New report on the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 (2 Viewers)

[Lees]

What point are you trying to make ? That the north was as bad as the south. Or that the south wasnt really bad at all ?
Its hard to see the south as innocents in any scenario.

I'm pretty sure I made it.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Actually, I was taught this in school. The rioters were almost exclusively Irish immigrants and will blacks were the prime target, so were Protestant churches and the rich. 11 black people were lynched.

Over 300 black soldiers were massacred at Fort Pillow AFTER surrendering by Confederate forces.

Not to mention the thousands massacred during reconstruction and lynched in the south up until the 1960's.

Sorry, one unfortunate incident in New York City does not come close to the long list of atrocities committed by an in the south.

And as far as the Civil War goes, history was written courtesy of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and other Ku Klux Klan front groups. They were responsible for promulgating the Lost Cause and ensuring that the South's revisionist history dominated textbooks for many decades.

It has only been very recently that we have slowly begun to regain control of the narrative from the Lost Causer's. Textbooks are being rewritten to portray true history, not Lost Cause revisionism.

The south dominated the narrative from the 1880's until the mid 1990's. Only now is the actual truth being told.

Concerning Fort Pillow you are wrong. You've breathed too much of that winners smoke.

During reconstruction most that were lynched most likely deserved it.

You know why that the South was able to teach the true history in it's schools? Because the South won the war during the Reconstruction era. We ran them Yankees back up north. Took the reigns over our government and run it like we wanted to. Yall won the first part of the War, but we won it in the end. Which is why the Federal government today is still trying to reconstruct the South, still making war on the South.

Lees

 

[Fledermaus]

Concerning Fort Pillow you are wrong. You've breathed too much of that winners smoke.

The Fort Pillow Massacre in Tennessee on April 12, 1864, in which some 300 African American soldiers were killed, was one of the most controversial events of the American Civil War (1861-65). Though most of the Union garrison surrendered, and thus should have been taken as prisoners of war, the soldiers were killed. The Confederate refusal to treat these troops as traditional prisoners of war infuriated the North, and led to the Union’s refusal to participate in prisoner exchanges.

Fort Pillow Massacre: Facts, Deaths & Significance | HISTORY

The Fort Pillow Massacre in Tennessee on April 12, 1864, in which some 300 African-American soldiers were killed, was one of the most controversial events of the American Civil War. Though most of the Union garrison surrendered, and thus should have been taken as prisoners of war, the soldiers...

www.history.com

During reconstruction most that were lynched most likely deserved it.

For what exactly?

Although the victims of lynchings were members of various ethnicities, after roughly 4 million enslaved African Americans were emancipated, they became the primary targets of white Southerners. Lynchings in the U.S. reached their height from the 1890s to the 1920s, and they primarily victimized ethnic minorities. Most of the lynchings occurred in the American South, as the majority of African Americans lived there, but racially motivated lynchings also occurred in the Midwest and border states.[

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You know why that the South was able to teach the true history in it's schools? Because the South won the war during the Reconstruction era. We ran them Yankees back up north. Took the reigns over our government and run it like we wanted to. Yall won the first part of the War, but we won it in the end. Which is why the Federal government today is still trying to reconstruct the South, still making war on the South.

Jim Crow is winning? Lynching is winning?

 

[Lees]

The Fort Pillow Massacre in Tennessee on April 12, 1864, in which some 300 African American soldiers were killed, was one of the most controversial events of the American Civil War (1861-65). Though most of the Union garrison surrendered, and thus should have been taken as prisoners of war, the soldiers were killed. The Confederate refusal to treat these troops as traditional prisoners of war infuriated the North, and led to the Union’s refusal to participate in prisoner exchanges.

Fort Pillow Massacre: Facts, Deaths & Significance | HISTORY

The Fort Pillow Massacre in Tennessee on April 12, 1864, in which some 300 African-American soldiers were killed, was one of the most controversial events of the American Civil War. Though most of the Union garrison surrendered, and thus should have been taken as prisoners of war, the soldiers...

www.history.com

For what exactly?

Although the victims of lynchings were members of various ethnicities, after roughly 4 million enslaved African Americans were emancipated, they became the primary targets of white Southerners. Lynchings in the U.S. reached their height from the 1890s to the 1920s, and they primarily victimized ethnic minorities. Most of the lynchings occurred in the American South, as the majority of African Americans lived there, but racially motivated lynchings also occurred in the Midwest and border states.[

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jim Crow is winning? Lynching is winning?

Oh gee. Blacks were killed. So it must have been a massacre. How stupid. More smoke beltching out of yankee mouths.

Why do you ask me for what? Why didn't you ask @Safiel for what? Why did New York lynch all those negros?

Oh yes, we run them yankees back north where they belonged. And they run so fast that the negros couldn't keep up with them. And so they left them to the people of the South. After they used the negros against the people of the South. After the negros allied themselves with the victors of the War. After the negros did all kinds of crimes against the Southern white people while we were under reconstruction with no access to law to turn to.

And then when the damnyankees left em, now they bitch. Typical.

Lees

 

[Pyrite]

I'm surprised this research wasn't thrown down a deep well by Stephen Miller.

He'll get to it. I'm sure it's on lists of "things to get rid of/things to rewrite".

 

[Fledermaus]

Oh gee. Blacks were killed. So it must have been a massacre. How stupid. More smoke beltching out of yankee mouths.

Reality. They surrendered. They were killed.

Why do you ask me for what? Why didn't you ask @Safiel for what? Why did New York lynch all those negros?

I asked you.

Oh yes, we run them yankees back north where they belonged. And they run so fast that the negros couldn't keep up with them. And so they left them to the people of the South. After they used the negros against the people of the South. After the negros allied themselves with the victors of the War. After the negros did all kinds of crimes against the Southern white people while we were under reconstruction with no access to law to turn to.

I ask again...

Jim Crow is winning? Lynching is winning?

How about...

Denial of voting rights?

Dissimilar treatment under the law.

And then when the damnyankees left em, now they bitch. Typical.

They bitch because of a hundred years of southern racism following hundreds of years of slavery.

 

[Pyrite]

Oh gee. Blacks were killed. So it must have been a massacre. How stupid. More smoke beltching out of yankee mouths.

Why do you ask me for what? Why didn't you ask @Safiel for what? Why did New York lynch all those negros?

Oh yes, we run them yankees back north where they belonged. And they run so fast that the negros couldn't keep up with them. And so they left them to the people of the South. After they used the negros against the people of the South. After the negros allied themselves with the victors of the War. After the negros did all kinds of crimes against the Southern white people while we were under reconstruction with no access to law to turn to.

And then when the damnyankees left em, now they bitch. Typical.

Lees

Post #29


Killing soldiers who have surrendered to you? "Massacre" seems an understatement.

You appear to believe it's okay to slaughter POWs.

 

[watsup]

There were other incidents like Tulsa as well. America would do well to compile a register so that they are not forgotten.

But it sounds a bit CRT and may tip some sensitive white kids over the edge.

It was actually quite the fad in the 1920s to find a reason to give blacks 24 hours (of less) to get out of town, in cities both large and small.

 

[Lees]

Post #29


Killing soldiers who have surrendered to you? "Massacre" seems an understatement.

You appear to believe it's okay to slaughter POWs.

They didn't surrender. Where do you get that idea? They were given the opportunity but refused.

A great slaughter occurred. But, because so many were blacks then it was a massacre. So, it must have been because Confederates killed people trying to surrender. Total b.s. Slaughter was taking place througout that war. Much more than Fort Pillow. But because blacks are involved, oh how terrible. Because blacks were getting killed, it must be wrong.

Blacks donned the yankee uniform. But when you kill them it is terrible and wrong. Confederates slaughtered many white yankees. Read the battle of Fredericksburg. Wholesale slaughter of yanks. Good thing most were not black, else it would have been a massacre. So stupid.

Lees

 

[Fledermaus]

They didn't surrender. Where do you get that idea? They were given the opportunity but refused.

When a soldier lays down his weapon it is generally recognized and a surrender.

A great slaughter occurred. But, because so many were blacks then it was a massacre.

No, it was a massacre because surrendering Black troops were killed.

So, it must have been because Confederates killed people trying to surrender. Total b.s. Slaughter was taking place througout that war. Much more than Fort Pillow. But because blacks are involved, oh how terrible. Because blacks were getting killed, it must be wrong.

In other words they gunned down, clubbed and stabbed surrendering troops.

Blacks donned the yankee uniform. But when you kill them it is terrible and wrong.

In battle no.

After they surrender, yes.

Confederates slaughtered many white yankees. Read the battle of Fredericksburg. Wholesale slaughter of yanks. Good thing most were not black, else it would have been a massacre. So stupid.

After they surrendered?

 

[Lees]

Reality. They surrendered. They were killed.



I asked you.



I ask again...

Jim Crow is winning? Lynching is winning?

How about...

Denial of voting rights?

Dissimilar treatment under the law.



They bitch because of a hundred years of southern racism following hundreds of years of slavery.

There was no surrender. They were killed. Don't play soldier if you don't want to pay the price. Just because you're black doesn't mean it's a massacre. How stupid.

Yeah, and I said ask @Safiel who brought it up. You accept his statement when lynching is used against the South. But when I use it as for the South you question.

Your questions make no sense. Explain.

Concerning denial of voting rights and dissimilar treatment under the law, you must be talking about white people during the Reconstruction.

Did they bitch when the North held them in slavery? Did they bitch in Maryland and Delaware when Lincoln wouldn't free them though he claimed to free all slaves in the Southern held territories? Did they bitch because of the Northern black codes after the War? Those hundreds of years of slavery involved the North as well as the South. But just pretend it never happened. Bend over and breath more of that smoke.

Lees

 

[Lees]

When a soldier lays down his weapon it is generally recognized and a surrender.



No, it was a massacre because surrendering Black troops were killed.



In other words they gunned down, clubbed and stabbed surrendering troops.



In battle no.

After they surrender, yes.



After they surrendered?

Pay attention. There was no surrender. They were given the opportunity to surrender. And refused.

No, they call it a massacre because blacks wanted to play soldier but when that resulted in dying, it was a massacre.

If surrender is refused, and the flag is still flying, the battle is still on.

Lees

 

[Pyrite]

The Fort Pillow Massacre in Tennessee on April 12, 1864, in which some 300 African American soldiers were killed, was one of the most controversial events of the American Civil War (1861-65). Though most of the Union garrison surrendered, and thus should have been taken as prisoners of war, the soldiers were killed. The Confederate refusal to treat these troops as traditional prisoners of war infuriated the North, and led to the Union’s refusal to participate in prisoner exchanges.

Fort Pillow Massacre: Facts, Deaths & Significance | HISTORY

The Fort Pillow Massacre in Tennessee on April 12, 1864, in which some 300 African-American soldiers were killed, was one of the most controversial events of the American Civil War. Though most of the Union garrison surrendered, and thus should have been taken as prisoners of war, the soldiers...

www.history.com

For what exactly?

Although the victims of lynchings were members of various ethnicities, after roughly 4 million enslaved African Americans were emancipated, they became the primary targets of white Southerners. Lynchings in the U.S. reached their height from the 1890s to the 1920s, and they primarily victimized ethnic minorities. Most of the lynchings occurred in the American South, as the majority of African Americans lived there, but racially motivated lynchings also occurred in the Midwest and border states.[

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jim Crow is winning? Lynching is winning?

Post #28

Oh gee. Blacks were killed. So it must have been a massacre. How stupid. More smoke beltching out of yankee mouths.

Why do you ask me for what? Why didn't you ask @Safiel for what? Why did New York lynch all those negros?

Oh yes, we run them yankees back north where they belonged. And they run so fast that the negros couldn't keep up with them. And so they left them to the people of the South. After they used the negros against the people of the South. After the negros allied themselves with the victors of the War. After the negros did all kinds of crimes against the Southern white people while we were under reconstruction with no access to law to turn to.

And then when the damnyankees left em, now they bitch. Typical.

Lees

Post #29

Post #29


Killing soldiers who have surrendered to you? "Massacre" seems an understatement.

You appear to believe it's okay to slaughter POWs.

Post #32

They didn't surrender. Where do you get that idea? They were given the opportunity but refused.

A great slaughter occurred. But, because so many were blacks then it was a massacre. So, it must have been because Confederates killed people trying to surrender. Total b.s. Slaughter was taking place througout that war. Much more than Fort Pillow. But because blacks are involved, oh how terrible. Because blacks were getting killed, it must be wrong.

Blacks donned the yankee uniform. But when you kill them it is terrible and wrong. Confederates slaughtered many white yankees. Read the battle of Fredericksburg. Wholesale slaughter of yanks. Good thing most were not black, else it would have been a massacre. So stupid.

Lees

Post #34


The article in Post #28 didn't say the garrison "refused to surrender". It looks as if you made that up.

If you want to try to corroborate your claim (your Post #34), copy and paste excerpts from credible sources to which you post the links.

In the meantime, the cite quoted in Post #28 says:

...While Major Bradford fled toward the Mississippi, most of the Union garrison surrendered, and thus should have been taken as prisoners of war. But Confederate and Union witness accounts attest that some 300 soldiers were gunned down by the Confederate forces, the majority of them Black. The Confederate refusal to treat these soldiers as traditional POWs infuriated the North, and led to the Union’s refusal to participate in prisoner exchanges....

 

[Pyrite]

Pay attention. There was no surrender. They were given the opportunity to surrender. And refused.

No, they call it a massacre because blacks wanted to play soldier but when that resulted in dying, it was a massacre.

If surrender is refused, and the flag is still flying, the battle is still on.

Lees

Post #37


Pay attention: your "word", which contradicts the information provided by the cite in Post #28, isn't good enough. It's your claim that the garrison refused to surrender. So, it's on you to corroborate your claim: copy and paste excerpts from credible sources to which you provide the links.

Good luck. It will be interesting to see whether you are able to substantiate your statement.

 

[Fledermaus]

Pay attention. There was no surrender. They were given the opportunity to surrender. And refused.

Pay attention.

When a soldier lays down his weapon it is generally recognized as a surrender.

No, they call it a massacre because blacks wanted to play soldier but when that resulted in dying, it was a massacre.

Pay attention.

It was a massacre because surrendering Black troops were killed.

If surrender is refused, and the flag is still flying, the battle is still on.

Pay attention.

When a soldier lays down his weapon it is generally recognized as a surrender.

 

[Fledermaus]

There was no surrender. They were killed. Don't play soldier if you don't want to pay the price. Just because you're black doesn't mean it's a massacre. How stupid.

Pay attention.

When a soldier lays down his weapon it is generally recognized and a surrender.

Yeah, and I said ask @Safiel who brought it up. You accept his statement when lynching is used against the South. But when I use it as for the South you question.

Your questions make no sense. Explain.

Concerning denial of voting rights and dissimilar treatment under the law, you must be talking about white people during the Reconstruction.

Did they bitch when the North held them in slavery? Did they bitch in Maryland and Delaware when Lincoln wouldn't free them though he claimed to free all slaves in the Southern held territories? Did they bitch because of the Northern black codes after the War? Those hundreds of years of slavery involved the North as well as the South. But just pretend it never happened. Bend over and breath more of that smoke.

Lees

I ask again...

Jim Crow is winning? Lynching is winning? Denial of voting rights? Dissimilar treatment under the law?

And your question about why Northern slaves weren't emancipated along with the Southern states was answered ad nauseum....

 

[Fledermaus]

@Lees

Civil War: "Who is Traitor, North or South"

Someone asked "Who is Traitor, North or South".

debatepolitics.com

 

[Lees]

Post #37


Pay attention: your "word", which contradicts the information provided by the cite in Post #28, isn't good enough. It's your claim that the garrison refused to surrender. So, it's on you to corroborate your claim: copy and paste excerpts from credible sources to which you provide the links.

Good luck. It will be interesting to see whether you are able to substantiate your statement.

There was no surrender. Quotes from (First With The Most, Robert Selph Henry, Konecky & Konecky, 1992)

"Two years later, on May 30, 1865, and after the end of the war, the same paper considered Fort Pillow once more, concluding that 'there was much misrepresentation about the Fort Pillow affair, It is not true that the rebels took no prisoners. On the contrary, about 200 were taken prisoners and carried South'. p. (267)

"Even before the Congressional committee was named to make the investigation which was to make of Fort Pillow the 'atrocity' of the war, a military investigation had been started. Secretary of War Stanton on Aporil sixteenth ordered Sherman to 'direct a competent officer to investigate and report minutely, and as early as possible, the facts in relaltion to the alleged butchery or our troops at Fort Pillow." p.(268)

And Grant said to Sherman "If our men have been murdered after capture, ...retaliation must be resorted to promptly....Sherman made his own investigation, and had an opportunity to study that made by the Committee of Congress--but there was no retaliation, and General Sherman was not a man to shrink from ordering retaliation had he felt that it was justified." p.(268)

From Dr. Fitch who was a surgeon at Fort Pillow: "I am not aware that there was any formal surrender of Fort Pillow to Forrest's command." p. (264)

Lees

 

[Pyrite]

There was no surrender. Quotes from (First With The Most, Robert Selph Henry, Konecky & Konecky, 1992)

"Two years later, on May 30, 1865, and after the end of the war, the same paper considered Fort Pillow once more, concluding that 'there was much misrepresentation about the Fort Pillow affair, It is not true that the rebels took no prisoners. On the contrary, about 200 were taken prisoners and carried South'. p. (267)

"Even before the Congressional committee was named to make the investigation which was to make of Fort Pillow the 'atrocity' of the war, a military investigation had been started. Secretary of War Stanton on Aporil sixteenth ordered Sherman to 'direct a competent officer to investigate and report minutely, and as early as possible, the facts in relaltion to the alleged butchery or our troops at Fort Pillow." p.(268)

And Grant said to Sherman "If our men have been murdered after capture, ...retaliation must be resorted to promptly....Sherman made his own investigation, and had an opportunity to study that made by the Committee of Congress--but there was no retaliation, and General Sherman was not a man to shrink from ordering retaliation had he felt that it was justified." p.(268)

From Dr. Fitch who was a surgeon at Fort Pillow: "I am not aware that there was any formal surrender of Fort Pillow to Forrest's command." p. (264)

Lees

You neglected to post the links to your cites.

Please do so.

 

[Lees]

Pay attention.

When a soldier lays down his weapon it is generally recognized as a surrender.



Pay attention.

It was a massacre because surrendering Black troops were killed.



Pay attention.

When a soldier lays down his weapon it is generally recognized as a surrender.

If a soldier lays down his weapon in the middle of a fight, and there has been no surrender, the one fighting him cannot stop. Without a surrender he can just as easily pick it up again.

There was no surrender. Please pay attention.

Lees

 

[Lees]

You neglected to post the links to your cites.

Please do so.

Please pay attention. I didn't give you any cites.

Lees

 

[Pyrite]

Please pay attention. I didn't give you any cites.

Lees

Pay attention. I've required links to the cites you've provided.

Without those links, I cannot verify what you've copied and pasted.

 

[Fledermaus]

If a soldier lays down his weapon in the middle of a fight, and there has been no surrender, the one fighting him cannot stop. Without a surrender he can just as easily pick it up again.

Pay attention.

When a soldier lays down his weapon it is generally recognized as a surrender.

There was no surrender. Please pay attention.

Pay attention.

When a soldier lays down his weapon it is generally recognized as a surrender.

 

[Fledermaus]

There was no surrender. Quotes from (First With The Most, Robert Selph Henry, Konecky & Konecky, 1992)

"Two years later, on May 30, 1865, and after the end of the war, the same paper considered Fort Pillow once more, concluding that 'there was much misrepresentation about the Fort Pillow affair, It is not true that the rebels took no prisoners. On the contrary, about 200 were taken prisoners and carried South'. p. (267)

"Even before the Congressional committee was named to make the investigation which was to make of Fort Pillow the 'atrocity' of the war, a military investigation had been started. Secretary of War Stanton on Aporil sixteenth ordered Sherman to 'direct a competent officer to investigate and report minutely, and as early as possible, the facts in relaltion to the alleged butchery or our troops at Fort Pillow." p.(268)

And Grant said to Sherman "If our men have been murdered after capture, ...retaliation must be resorted to promptly....Sherman made his own investigation, and had an opportunity to study that made by the Committee of Congress--but there was no retaliation, and General Sherman was not a man to shrink from ordering retaliation had he felt that it was justified." p.(268)

From Dr. Fitch who was a surgeon at Fort Pillow: "I am not aware that there was any formal surrender of Fort Pillow to Forrest's command." p. (264)

Lees

Signs and gestures of surrender


A white flag or handkerchief is often taken or intended as a signal of a desire to surrender, but in international law, it simply represents a desire for a parley that may or may not result in a formal surrender.[3] Normally, a surrender will involve the handing over of weapons; the commanding officer of a surrendering force symbolically offers his sword to the victorious commander. Individual combatants can indicate a surrender by discarding weapons and raising their hands empty and open above their heads; a surrendering tank commander should point the tank's turret away from opposing combatants, although they may have to leave the tank in order to clearly signal surrender.[4] Flags and ensigns are hauled down or furled, and ships' colors are struck.

 

[Lees]

Pay attention. I've required links to the cites you've provided.

Without those links, I cannot verify what you've copied and pasted.

That's your problem, not mine.

Lees