US Soldiers riot in 1917 and murder 16.

#2
Story on the BBC today about a battalion of troops who mutinied and rioted in Houston in 1917 and murdered 16 people, including a senior officer. They were court martialled and some were executed but the BBC piece thinks they are due an apology.

The BBC piece - A 100-year-old US riot only now being talked about
The Wikipedia entry - Houston riot of 1917 - Wikipedia

Do you/do you not think they are due an apology?

What are your thoughts on it? You have left a classic ARRSE anti-BBC bait sentence at the end but not offered any opinion of your own on the matter.

My 10 cents worth is that they were hardly likely to get fair justice in a state where a year earlier lynchmobs dragged a black man from court, hanged him, castrated him, cut his fingers off and burned the body. That was acceptable behaviour in the early part of the 20th century in the Deep South.
 
#3
Do you/do you not think they are due an apology?

What are your thoughts on it? You have left a classic ARRSE anti-BBC bait sentence at the end but not offered any opinion of your own on the matter.

My 10 cents worth is that they were hardly likely to get fair justice in a state where a year earlier lynchmobs dragged a black man from court, hanged him, castrated him, cut his fingers off and burned the body. That was acceptable behaviour in the early part of the 20th century in the Deep South.
Given what happened, they did get what was classed as "justice" AT THAT TIME IN HISTORY.

Things have changed since then, but you cannot apply modern day standards retrospectively in such a manner, especially given that there does seem to be inaccuracies in the BBC report regarding things like the Jim Crow law and how they ignore the length of the court martial and the sheer volume of pages of testimony presented.

In other words, it's another attempt by some to prove "racism" where it did not exist (these men did do what they were accused of) and, as is their wont, the Beeb are showing a clear bias in their reporting of a pot that would have been best left unstirred.
 
#4
The ones who were executed didn't seem to have been conclusively proved culpable for any of the deaths and didn't have an opportunity for adequate defence.

What's your problem with an apology?
 
#5
SJW's have been trailing history for years for something else to get outraged over
 
#6
The ones who were executed didn't seem to have been conclusively proved culpable for any of the deaths and didn't have an opportunity for adequate defence.

What's your problem with an apology?
Who are going to apologise to? The ones they executed can't accept or refuse it and it won't bring them back for a retrial.

Do you also want an official investigation of those who tried and executed them and what do you think that would achieve?
 
#7
The US didn’t feel there was any justice in the case at the time, following the first hangings with the requirement that any more death sentences had to be approved by JAG

This hasn’t been brought up all of a sudden by snowflakes looking for historic apologies, it’s been a sore point over there ever since
 
#9
Who are going to apologise to? The ones they executed can't accept or refuse it and it won't bring them back for a retrial.

Do you also want an official investigation of those who tried and executed them and what do you think that would achieve?
Maybe they should demand an apology from the families of the ones who were involved who testified against their colleagues in exchange for clemency, something else that is being ignored in the gratuitous use of the race card.
 
#10
As sure as night follows day, a media savvy politician will find some tenuous excuse to offer a ‘unreserved and genuine’ apology to anyone who may be offended by this, despite the fact it happened in different times.
It’s the world we live in nowadays - some say we are better for it, personally, I think not. :|
 
#12
Do you/do you not think they are due an apology?

What are your thoughts on it? You have left a classic ARRSE anti-BBC bait sentence at the end but not offered any opinion of your own on the matter.

My 10 cents worth is that they were hardly likely to get fair justice in a state where a year earlier lynchmobs dragged a black man from court, hanged him, castrated him, cut his fingers off and burned the body. That was acceptable behaviour in the early part of the 20th century in the Deep South.
An army unit, supposedly a disciplined body of men, mutinied and murdered an officer along with 16 civilians in time of war. They were court-martialled under the laws of the time.

From Wiki -

On August 31, 1918, President Wilson granted clemency to ten soldiers by commuting their death sentences to life in prison.[15] Wilson issued a rare public statement in order that the basis of his action might be “a matter of record.”[16]

The President’s statement began by recounting the events that led to the deaths of “innocent bystanders” who were “peaceable disposed civilians of the City of Houston.”[15] He noted the investigations that followed were “very searching and thorough.” In each of the three proceedings, the court was “properly constituted” and composed of “officers of experience and sobriety of judgment.” Wilson also noted “extraordinary precautions” were taken to “insure the fairness of the trials” and, in each instance, the rights of the defendants were “surrounded at every point” by the “safeguards” of “a humane administration of the law.” As a result, there were “no legal errors” which had “prejudiced the rights of the accused.”[16]
 
#13
Seems like the BBC just like stirring up shite , trying to get justice for mistreated African Americans , in reality it will probably just cause more hatred of whites by young blacks.
 
#15
Seems like the BBC just like stirring up shite , trying to get justice for mistreated African Americans , in reality it will probably just cause more hatred of whites by young blacks.
The Beeb are just late to the party, other outlets in the US have been regurgitating history for a few months now.

And some have even been as "selective" in their reporting too.
 
#17
While it's historically interesting the whole clickbait 'never before.......bla bla' cheapens the whole article. The incident must have been known about at the time and by interested scholars down the years - it's rather like bigging-up 'the Battle of Barking Creek' for example - most people will say 'what?' and historians would shrug their shoulders and say 'small regrettable incident, not really relevant in the grand scheme of things'

If it's all about retrospective justice where are the demands for the same justice for those who were murdered? If one element of society is expected to apologise for the lack of due process (to whom?) then perhaps those whose ancestors mutinied could issue similar apologies to the relatives of those murdered in the riot? And what good would it do if anyone did? Out of time/context apologies seem to serve no real purpose other than pandering to those with an agenda. (see the 'Shot at Dawn' mob)

How about leave it as a fascinating historical incident that isn't hijacked for modern purposes?
 
#18
I’m not sorry. All these demands for “apologies” are ludicrous - what value is an apology to the descendants 100 years later.

Taking what we can read on Wiki at face value it would appear that their trial was scrupulously fair all the way up to the President. They weren’t just strung up in some rural backwater in Alabama.

The punishments might seem a bit harsh in retrospect but that’s with my 2017 spectacles on, not my 1917 ones.

I do have an issue with more people being hanged than were murdered but that is purely from a logical POV. I am sure they could have found other grounds to hang them (riot, mutiny, desertion in time of war, joint endeavour, conspiracy etc).

In these case it always strikes me as odd that the apologies are demanded for guys who did actually kill a handful of dibble and a dozen civilians but are never demanded on behalf of the murdered civvies.
 
#19
Just put out a blanket apology for everything committed,or perceived to be committed in the past. Have it on the statute. Say. Article xxx. Someone, or group comes up with some howler.Just direct them to Article xxx. Job Jobbed.
 
#20
They were all men of their time, as are we of ours.
I owe nothing for what my father said or did in his age.
Why then them?
 

Latest Threads

Top