Talk:Colfax massacre

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Salient

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Other

message: "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)
replies: text: I'll make it more clear the story of how Hadnot was shot was in dispute.--Parkwells (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles Lane indicates that "A bullet hit [Hadnot] from a side angle, striking just below his navel and exiting over his hip" on p. 102 of his book. Lanes states that Hadnot was hit after rushing forward and telling his party to stop firing, as he saw the danger of crossfire. Nash is quoted as yelling at this point, "You are shooting our own men!" On pps. 284-85 of the book in the Notes for this chapter, Lane cites a wide variety of sources for these details about the massacre, but says that he primarily focused on witness testimony from the two federal trials in the first half of 1874. Forward Thinkers (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Shot in the back?

message: I am concerned when I see revised terminology like terrorist and white-supremacists written in place of the KKK and the local thugs of the time, etc.  Call them what they were and then in parenthesis what they would be considered in today's English usage. Using today's terminology in discussing an historic event leads to misleading memes blurring, confusing and distorting history. It is as bogus as a Julius Caesar coin dated 44 BC. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Terms are being used as written in Reliable Sources (RS), per Wiki standards. Historians now generally consider the types of insurgency during Reconstruction as a continuation of the Civil War, and struggle for political and social control of southern states. If you have RS that offer other terms, they can be used. Historians may appraise political and social events in terms of larger classifications, as part of interpreting events. The effort by whites to regain power and restore their dominant position was termed white supremacy and, as noted in the quote in the article, people of the time also used the term. Historians have defined the KKK as terrorists because they conducted extrajudicial physical attacks and killings for the purpose of political intimidation and influencing elections. Agree that generally, KKK chapters were not active by 1873. Other groups, such as the White League in Louisiana and Red Shirts in Mississippi and the Carolinas, arose from 1874 on, and were highly organized, paramilitary organizations of white veterans, who acted publicly as an arm of the Democratic Party, as one historian put it.Parkwells (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

text: To describe the Ku Klux Klan as a white supremacist organization does not blur or distort history, right? Even if we agree that "white supremacist" was not a term used to describe the Klan, whether it is a misleading or inaccurate term is a different issue. The Klan was, is, a white supremacist organization. They engaged in acts of terrorism. This is not blurring or confusing the Klan during Reconstruction. Referring to the Ku Klux Klan as white supremacist is not the same as a counterfeit coin from antiquity. Dsa605 (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern about terms

message: The 10 April 2008 edit by IP 216.145.54.15 marked a change from "private militia" (in the 8 April 2008 version) to "rifle club" which is not backed by sources like Leonard Levy, "Encyclopedia of the the American Constitution", 1987. The federal government did not prosecute "rifle clubs" in the 1870s: it selectively prosecuted "private militias". It did not prosecute black Republican militias (seen as acting in self-defense): the federal government prosecuted white Democrat militias (seen as acting aggressively). "Rifle clubs" were not prosecuted by the federal government: private militias were prosecuted.
The era of the Colfax Massacre is described by Michael Les Benedict in his article "Constitutional History 1865-1877" by Michael Les Benedict, excerpted from Macmillan Reference USA's Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Benedict is the author of A Compromise of Principle: Congressional Republicans and Reconstruction, 1863-1869, New York: W. W. Norton). He shows the concern was not "rifle clubs" but private militias.
 Because it was primarily whites who owned enough property to pay taxes, the
Republican policies redistributed wealth, something not
acceptable to nineteenth-century Americans. Bitterly, white
Southerners charged that "ignorant," "brutal" voters were
being duped by venal politicians with promises of "class
legislation." Southern whites denied that such governments
were really democratic. Unable to defeat Republicans at the
polls in most states, they turned to violence and fraud. From
1868 through 1872, midnight riders, known by such names as the
Ku Klux Klan, terrorized local Republican leaders. After 1872
the violence became more organized and more closely linked to
anti-Republican political organizations.
A few southern Republican governors were at first able to
suppress the violence. But by 1870 they were appealing to the
national government for help, thus causing serious problems for
national Republican leaders. Republicans had hoped that
enfranchising the freedmen would protect them without a massive
expansion of national power. Moreover, everyone believed that
legislation must be based on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments, ignoring the earlier view that the Thirteenth
Amendment gave power to protect citizens' basic rights. But the
language of the two later amendments only protected rights
against STATE ACTION, and Republicans had a difficult
time justifying laws protecting blacks and white Republicans
from attacks by private individuals. Nonetheless, in 1871
Republicans passed such laws and also authorized President
Grant to take drastic action to crush violence, including
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. They insisted that the
Fourteenth Amendment required states to protect their
residents; failure to do so would amount to state denial of
EQUAL PROTECTION.
At first this response seemed successful, and violence abated.
However, it soon flared anew. In many southern states
Republicans claimed that Democratic violence and intimidation
should nullify apparent Democratic majorities in elections, and
they refused to count Democratic votes from areas where
violence was most intense. In return Democrats organized armed
militia to press their claims. In state after state Republicans
had to appeal for national troops to protect them against such
opponents. Where it was difficult to afford protection, the
Democratic militias--often called "White Leagues"--drove
Republican officials from office.
It became ever more difficult for national Republicans to
respond. More and more Northerners feared that continued
national intervention in the South was undermining the federal
system. At the same time the Supreme Court manifested its
concern to preserve a balance between state and national
authority. In Texas v. White (1869) the Justices
emphasized the importance of states in the Union, and in
Collector v. Day (1871) they seemed to endorse the
doctrine of DUAL FEDERALISM, by denying the national
government's power to tax the incomes of officers of the
"sovereign" states. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)
the Court, in an implicitly dual federalist opinion, ruled that
national and state citizenships were distinct. The Fourteenth
Amendment protected only a limited number of rights inherent in
national citizenship; those rights usually identified as basic
remained the sole province of the states. This decision
severely curtailed national power to protect black Southerners
and southern Republicans from violence. In United States v.
Cruikshank (1876) the Court held invalid indictments against
white conspirators who had massacred blacks, in part on the
grounds that the Fourteenth Amendment was aimed only at state
action and could not justify prosecution of private individuals.
As the federal government gave up on reconstructing the Old South, white Democrat legislatures were free to pass restrictive gun laws which, like the "literacy test" voter laws, were aimed at blacks whether or not they were members of rifle clubs or private militias.  Naaman Brown (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that contemporary historians classify the White League and Red Shirts as paramilitary groups, integral to attempts by white Democrats to regain power in Louisiana, Mississippi, and the Carolinas. Parkwells (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring "private milita" for "rifle club"

message: Much information has been added from the new books of 2007 and 2008, Charles Lane's book especially, but assertions and statements have to be supported by cites that include page numbers, not just a reference to the whole book. Readers need to be able to go to the source for more info.Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of citations

message: So much historical material has been added that the circumstances of the massacre are getting lost. Perhaps some of this should be reduced.Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much background?

message: In the article the black victims are described as "Republicans" while the white murderers are called "Democrats."  Yes, Yes, I understand these were the party alignments but the labels are misleading to modern Americans.  I think there's a good chance these labels were added as propaganda by some constipated right-winger who thinks he's very clever.
Fix this please.  I'll revisit the page in a few days and erase the nonsensical party tags if nobody else does.Jamesdowallen (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern that some Americans do not have a historical understanding of the Democrats and Republicans. However, it is not nonsensical to say most white southerners, during and long after Reconstruction, voted for the Democratic Party. And I doubt these party labels have been used by anyone with a conservative political agenda. The same party labels are used by left-leaning historians (including Eric Foner) when discussing Reconstruction. If anyone reading this page is unaware of the history of the two major political parties, they should click on the links to the Wiki pages for each party and get some context. Dsa605 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrats and Republicans 

message: The lede contains the following text:
The bloodiest single instance of racial carnage in the Reconstruction era, the Colfax massacre was an example of the lengths to which some opponents of Reconstruction would go to regain their accustomed authority. Among blacks, the incident was long remembered as proof that in any large confrontation, they stood at a fatal disadvantage.
Later in the article is the following quote:
"The bloodiest single instance of racial carnage in the Reconstruction era, the Colfax massacre taught many lessons, including the lengths to which some opponents of Reconstruction would go to regain their accustomed authority. Among blacks in Louisiana, the incident was long remembered as proof that in any large confrontation, they stood at a fatal disadvantage."
The lede text is way too similar to the quote.  To be legitimately used, it must either be a perfect quote in quotation marks, or it must be rephrased/paraphrased in the editors' own words. Agricolae (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct quote in lede 

message: His attempt to stop the massacre I think deserves mention, although his personal involvement was with the later Battle of Liberty Place. TaliaDPerkins (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello @TaliaDPerkins, do you have any sources about Longstreet's involvement? Alyo (chat·edits) 19:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Confederate General Longstreet 

message: On 01 June 2019, user 2601:246:c700:2db2:ada3:7730:f248:8bf1 went on something of a rampage with the  tags. Whilst I agree that the article is in need of citations, making it unreadable in pursuit of those cites doesn't seem like a good plan. I have replaced those tags with the section version and removed the inlines. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CiteNeeded Spam 

message: Hello! There is currently a debate over whether this event should be listed as one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in American history on the Terrorism in the United States talk page. That debate has relevance to this page, because there has also been some back and forth here on whether Template:Terrorist attacks in the United States by deaths (which is based on the aforementioned list) should be included on this page.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as a "terrorist attack"