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

[Pyrite]

What fact? That is an assumption, and a false one at that. There is nothing to indicate that Forrest would have killed anyone if the Fort had surrendered.

What makes your account of union soldiers more credible then the biography of Forrest?

Lees

Post #72


Moreover, you've not answered the question I asked of you:

So, what makes this biography of Forrest more credible in your eyes than other accounts in which the Union soldiers are said to have surrendered?

 

[Lees]

Post #72


Again, and this time, READ what I typed. Don't infer something. READ:

Let's not forget this fact: Forrest is the commanding officer whose troops would have slaughtered prisoners of war, if the Union soldiers did indeed surrender.

I assume you are familiar with the various verbal constructions used in English. Pay attention to them. Also pay attention to the use of the word "if".

I saw the word 'if'. Pay attention to my answer. There is nothing to indicate that Forrest would have killed anyone if the Fort had surrendered.

Lees

 

[Pyrite]

I saw the word 'if'. Pay attention to my answer. There is nothing to indicate that Forrest would have killed anyone if the Fort had surrendered.

Lees

Post #77


Pay attention to what I said: As the commanding officer, Forrest would have been responsible for his troops' slaughtering POWs.

Note the compound verb. If you are not familiar with this particular usage, and don't understand it, say so. (That you continue to assume it means Forrest was responsible, because his troops did slaughter POWs, indicates English is not your native language.)

BACK to the fact you continue to duck the question I've posed:

So, what makes this biography of Forrest more credible in your eyes than other accounts in which the Union soldiers are said to have surrendered?

 

[Lees]

Post #72


Moreover, you've not answered the question I asked of you:

So, what makes this biography of Forrest more credible in your eyes than other accounts in which the Union soldiers are said to have surrendered?

It is more credible because an investigation was done by the Yankee Army and no charge of wrong doing on Forrest's part. As the quote I gave said, no retaliation was made. And given the many yankee myths surrounding that War, I don't place much credibility on their report. Now, what makes your union soldiers report more credible?

It was brutal and a slaughter. But not a massacre.

Lees

 

[Pyrite]

It is more credible because an investigation was done by the Yankee Army and no charge of wrong doing on Forrest's part. As the quote I gave said, no retaliation was made. And given the many yankee myths surrounding that War, I don't place much credibility on their report. Now, what makes your union soldiers report more credible?

It was brutal and a slaughter. But not a massacre.

Lees

In other words, it's more reliable because it says what you believe.

We don't know for sure that there was "an investigation done by the Yankee Army." We don't know for sure that there was "no charge of wrong doing on Forrest's part". We don't know for sure that "no retaliation was made".

One book - a biography of the commanding officer who would have been held responsible for his troops' massacre of POWs - makes these claims. But we don't know that they are accurate, do we...

 

[Lees]

In other words, it's more reliable because it says what you believe.

We don't know for sure that there was "an investigation done by the Yankee Army." We don't know for sure that there was "no charge of wrong doing on Forrest's part". We don't know for sure that "no retaliation was made".

One book - a biography of the commanding officer who would have been held responsible for his troops' massacre of POWs - makes these claims. But we don't know that they are accurate, do we?

No, I gave the book and the quote. You don't have to believe it, that's up to you. Glad you fixed your sentence.

Now, answer my question you continue to duck. What makes your union soldiers reports more credible?

Lees

 

[Pyrite]

No, I gave the book and the quote. You don't have to believe it, that's up to you. Glad you fixed your sentence.

Now, answer my question you continue to duck. What makes your union soldiers reports more credible?

Lees

And I've pointed out that a quote from a biography of the Confederate commanding officer isn't necessarily credible. That you give it more credibility than other accounts -- accounts that portray the Confederates' slaughtering POWs - because it says what you want to believe.

As for your question, "What makes your union soldiers' reports more credible?"....

I haven't said that's the case.

 

[Pyrite]

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

Post #27

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

How old are you? And what is your native language?

 

[panic buyer]

I'm pretty sure I made it.

Lees

If you say so. Ive read your subsequent posts so ive got a good idea where you are coming from.

 

[Lees]

And I've pointed out that a quote from a biography of the Confederate commanding officer isn't necessarily credible. That you give it more credibility than other accounts -- accounts that portray the Confederates' slaughtering POWs - because it says what you want to believe.

As for your question, "What makes your union soldiers' reports more credible?"....

I haven't said that's the case.

This is interesting. Are you saying that the link you use does not say anything about the military investigation done by the yankees?

Yet you believe your link over the book.

Lees

 

[Fledermaus]

This is interesting. Are you saying that the link you use does not say anything about the military investigation done by the yankees?

Yet you believe your link over the book.

Lees

Interesting how you focus on the fort not surrendering.(before the battle) and don't address the individual soldiers surrendering (during the battle).

"Individual combatants can indicate a surrender by discarding weapons and raising their hands empty and open above their heads"

 

[Somerville]

First Lieutenant Mack Leaming served in the 13th Tennessee Regiment in the Union Army. As the highest-ranking officer in his regiment to survive the Fort Pillow Massacre, Leaming wrote his regiment’s official report of the battle. Nearly thirty years later, he wrote a 17-page account of the battle and its aftermath.

excerpts from his Unpublished manuscript relating events of the Battle of Fort Pillow, Tennessee

Hence when the final order to storm our works was given, we were astounded to see the enemy rise from this position for the desperate charge. We had barely time to fire one volley before they swe[inserted: a]rmed over our works. Our line broke and many of the troops threw down their muskets and rushed down the bluff towards the river, the rebels meanwhile keeping up a murderous fire. Many of the colored soldiers, seeing that no quarters were to be given, madly leaped into the river, while the rebels stood on the banks or part way up the bluff, and shot at the heads of their victims. From where I fell wounded, I [strikeout] could plainly see this firing and note the bullets striking the water around the black heads of the soldiers, until [strikeout] suddenly the muddy current became red and I saw another life sacrificed in the cause of the Union. Here I noticed one soldier in the river, but in some way clinging to the bank. Two confederate soldiers pulled him out. He seemed to be wounded and crawled on his hands and knees. Finely one of the confederate soldiers placed his revolver to the head of the colored soldier and killed him.
(. . .)
I was dragged a distance of forty or fifty yards from the burning building and left on the field, with a number of other wounded, white and black, within a few feet of me. I heard [14] considerable firing near me on different parts of the field, and presently a rebel soldier walked past me, halted, and with a curse aimed his gun at a wounded colored soldier who lay with his head and shoulders resting against a stump, some ten or twelve yards away. The soldier begged for his life, but the next instant a bullet crashed through his brain. Another colored soldier was standing a few feet away. He had an ugly wound through his wrist, and on him the same rebel turned, reloaded his piece and aimed at his head; the wounded man, meanwhile, plead[struck: ed] for his life, and exclaiming, “de Yankees made me fight, massa.” The murderer’s gun snapped, and, as coolly as an executioner at a hog killing, the rebel brought down his weapon, jarred the powder into the tube, placed a fresh percussion cap, again took aim, and the wounded soldier joined his comrade in death. These two murders of wounded colored soldiers I saw committed the day following the battle

 

[What if...?]

View attachment 67550883

So good!

 

[Lees]

First Lieutenant Mack Leaming served in the 13th Tennessee Regiment in the Union Army. As the highest-ranking officer in his regiment to survive the Fort Pillow Massacre, Leaming wrote his regiment’s official report of the battle. Nearly thirty years later, he wrote a 17-page account of the battle and its aftermath.

excerpts from his Unpublished manuscript relating events of the Battle of Fort Pillow, Tennessee

Sounds like war.

Here is a quote from a footnote In (The Lost Cause, E.A. Pollard, Gramercy Books, 1994, p499) This book is a facsimile of the long out-of-date print 1866 edition.

"In the capture of Fort Pillow the list of casualties embraced five hundred out of a garrison of seven hundred; and the enemy entitled the affair 'The Fort Pillow Massacre,'and Northern newspapaers and Congressional committees circulated absurd stories about negro troops being buried alive. The explanation of the unusual proportion of carnage is simple. After the Confederates got into the fort, the Federal flag was not hauled down' there was no surrender; relying upon his gunboats in the river, the enemy evidently expected to annihilate Forrest's forces after they had entered the works. and so the fighting went on to the last extremity. some of the negro troops, in their cowardice, feigned death, falling to the ground, and were either pricked up by the bayonet, or rolled into the trenches to exite their alarm--to which circumstance is reduced the whole story of 'burying negroes alive.'"

Lees

 

[Lees]

Interesting how you focus on the fort not surrendering.(before the battle) and don't address the individual soldiers surrendering (during the battle).

"Individual combatants can indicate a surrender by discarding weapons and raising their hands empty and open above their heads"

Forrest captured forts before. Once they surrendered, no one was killed. Once the fighting starts, it is not well defined as to when it ends. Especially in hand to hand combat, you can't just turn it off. And the hatred of both sides in this battle, was intensified by race.

Had they surrendered, the whites would have been treated as pow's and the blacks returned to the South.

Lees

 

[j brown's body]

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.

The draft riots signaled the beginning of the Irish becoming white.

 

[j brown's body]

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.

Its interesting when you look back at the whitewashing of the Civil war through the Lost Cause Myth - that it was taught to us unquestioned for so long. Even as child, I found it rather sordid and improbable.

And the correction of the record today is called "indoctrination."

 

[Napoleon]

Black mob shoots white people resulting in white mob shooting black people over 100 years ago. How many reports do you need?

 

[j brown's body]

Forrest captured forts before. Once they surrendered, no one was killed. Once the fighting starts, it is not well defined as to when it ends. Especially in hand to hand combat, you can't just turn it off. And the hatred of both sides in this battle, was intensified by race.

Had they surrendered, the whites would have been treated as pow's and the blacks returned to the South.

Lees

to be tried and executed for "inciting insurrection." So not sure what the big deal is.

 

[Fledermaus]

Forrest captured forts before. Once they surrendered, no one was killed. Once the fighting starts, it is not well defined as to when it ends. Especially in hand to hand combat, you can't just turn it off. And the hatred of both sides in this battle, was intensified by race.

Had they surrendered, the whites would have been treated as pow's and the blacks returned to the South.

Lees

"Individual combatants can indicate a surrender by discarding weapons and raising their hands empty and open above their heads"

If they were white they became POWs.

If not?

300 gunned down, clubbed or stabbed.

It was a massacre.

 

[j brown's body]

Black mob shoots white people resulting in white mob shooting black people. How many reports do you need?

How about one?

 

[Napoleon]

How about one?

There have been at least three.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sounds like war.

Here is a quote from a footnote In (The Lost Cause, E.A. Pollard, Gramercy Books, 1994, p499) This book is a facsimile of the long out-of-date print 1866 edition.

"In the capture of Fort Pillow the list of casualties embraced five hundred out of a garrison of seven hundred; and the enemy entitled the affair 'The Fort Pillow Massacre,'and Northern newspapaers and Congressional committees circulated absurd stories about negro troops being buried alive. The explanation of the unusual proportion of carnage is simple. After the Confederates got into the fort, the Federal flag was not hauled down' there was no surrender; relying upon his gunboats in the river, the enemy evidently expected to annihilate Forrest's forces after they had entered the works. and so the fighting went on to the last extremity. some of the negro troops, in their cowardice, feigned death, falling to the ground, and were either pricked up by the bayonet, or rolled into the trenches to exite their alarm--to which circumstance is reduced the whole story of 'burying negroes alive.'"

Lees

"Individual combatants can indicate a surrender by discarding weapons and raising their hands empty and open above their heads"

 

[Somerville]

I am not quoting the words of a poster in this thread simply because that person refuses to accept that they have been shown to be wrong multiple times.

Library of Congress copy of The Lost Cause in pdf format

A few words from one of those uber-liberal websites that control the minds of the clueless - that's what we are told, isn't it?

Edward Alfred Pollard (February 27, 1832 – December 17, 1872) was an American author, journalist, and Confederate sympathizer during the American Civil War who wrote several books on the causes and events of the war, notably The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates (1866) and The Lost Cause Regained (1868), wherein Pollard originated the long-standing pseudo-historical ideology of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.

Written after the war, these works advocated white supremacy, supported the relegation of blacks to second-class status, and accused the U.S. government of alleged excesses committed both during and after the war. The books gave two different descriptions of the causes of the war and the nature of Southern society: The Lost Cause claimed the main reason for the war was the two opposing ways (largely slavery) of organizing society, and viewed slavery as key to the nobility of the South, while The Lost Cause Regained argued that the primary reason for secession was not slavery, but the preservation of state sovereignty