Talk:Colfax massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colfax massacre article.
Article policies
Louisiana Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Louisiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Louisiana. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Salient

Reading this article one salient piece of information is omitted.

Were the perpetrators convicted? (It says that the 14th ammendment didn't provide a grounds for conviction but this does not necessarily mean acquital).

Thanks--info added.Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Three perpetrators were convicted, but appeals went to the Supreme Court, which overturned their convictions in US v. Cruikshank (1876). --Parkwells (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
At the second trial, the three who were convicted had the charges thrown out by an associate Supreme Court judge who was there and said the Enforcement Act was unconstitutional. It was the Federal government that then appealed. At the Supreme Court review, they ruled that the law did not apply to individual actions, so essentially held up the vacating of the charges.--Parkwells (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You also need to understand that the White gov was elected and the duplicate black gov in Baton Rouge and Colfax was appointed by Lincoln. The court runing made it clear that only the elected gov was legal. This is why history called it a Riot and not a massacre.

--Sattmaster (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the 1872 election was very close between Democrats and Republicans and contested at both the state and local levels. Both slates were elected by citizens, however. Since Lincoln had been dead for years, there were unlikely to be his appointees in office in 1873. Will look it up again. Perpetrators were probably not convicted. Why don't others do some substantive reading and writing to add to the article?--Parkwells (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sattmaster, Although the governor's (and local) elections were contested, the Republican candidate William Kellogg was declared the winner of the state. Both slates of candidates were elected by citizens. The later Supreme Court ruling related to Colfax had to do with the US government's prosecution under the Enforcement Act, which the Court said could apply only to state actions, and not to conspiracies by individuals, as with the white militias at Colfax.--Parkwells (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

This retelling of the story Black side does not match the story as told from the White side by people from Winn parish.

Also the proper local historic name for the event was the Colfax Riot. Which is what it says on historic sign marking the graves at the court house.Colfax Riot Sign

Since stories from the white side conflict with the stories of the black side what do you do? I would also like to know where the evidence of the KKK being involved came from. And the White League was not created until 1874. According to the Wiki. Without a cite both should be removed.

More links


--Sattmaster (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The article can certainly be improved by scholarly sources. It's my understanding that African Americans referred to it as a massacre, especially since 50 black men who surrendered were then murdered. Certainly there should be acknowledgement of the local name for the events as well. It was not my original article, but when I have time, I will check other sources. Contentions above are incorrect about which was the legal government - this was related to contested battles at the state and local level which had not yet been settled from the 1872 election. It's very likely there is not one version of this story which will satisfy everyone. --Parkwells (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If I read the sign correctly, it was erected in 1950. "Carpetbag misrule" suggests the POV when this was put up. Sometimes perspective changes over time. Certainly 21st century appraisal of Reconstruction and its aftermath may differ from that of 1950. If nothing else, we can present some objective account here of what happened.--Parkwells (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sattmaster, how about donating your photo of the historic marker to wikipedia for use with this article?--Parkwells (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not take that photo. I found on the net years ago. I don't go to colfax often but I will try to take a new one or get someone else to do so it can be used. --Sattmaster (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Riot Tree" is certainly a story, but hardly qualifies as scholarly history. While it refers to articles in the LA Quarterly, it does not reference them. Also, the articles are from 1930 and 1935, and may have reflected biases of the time. I have found another current history (Nicholas Lemann's Redemption - 2006) that is more based in Documented records, and will try to fix this article.
"Colfax Riot", from the local newspaper, is not an historical account, either. There was no documentation of rape or robbery. The widespread recounting of blacks planning to "take white women" tells you it's a rumor-bound version. Such threats were usually fears in the white people's heads.--Parkwells (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for posting "The Battle of Colfax" - do you know if this has been published? I know he says he gave it as a paper at a conference. Wanted to use it as a source to make changes in the article.--Parkwells (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The reasons that historians and others use the term "massacre" is probably because so many African Americans were killed compared to whites, and also because so many were killed after they had surrendered.--Parkwells (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other

could someone clean up the quotes and references in the second paragraph? I'm not sure of the formatti ng. Geethree 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Geethree

Seriously. Something needs to be done about the second paragraph.Sixer Fixer (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


"Nash sent men after these fleeing blacks, and most were killed on the spot." I'm not native to this language, but is referring to people as simply 'blacks' socially acceptable? 83.117.88.186 17:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


I've lost track, too, but think you don't change names in quotations. In other articles, people have used black for historic times and African American for more current, or sometimes just African American.--Parkwells (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV I know it's a horrible event but using words like "butchered" gives it a Point of View, someone neutralize the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.201.25 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will be adding sources

Please don't delete anything - I'm checking sources and will be adding more citations. Anyone know how to get the inline citations to show up below? Must be something from the first formatting (not mine). Thanks if you can help.--Parkwells (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Fixed that for ya, I think, following WP:NOTES and WP:CITE#HOW. You have to put a {{Reflist}} tag in a section at the end to get your <ref>footnotes</ref> to show up. There was also a footnote without a closing tag that was hiding everything after it.
Do you know the correct source for "The bloodiest single instance..."? If so, could you name it in the text? (See WP:MOSQUOTE.) There are two footnote cites of different sources right after the quote, which doesn't make sense; it can't be both, right?
--216.145.54.15 (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC) [edited to remove unintentionally ironic fmting errors]
Thanks for your help - I couldn't seem to locate the reference stuff. Yes, the quote came from Foner (I came across it again and will fix the ref. Have been working with someone else's material, so wasn't sure at first.)--Parkwells (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Please note USGENWEB (I am the archivest for Grant parish) has changed servers and all documents links have changed. The first part of the link needs to be changed like this.

[2] I also found another version of the story from 1930s

http://files.usgwarchives.org/la/winn/history/phwngr27.txt]

--Sattmaster (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shot in the back?

"More credible reports, however, suggested that Hadnot was shot from behind by an overexcited member of his own force. Historians have pointed out that outnumbered men who were surrendering were unlikely to attack."

I think this is nonsense and should probably be removed, unless there's forensic evidence that he was shot in the back. Given that both groups of armed men were presumably ill-disciplined, it's quite possible that he was shot in the back by friendly fire. It's equally possible that a stubborn defender carried on firing while most of his fellows were trying to surrender. Without definite evidence, we have no basis for speculating about which was the case. Torve (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it more clear the story of how Hadnot was shot was in dispute.--Parkwells (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)