprise.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2016, 06:21:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?
Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).
Yes, but then, the same could be said for the overall portrayal of the Brits in "The Patriot". "Attilas" conducting "fiendish plots".
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 08:06:14 PM
That print run is interesting as the 19th century edition Malthus posted says in the preface that the diary 'was privately printed in 1787, for distribution among a few of his personal friends.' It does make the audience a bit more questionable and with it, I think, his motivation.
That was the 1840s era editor's gloss, explaining why a new edition was necessary.
I would also look at the author's own introduction. It is clear from that, that Simcoe fully intended his book to be read by his fellow-officers, his patrons, and his men's patrons; in short, that he expected the readership to go beyond his immediate friends, and to be read by people who knew the events in question (he states in the introduction that his intent was basically to 'correct the record' which had, he claims, falsely attributed certain deeds).
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 07:38:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 07:13:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2016, 06:21:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?
Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).
They should have read his diary!
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.
Any more straw, and you could construct an entire revolutionary-era army out of it. :lol:
I see you are done actually debating the facts, and prefer to retreat behind a cloud of sarcasm, sort of like a squid.
Come on now, I laid it on pretty damn thick there Malthus!
It isn't a strawman when I am clearly just being a smartass!
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 07:42:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 07:09:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2016, 04:22:06 PM
Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.
Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. ;)
Indeed, both accounts agree that when it came time to actually fight, the Brits had a *known* 10-1 advantage, and a dominating military posture - what with have 300 men surrounding a single house with no more than 2-3 dozen men maximum inside. Asleep.
So, no commentary on the historical reliability of the orders you posted, presumably for their truth?
Not a surprise.
Are you disputing their accuracy?
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 08:27:13 AM
Are you disputing their accuracy?
So far, the source for these orders being given appears to be a contemporary American newspaper article, written as anti-British propaganda (the same article describes the Colonel as an "Atilla" and claims that Simcoe was carrying out a "... fiendish plot, in which the most notorious of the local Tories participated"; the American patriots, by contrast, are depicted as acting with "Spartan-like courage").
Until I see a better source, in my opinion it looks unlikely that these orders were actually given, because it appears more likely that the orders were the invention of the newspaper article's writer and no more to be taken literally than the depiction of the Brits as "Attilas" and "fiends" or the patriots as "Spartan-like".
For one, how would an American patriot newspaper reporter get ahold of orders allegedly given by British officers? Is it not more likely that, having witnessed an event that they claim was a fiendish massacre, the writer simply conflated rumors that alleged that the soldiers shouted "no quarter" as they attacked, into positive
orders not to give quarter?
The phrase "spare no one - put all to death - give no quarter" certainly sounds more like something shouted by soldiers in battle, than something formally ordered by an 18th century officer.
Now, this opinion is based purely on the sources
as discovered by me, and I'm no professional historian, and my opinion is subject to change. Perhaps somewhere in the records there is an actual written order from the Colonel, or a contemporary account of a verbal order, maybe worded differently, to the effect that no prisoners were to be taken (though again, if there was such an order given it was disobeyed: even the patriot account claimed prisoners
were, in fact, taken: "A few escaped or were taken prisoners by the enemy.").
Ahhh, so if our source is the personal account of the leader of the expedition in question, we should accept his word for what happened, despite the obvious agenda in a personal recounting.
But if the source is a American newspaper article, we should dismiss it out of hand because that is obviously "anti-British" propaganda.
QuoteFor one, how would an American patriot newspaper reporter get ahold of orders allegedly given by British officers?
Word of mouth? These kinds of orders are more effective when they are communicated around after all, the intent is to make it clear that resistance and treachery will be punished harshly.
I am surprised you find it so difficult to believe that such orders could possibly be leaked.
QuoteThe phrase "spare no one - put all to death - give no quarter" certainly sounds more like something shouted by soldiers in battle, than something formally ordered by an 18th century officer.
Well, if it "sounds like" that, then I think we have to assume that it is inconceivable that such an order could be given?
I am not drawing conclusions based on what I think some words "sound like". There is evidence that such an order was given. There are reports from people who were there that no quarter was given, and in fact the soldiers went into the ambush stating such, and bragged about it afterwards. These kinds of things are sadly routine in this kind of fighting, so it doesn't take much extraordianry evidence for me to find them credible. I would, in fact, find similar stories of American soldiers actions just as credible.
QuotePerhaps somewhere in the records there is an actual written order from the Colonel, or a contemporary account of a verbal order,
You just dismissed a contemporary account as "anti-British Propaganda", so clearly no, you will NOT change your mind based on such information.
This is going nowhere Malthus.
What is bizarre about the entire thing though is your sensitivity to the idea that some British soldiers might have acted in a fashion that is completely typical of soldiers in these kinds of situations, basically in almost every way throughout history, and especially those involving divided loyalties and insurrection.
I don't really get your emotional investment in this, and for myself, whether some of Simcoes men did this or not says nothing about the man himself. Even if his CO gave that order, and Simcoe himself then relayed it and insisted on it, such that this all happened in the worst possible light (within reason), I still don't think it says much of anything terrible about him.
If in fact they came on that house, knew that there were 20-30 traitors in it, and decided they were going to attack and "take no prisoners" (which, btw, doesn't mean what you think it means*), and then attacked and killed the vast majority of them while they were sleeping, or as they awoke and refused to allow any of them to surrender...so what? Nasty shit happens during nasty wars. In fact, absent any direct evidence at all, I am happy to say that we know that shit like this happened plenty that was NEVER reported. We know this because we know how these kinds of wars are fought.
We also know that the accounts of these things will be exaggerated or minimized based on which side you are on. The "accusation" here is not extraordinary, and doesn't require extraordinary evidence IMO. It is, in fact, almost boringly typical.
*The "take no prisoners" call, btw, doesn't generally mean that we will literally take no prisoners necessarily. It means that the nature of the fight anticipated is such that offers of surrender during the fight should not be accepted, as there won't be time to do so, and it could jeopardize the mission. On its face, that doesn't mean that you should not take prisoners once the fight is actually over, and it is in fact usually just an emotive tool to get people jacked up and aggressive.
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 09:43:02 AM
Ahhh, so if our source is the personal account of the leader of the expedition in question, we should accept his word for what happened, despite the obvious agenda in a personal recounting.
But if the source is a American newspaper article, we should dismiss it out of hand because that is obviously "anti-British" propaganda.
I'm not "dismissing it out of hand". I'm giving my opinion as to its relative validity as a truthful account of the orders actually provided.
The fact that the account is filled with hyperbole (to put it mildly) I think ought to be taken into consideration concerning the possible motives of the author. This is clearly a piece intended to arouse anti-British sentiment, they say as much.
This isn't rocket surgery. :lol:
As I said, I'm open to revising this opinion based on, you know,
evidence. Need I point out that so far I'm doing all the work in finding sources?
Quote
Word of mouth? These kinds of orders are more effective when they are communicated around after all, the intent is to make it clear that resistance and treachery will be punished harshly.
Huh? This was supposed to be a SECRET night attack.
Clearly, it isn't much of a secret if the orders are "communicated around" to the enemy now, is it?
Now, it is possible the orders were "leaked" after the attack. More probable, though, is that they were simply invented post hoc.
QuoteI am surprised you find it so difficult to believe that such orders could possibly be leaked.
I simply think, in the context of a patriot newspaper account, it is more probable that they were invented.
Quote
Well, if it "sounds like" that, then I think we have to assume that it is inconceivable that such an order could be given?
Inconceivable? No. Less likely? Yes.
Quote
I am not drawing conclusions based on what I think some words "sound like". There is evidence that such an order was given. There are reports from people who were there that no quarter was given, and in fact the soldiers went into the ambush stating such, and bragged about it afterwards. These kinds of things are sadly routine in this kind of fighting, so it doesn't take much extraordianry evidence for me to find them credible. I would, in fact, find similar stories of American soldiers actions just as credible.
But this isn't correct. The patriot account itself claims quarter *was* given: prisoners *were* taken.
So far, the only evidence such an order was given is a patriot newspaper, and I think it is not out of line to doubt that source as to the accuracy of details they typically would not have.
Quote
You just dismissed a contemporary account as "anti-British Propaganda", so clearly no, you will NOT change your mind based on such information.
Well, I'm glad you know what I'll do better than I do. Saves me the trouble of replying. :lol:
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...
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 09:54:22 AM
This is going nowhere Malthus.
What is bizarre about the entire thing though is your sensitivity to the idea that some British soldiers might have acted in a fashion that is completely typical of soldiers in these kinds of situations, basically in almost every way throughout history, and especially those involving divided loyalties and insurrection.
I don't really get your emotional investment in this, and for myself, whether some of Simcoes men did this or not says nothing about the man himself. Even if his CO gave that order, and Simcoe himself then relayed it and insisted on it, such that this all happened in the worst possible light (within reason), I still don't think it says much of anything terrible about him.
If in fact they came on that house, knew that there were 20-30 traitors in it, and decided they were going to attack and "take no prisoners" (which, btw, doesn't mean what you think it means*), and then attacked and killed the vast majority of them while they were sleeping, or as they awoke and refused to allow any of them to surrender...so what? Nasty shit happens during nasty wars. In fact, absent any direct evidence at all, I am happy to say that we know that shit like this happened plenty that was NEVER reported. We know this because we know how these kinds of wars are fought.
We also know that the accounts of these things will be exaggerated or minimized based on which side you are on. The "accusation" here is not extraordinary, and doesn't require extraordinary evidence IMO. It is, in fact, almost boringly typical.
*The "take no prisoners" call, btw, doesn't generally mean that we will literally take no prisoners necessarily. It means that the nature of the fight anticipated is such that offers of surrender during the fight should not be accepted, as there won't be time to do so, and it could jeopardize the mission. On its face, that doesn't mean that you should not take prisoners once the fight is actually over, and it is in fact usually just an emotive tool to get people jacked up and aggressive.
My only motive is to look at an interesting historical problem using original sources. Not sure why you are insisting I'm not open minded, emotionally invested, etc. or why sarcasm is so necessary on your part.
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 10:00:13 AM
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. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 09:55:49 AM
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?
The fact that prisoners were taken is evidence that an order was NOT given to NOT take prisoners?
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?
You are just grasping at straws here - there is no possible evidence that one can reasonably expect to exist that will change your mind.
We have contemporaneous newspaper accounts that you simply dismiss 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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 10:03:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 10:00:13 AM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 10:08:18 AM
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?
QuoteYou 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?
QuoteYour "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.
QuoteIf 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?
Quote
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.
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 09:55:49 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteIn 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.
QuoteYou 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.
QuoteWe 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".
QuoteThere 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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 10:23:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 09:55:49 AM
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.
Quote
QuoteThe 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.
Quote
QuoteIn 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]
QuoteYou 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.
QuoteWe 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?
Quote
QuoteThere 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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 10:17:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 10:08:18 AM
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.
QuoteDude.I provided the evidence.
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 10:36:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 10:17:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 10:08:18 AM
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.
QuoteDude. [/size]I provided the evidence[/size]. [/size]
I have no idea what you are on about. An unsourced statement isn't "evidence". :lol: 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.
OK, counselor.
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2016, 10:32:10 AM
So now this is MY account, like I was there?
:rolleyes:
Your "recitation" of what happened. You claimed no quarter was given. I pointed out that it was.
QuoteOf 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.
Quote
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.
This Simcoe fellow must've killed an awful lot of Frenchmen to make Malthus love him so much.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2016, 09:21:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 07:13:01 PM
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? :wacko:
Quote from: viper37 on August 16, 2016, 10:55:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2016, 09:21:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2016, 07:13:01 PM
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? :wacko:
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.
;)
The more I read Malthus's arguments, the more convinced I become that he is wrong! :lol:
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)
QuoteCapt. 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 (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 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.
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2016, 11:21:45 AM
The more I read Malthus's arguments, the more convinced I become that he is wrong! :lol:
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)
QuoteCapt. 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 (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. :huh:
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.
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2016, 11:21:45 AM
The more I read Malthus's arguments, the more convinced I become that he is wrong! :lol:
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)
QuoteCapt. 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 (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
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2016, 01:29:50 PM
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.
Out of curiousity, what did those two works have to say about this particular incident?
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 01:14:00 PM
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. :huh:
You didn't understand it, because you didn't read it very carefully. ;)
Try reading even the first sentence out loud, and perhaps you will start to understand the post.
QuoteI 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.
I understand that you disagree. I explained why I thought the way I did, and you explain nothing about why you disagree. You don't have to explain your beliefs, but don't expect anyone to understand them given that you don't. That was one of the points I was making in the post you do not understand. Simcoe isn't vague about the extent of American casualties; he says "all of whom were killed." The way in which he addresses the death of the judge is neither here nor there.
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2016, 01:37:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 01:14:00 PM
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. :huh:
You didn't understand it, because you didn't read it very carefully. ;)
Try reading even the first sentence out loud, and perhaps you will start to understand the post.
QuoteI 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.
I understand that you disagree. I explained why I thought the way I did, and you explain nothing about why you disagree. You don't have to explain your beliefs, but don't expect anyone to understand them given that you don't. That was one of the points I was making in the post you do not understand. Simcoe isn't vague about the extent of American casualties; he says "all of whom were killed." The way in which he addresses the death of the judge is neither here nor there.
This isn't worth pursuing.
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 01:32:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2016, 01:29:50 PM
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.
Out of curiousity, what did those two works have to say about this particular incident?
I got both books on my phone. At work right now.
Essentially;
Gara
1. 20 March; Simcoe, Mawhood and small detachment reconned hancock bridge and surrounding area. They new the strength of the Militia (30 Men at most). The importance of the house was it commanded the passage of the bridge on the south side. Mawhood's initial report of 400 militia in the area was in error. Possibly referring to the early operation at Quinton's Bridge a few days before. Possibly total militia in the area.
2. There is no mention of an order to kill everyone in either book. The only order Mawhood given was to pay for anything taken during foraging ops. Remember this attack and the one at Quiton's bridge was part of a larger foraging operation.
3. Simcoe was told that the house owner, William Hancock (a Loyalist), would not be there and did not live in the house while the militia was using it. He was as it turned and was killed by accident along with all the militia either killed or wounded.
My take; Any unsubstantiated claims by a News paper Article and Park Service Handout is hogwash till proven otherwise.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2016, 02:11:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 01:32:14 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on August 16, 2016, 01:29:50 PM
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.
Out of curiousity, what did those two works have to say about this particular incident?
I got both books on my phone. At work right now.
Essentially;
Gara
1. 20 March; Simcoe, Mawhood and small detachment reconned hancock bridge and surrounding area. They new the strength of the Militia (30 Men at most). The importance of the house was it commanded the passage of the bridge on the south side. Mawhood's initial report of 400 militia in the area was in error. Possibly referring to the early operation at Quinton's Bridge a few days before. Possibly total militia in the area.
2. There is no mention of an order to kill everyone in either book. The only order Mawhood given was to pay for anything taken during foraging ops. Remember this attack and the one at Quiton's bridge was part of a larger foraging operation.
3. Simcoe was told that the house owner, William Hancock (a Loyalist), would not be there and did not live in the house while the militia was using it. He was as it turned and was killed by accident along with all the militia either killed or wounded.
My take; Any unsubstantiated claims by a News paper Article and Park Service Handout is hogwash till proven otherwise.
Thanks for that. That concurs with what I've been arguing.
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2016, 01:37:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2016, 01:14:00 PM
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. :huh:
You didn't understand it, because you didn't read it very carefully. ;)
Try reading even the first sentence out loud, and perhaps you will start to understand the post.
QuoteI 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.
I understand that you disagree. I explained why I thought the way I did, and you explain nothing about why you disagree. You don't have to explain your beliefs, but don't expect anyone to understand them given that you don't. That was one of the points I was making in the post you do not understand. Simcoe isn't vague about the extent of American casualties; he says "all of whom were killed." The way in which he addresses the death of the judge is neither here nor there.
As always, the numbers are somewhere in the middle. Simcoe may have thought all were dead. It's not like the went around ensuring that fact.
"all of whom were killed." according to Simcoe. Simcoe
Queen's Rangers: John Simcoe and His Rangers During the Revolutionary War for America Local historians, 6-8 Killed and several wounded, with some dying later of their wounds. Captain Charlton Sheppard, named, was one of the wounded survivors. Robertson
The History of Salem County
IMO as I said before, Simcoe's portrayal in Turn is hogwash.
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2016, 10:54:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 10:45:30 AM
I noticed the similarity and thought it was a weird coincidence. But it is the same guy. Heh.
Yup. After serving on the Brit side in the Revolution, he became GG for Upper Canada, where he was very active.
Here, remnants of his service are everywhere. My dad's cottage is in Simcoe County, near Lake Simcoe; he's revered for all sorts of colonial era foundations; he passed the legislation that emancipated the slaves.
Contrary to his recent TV portrayal, he hardly ever horribly murdered or stalked anyone while in office. :D
When I first saw that show, I laughed out loud. It's as if the Brits did a miniseries in which George Washington was portrayed as having a pre-revolution career as a serial killer. ;)
I don't know, the TV Historical Documents portray Simcoe as quite evil! And TV would never lie.
Seriously though, you'd think the show could have created a fictional character to portray, given how prominent the real Simcoe is in Canadian history. :hmm:
Quote from: KRonn on August 17, 2016, 01:59:04 PM
I don't know, the TV Historical Documents portray Simcoe as quite evil! And TV would never lie.
Seriously though, you'd think the show could have created a fictional character to portray, given how prominent the real Simcoe is in Canadian history. :hmm:
My guess is that the creators of the show didn't think many (or any) in their audience would know who Simcoe
was. Probably a reasonable assumption, for the most part. ;)
My guess is his prominence, service with the Queen's Rangers aside, is purely local to southern Ontario.