Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fort Pillow --- some data

Expand Messages
  • cashg79
    ... Everyone wonders why the proportion of dead and wounded between CSA and US forces is so greatly out of balance Seems like most of the answers ansumes that
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Dan G <dan6764@y...> wrote:
      > I have been following this debate with a great deal of interest..
      Everyone wonders why the proportion of dead and wounded between CSA
      and US forces is so greatly out of balance Seems like most of the
      answers ansumes that the main reason was the deliberate massacre of US
      troops by Forrests men..
      ------------
      Not quite, Dan. It's the distribution of the dead and wounded among
      the Union troops between blacks and whites. There were so many more
      blacks killed than whites, and so fewer wounded blacks than whites
      that it highly suggests blacks were especially targeted. That there
      were a disproportionate killed rather than wounded suggests a
      massacre. That combined with the eyewitness accounts is what leads to
      the conclusion of a massacre by Forrest's men.

      Regards,
      Cash
    • hooperjwboro@comcast.net
      Cash, That fact may be true but I dont think JFE understood Joseph s point. Dealing with the laws of sampling, the point could bemore valid if the white and
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 30, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Cash,
          That fact  may be true but I dont think JFE understood Joseph's point. Dealing with the laws of sampling, the point could bemore valid if the white and black troops fought as a mixed unit than separate.
          An example would be :    if a child walked in a candy store and there were two bowls of jelly beans, one with red beans and one with green. If later when inspecting the bowls, most of the green jelly beans were gone and none of the red. Two main assumptions could be made. 1. Liked green better
                                                                     2. Did not matter, green was closer to reach.
         
          Now, if the green and red were mixed and all the green were gone, then you would positively know the child liked green better
         
         
         
        --
        Respectfully,
        John Hooper
         
        -------------- Original message --------------
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Dan G <dan6764@y...> wrote:
        > I have been following this debate with a great deal of interest.. 
        Everyone wonders why the proportion of dead and wounded between CSA
        and US forces is so greatly out of balance  Seems like most of the
        answers ansumes that the main reason was the deliberate massacre of US
        troops by Forrests men.. 
        ------------
        Not quite, Dan.  It's the distribution of the dead and wounded among
        the Union troops between blacks and whites.  There were so many more
        blacks killed than whites, and so fewer wounded blacks than whites
        that it highly suggests blacks were especially targeted.  That there
        were a disproportionate killed rather than wounded suggests a
        massacre.  That combined with the eyewitness accounts is what leads to
        the conclusion of a massacre by Forrest's men.

        Regards,
        Cash



      • CAMPAIGN62@AOL.COM
        I think the word massacre is misleading. The garrison was not wiped out and every UCT was not killed. This word comes from the propagana about Ft Pillow and
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 30, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I think the word massacre is misleading. The garrison was not wiped out and
          every UCT was not killed. This word comes from the propagana about Ft Pillow
          and is what seems tro have caused the controversy in the first place.
        • cashg79
          ... out and ... Not required for there to be a massacre. mas·sa·cre n. 1. The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 30, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, CAMPAIGN62@A... wrote:

            > I think the word massacre is misleading. The garrison was not wiped
            out and
            > every UCT was not killed.
            --------------------
            Not required for there to be a massacre.

            mas·sa·cre n.
            1. The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans
            indiscriminately and cruelly.
            2. The slaughter of a large number of animals.
            3. Informal. A severe defeat, as in a sports event.

            Regards,
            Cash
          • James2044
            ... You are welcome, I feel we need to defend history from those that wish to rewrite it to suit current thinking . James2044
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 30, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > James2044 <JWD2044@h...> wrote:
              > Are
              > we "proving" something that could not be "proven" at the time? It
              > seems that many are trying to do that.

              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Steve Saultz <tristan4th@y...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Very well stated James,.,..Thankyou
              > Respectfully Capt.McCracken


              You are welcome, I feel we need to defend history from those that wish
              to rewrite it to suit "current thinking".

              James2044
            • James2044
              ... It is as wrong to ascribe trates to all blacks or all Irish or all germans as it is to ascribe trates to all white southerners. However, most seem to think
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 30, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Gower" <billgower@c...>
                wrote:
                > Yes in 1864 and in the South and that says it all.

                It is as wrong to ascribe trates to all blacks or all Irish or all
                germans as it is to ascribe trates to all white southerners.
                However, most seem to think that is isn't wrong to do that and your
                statement is the result.

                It is not possible that ALL of the CSA forces were raciest!

                It is not possible that all of the USA forces were not raciest!

                It is not possible that all slaves were unhappy and longed to be
                free!

                It is not possible that all slaves were happy and delighted in
                slavery!

                It is possible that part of the group accept the 1st & 3rd statments
                as possible, while part of the group accepts the 2nd & 4th as
                possible.

                Raciest statements are directed against a group of class, race,
                gender or anything else have little to do with it.

                James2044
              • James2044
                Sorry Jack but I don t agree with you. The ACW is full of Ft. Pillow type actions BUT only here is it so Black & White, pardon the pun. White on White or
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 30, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sorry Jack but I don't agree with you. The ACW is full of "Ft. Pillow"
                  type actions BUT only here is it so Black & White, pardon the pun.
                  White on White or Native American on White get passed over with anry a
                  comment. White on Native American while not as good as White on Black
                  will always get comments. For example, check my Ft. Pillows posting.
                  I listed a couple that had nothing to do with Blacks but we ended up a
                  Sand Creek.

                  James2044

                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Ehmer" <ohio11thcav@a...>
                  wrote:
                  > I would say that your statement certainly indicates the lack of
                  > historical objectivity that Dr. Schiller referred to.
                  >
                  > Jack
                  >
                  > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tristan4th" <tristan4th@y...>
                  > wrote:>
                  > >
                  > <snip>
                  >
                  > Oh I'll probably get in trouble for this, as well
                  > as
                  > > offend...But IMO, You hit the nail on the head here Mr.Gower..."we"
                  > > would have moved on to another interesting battle, instead of
                  > > creating an argument for the NAACP to figure out........
                  >
                  > <snip>
                • Jfepperson@aol.com
                  In a message dated 9/30/2005 7:31:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, JWD2044@hotmail.com writes: You are welcome, I feel we need to defend history from those that
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 30, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 9/30/2005 7:31:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, JWD2044@... writes:
                    You are welcome, I feel we need to defend history from those that wish
                    to rewrite it to suit "current thinking".
                    =====
                    I wasn't aware that the massacre of black men in US uniform was something
                    restricted to suit "current thinking".
                    JFE
                     

                    James F. Epperson
                    http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
                    http://members.aol.com/siege1864
                  • CAMPAIGN62@AOL.COM
                    I think The Crater was also a Black and White action with much the same results. Best regards, Jim h
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 30, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I think The Crater was also a Black and White action with much the same
                      results.

                      Best regards,

                      Jim h
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.